This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs) at 18:25, 14 July 2011 (→Motion: User:Δ topic banned: enacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

• WP:A/R/M

Motions regarding User:Δ (formerly User:Betacommand)

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Motion: User:Δ topic banned

Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, RfAr/Betacommand 2, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the provisional suspension of their community ban.

Enacted Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 20:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
2. This motion is my first choice. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Clearly too much editor and administrative time is being consumed by disputes over Δ's non-free content criteria enforcement: by my count there are threads within the last 48 hours at AN, ANI, Δ's AN subpage, AN3 (2), Wikiquette alerts, AE, and DRN. –xeno 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Kirill  23:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
5. I have read the comments below in the discussion section, and while I do understand where people are coming from (in that Δ is essentially trying to enforce one of WP's core policies), however, to put it blunt terms.. in doctor's terms.. their bedside manner sucks, and they have been asked to improve it, time and time again, and they either can not or will not. A couple statements below also bring up BLP violations and try to equivocate it to what Δ does. However, that is a logical fallacy. We have carved out an edit warring exemption to 3RR for violations of BLP policy. There is no such exemption for NFCC violations. I'm not going to say whether there should be or not. We're not dealing with "how it should be", but how it is. In short, Δ is "right", but in the wrong way, consistently. SirFozzie (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
6. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Part of what is required for a collaborative project is the ability to collaborate. Δ does work that is, fundamentally, correct and useful but he consistently does it in a manner that is so egregiously combative that it causes more disruption than can possibly be justified. He has been asked, begged, cajoled and otherwise encouraged to alter his approached over years to no avail.

   Even if we granted that everything he does is perfectly in line with NFCC, the manner in which he does it causes so much acrimony and disruption that it cannot be allowed to continue. — Coren  01:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

8. I think indefinite is warranted in this case as we've seen him time and time again repeat habits as soon as restrictions lapse. As Coren points out, Δ often does the "right" things in the "wrong" ways, causing more harm than good and wasting everyone's time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
9. Should have been imposed as a condition to begin with. Cool Hand Luke 23:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
10. As the drafter of the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 decision three years ago, I am very disappointed that Betacommand has not modified his behavior as we urged in that case so that this motion is now seen as necessary—though I am also disappointed that many other editors have not taken to heart the basic points about the importance of NFCC that we made in that case as well as in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. The fact that someone enforces the NFCC criteria and is resented for doing so is of course not a basis for sanctions; in fact, it is often a basis for praise. But editors who take on this important role need to understand that they will be interacting constantly with users who disagree with their NFCC interpretations and, even more important, with inexperienced users who do not understand all the fine points of our NFCC policies and the copyright issues that underlie them. We have several other editors who specialize, or have specialized, in this role, and while none of them have found it a ticket to an especially relaxing Misplaced Pages career, the others have not encountered the same problems and issues that Betacommand has. Moreover, the persistence of issues with Betacommand's NFCC enforcement role suggests, to my infinite regret, that a lesser remedy here will not be sufficient. It should be emphasized that nothing in the Committee's action is meant to deprecate the importance of enforcing the NFCC or the role of editors who perform that function. At least as far as I am concerned, all the principles and observations we made in the Betacommand 2 decision remain in place; and that decision could stand rereading, and living up to, by many. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. In the discussion, Black Kite and 28bytes make valid points. I think an indefinite topic ban is a little excessive, but given the ongoing nature of the concerns, I'd support a 3 month ban as suggested by Rd232. In addition, a 1RR/day restriction could be worth considering. PhilKnight (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Abstaining for the minute, trying to digest other concerns and figuring out if there is any other way forward. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
2. I've recently shaken my head and fist at Delta, at User_talk:Δ/20110701#please_stop. --John Vandenberg 22:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion regarding scope of topic ban

We should ensure that we are all on the same page regarding the scope of the proposed topic ban now, rather than having to deal with a clarification request at a later date. How I interpret this proposal is that edits that enforce the non-free content criteria are prohibited, for example:

• Removing files from pages with NFCC as the justification
• Tagging or nominating files for deletion with NFCC as the justification
• Tagging articles or files with {{Non-free}} or other NFCC-related cleanup tags
• Issuing warnings to users regarding non-free content criteria

However, edits that correct obvious errors (i.e. repairing an obvious mistake in a fair-use rationale) to make a particular image more compliant (it would be absurd to say that Δ cannot fix an error in a fair-use rationale, as this means that if he uploaded an image but made a mistake in the rationale, he himself would be unable to fix his own mistake), or edits to article or file talk pages that merely suggest potential non-free content issues exist (for example, to bring attention to pages to allow others to review NFCC compliance issues) would not be prohibited - see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Request exemption of restrictions for two bots tasks that Δ has proposed that, under this interpretation, would not be precluded by the topic ban if they were approved by the committee and the WP:Bot Approvals Group. –xeno 15:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that my interpretation above is not universally shared; accordingly, if Δ still wishes to explore the two bot tasks proposed at AN (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Request for exemption) then I would recommend a separate request for clarification be made sometime after the close of the motions. –xeno 12:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Motion 2: User:Δ site banned

In breach of the provisional suspension of their community ban, Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) has engaged in conduct injurious to the encyclopedia and the indefinite community ban is hereby reinstated by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

:#  Roger Davies 20:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Moved to oppose,  Roger Davies 09:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

1. I'd rather it does not come to a full ban, and would prefer the NFCC motion. However, in my opinion, Δ's extreme interpretation of the NFCC policy and refusal to compromise is hurting the project more than it is helping. It antagonises and ultimately drives away users who are acting in good faith, but I do understand that Δ does a lot of good work with the project in other areas, and I commend him especially for his work with Δbot (talk · contribs). The Cavalry (Message me) 21:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Second choice for now, though I am unconvinced it will not come to this regardless; Δ has an unfortunate history of aggressively pushing the limits of any restrictions placed on him, and I fear that even the straightforward topic ban above will not be adhered to. Kirill  23:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
3. I'm rather surprised that, after disruption after disruption, there are arbitrators who actually oppose this motion. Note that these motions are separate issues, and if both pass, both will be implemented. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Δ is capable of doing good work other than NFCC enforcement without issue; for example, Δbot (talk · contribs) has been quietly chugging away with no complaints. –xeno 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
2. I think he can and does do good work elsewhere, so all that is necessary (for now) is the removal from where he is disruptive. SirFozzie (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
3. I don't think this is justified at this time. Δ has a chip on his shoulder the size of an aircraft carrier regarding NFCC enforcement, but I see no evidence that his work elsewhere is nearly as problematic. — Coren  01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
4. I think a temporary site ban could be worth considering, however an indefinite site ban is somewhat excessive. PhilKnight (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
5. I'm not entirely sure that Xeno is correct in that Δ can do good non-NFCC-related work, but I'm entirely willing to give him a chance to be non-disruptive in other aspects. If it's only the NFCC issue that's the problem, we only need to avoid the near-occasion of sin here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
6. Give complete topic ban a chance. Cool Hand Luke 23:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Per most of the other opposers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
8. Per CHL,  Roger Davies 09:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. John Vandenberg 22:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Δ

If requested, an arbitration clerk will provisionally unblock so Δ may participate directly

Its an obvious farce, run around the community, both of their motions have been proposed and failed to gain consensus. If arbcom actually had a backbone they would remove all current sanctions that are placed on me (except perhaps the CIVIL) and give me four months to get this issue fully under control. Wikidemon by his own words has a 28.57% error rate, I know for a fact that my error rate is less than a tenth of that (3%) with my NFCC#10c removals. If anyone wants to disprove that Ill get a full listing of every NFCC#10c removal that Ive made for them to review. If can find a higher error rate (and I mean actually errors where 10c was met and I still removed the file) Ill stop my 10c enforcement of my own will. However I know that my error rate is far less than that. But getting back to my main point in four months I can get 10c removals to a handful per day with plenty of notification, warnings, and a binding NFC review system for individual article/files that is as binding as FFD or any other XfD. This whole process could become a lot more streamlined and manageable and user friendly, however as it stands getting these implemented has a snow balls chance in hell due to all of the loopholes that I have to jump through. So my counter proposal is this, arbcom give me 4 months of free rain and let me implement everything that I want, stop the harassment and stalking against me, and lets get the whole issue addressed and under control (its been 4 years already, far too long). Otherwise ignore the community and ArbFuck™ me again. Ive proposed multiple solutions over a long period of time but due to the excessive hoops Ive had to jump through, unable to implement. ΔT 02:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion re: Motion1

• I wonder, just how many times does it take to make something stick to a wall? It's certainly less than how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop. These endless proposals for this, that, or the other band are insane. Everyone is effectively saying "Δ, until your morale and attitude improves, the beatings will continue". The results here are utterly predictable. ANYone forced to put up with as much abuse as he has suffered would have "issues" with his behavior. Want a real proposal? How about a moratorium on the *()#@$@#! endless ban/topic-ban/beat-senseless proposals. Those arbcom members voting support of either sanction are ignorant of the underlying issues that are happening right now and the constant, unending harassment for the work Δ has been doing. You are railroading Δ, pure and simple. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• A topic ban was proposed at WP:AN, and failed to reach consensus. A site ban was proposed at WP:ANI, and was snow-closed amid overwhelming opposition. For ArbCom to resurrect both proposals in an explicit attempt to override what the community has decided feels like a bit of a slap in the face, to be honest. 28bytes (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Thoroughly agreed. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• I've get to see any policy state that a 65% majority is not enough to enact this ban. It failed only because no one was willing to enforce it yet. It didn't fail consensus based on any policy.--Crossmr (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• It failed because it didn't have consensus. Hence the further disruption and forum-shopping that has ended up here; sadly ArbCom appear to be even more clueless than the community. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Define consensus. WP:CONSENSUS clearly states that on a major change (which this is) more than a simple majority is required. Can you define that? I would define it as a case where we had 18 or 20 vs 17. In this case we had 32 vs 17. That's more than a simple majority. It's a very obvious majority. There is no other policy definition.--Crossmr (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Consensus needs to take account of both strength of argument as well as numbers. ("The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.") A number of those supports were well argued but a number were also WP:IDONTLIKEHIM. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• There was very little of that, unless one applies an assumption of bad faith to the many editors who simply said they had given up on Delta, thought he could not be trusted to abide by community rules, or that they felt he was unlikely to contribute constructively. On the other side much of the !vote in opposition expressed only perceived persecution, claims that those wishing to ban him were using the vote as a proxy for opposing non-fair use rules, or simply said they supported Beta because they support NFCC, none of which are particularly on point. It hurts the discussion to advocate that people who are for or against a proposition are doing so not for the reasons stated but because of their personal whim. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• The reason Arbcom reached a different conclusion is because Arbcom is familiar with the entire long tortured history of Betacommand treating Misplaced Pages as his own personal dominion. Those of us who have been around for all umpteen-thousand discussions of Betacommand's transgressions and disruptions are in full agreement with the Arbcom decision. Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• It would probably be more appropriate if you didn't project your own opinions onto everyone else, especially as it is clear not everyone shares your views. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• ArbCom should also be aware that Δ has performed thousands upon thousands of edits over the last year in support of NFCC enforcement. This was done without creating very much fuss, without a whole bunch of hoopla about it. ArbCom should also be aware that over the last three months inclusive, six different reports were made to WP:EW in an attempt to get Δ blocked for NFCC enforcement. Only the most recent of those reports saw a block come down for it (and that, controversially). All the others were found to not be violations but one that ended up going stale. The people asking for his head have been wrong over and over and over again. But, instead, we take the cop out approach and topic ban him? Wow. Utterly wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Responding specifically to Xeno; just because there ARE threads in existence doesn't make Δ WRONG. Case point; the WQA thread found in Δ's favor. If I started threads at multiple locations about you, should we then assume you should be topic banned? You are compelled to look deeper than this. Do it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  I haven't said anywhere above that Δ was wrong. But as the committee suspended the community's indefinite ban of Betacommand (a ban that was placed in no small part due to never-ending disputes with regards to Δ's non-free content enforcement), we are obligated to be mindful of the effect our modifying the community sanction has on administrative and editor resources on the same subject. Echoing Coren, Even if we granted that everything he does is perfectly in line with NFCC, the manner in which he does it causes so much acrimony and disruption that it cannot be allowed to continue. By my reading of the topic ban, Δ will still be free to assist in identifying NFCC problems, just not enforcing them. –xeno 06:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• The biggest act of ArbCom hypocrisy ever. If Delta was edit-warring to remove BLP violations, you'd all be running desperately to defend him. Despite the fact that NFCC is as much of a pillar as BLP (in fact possibly more so - look at that word "Free" in the top left hand corner of the page), you're all pandering to the peanut gallery. It's frankly sickening, and you really need to take a long good look at yourselves. You are enabling copyright violators. Pathetic. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Echoing Black Kite. This is an absurd farce. Look at our Five Pillars, our m:Mission, and then tell me you really believe the fault lies with Delta and not the asinine hounding, berating and abuse he takes simply for trying to help keep us true. I signed up for this project the same time many others did im sure, seeing Jimmy's interview posted on slashdot back in the day, about giving every person, every child, every school free knowledge. Freely shared, freely used, to better actual lives. To improve education, to improve access. We had morals, and these motions do nothing more then implicitly turn our backs on what we once reveled in. This is shame-worthy. -- ۩ Mask 23:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • "Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a 💕 of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language. Asking whether the community comes before or after this goal is really asking the wrong question: the entire purpose of the community is precisely this goal." Jimmy in 2005, on the mailing list. Quite simply, at this point I think what we're seeing is a conflict between 'the community' and 'other people who are editing wikipedia'. Founding principals determine the scope of membership for organizations and nonprofits such as ours, and that should not be forgotten. I like to view it as Reform Judaism, accepting converts from all others to build our cause. -- ۩ Mask 23:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Precisely. Still, at least this Arbcom looks like it will go down in history as the one that declared "💕? No, can't be bothered with that, it's just a website like any other". Well done. When are you going to change WP:5P? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • How is strongarm tactics going to win over the community in general? We have issues with editor retention as is and the (adjective redacted) edit wars of recent weeks are ridiculous. Yes we need to address NFCC, but in some cases I've seen betacommand's interaction has been unconstructive to say the least. So if one is rude enough, the other party will suddenly be converted??? this was ridiculous, we are supposed to be editing collaboratively, not self-appointed wiki-cops doing the equivalent of ordering about content contributors like naughty children. I do concede that I am undecided about the bans though, if you supporters can think of anyother way forward I am all ears. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Cas, have you seen this? Δ links to this in his edit summaries. But if you look at some of the timestamps of when people revert his image removals, it's clear they don't even take the time to look at this document that tells them how to fix the problem, begs them not to edit-war, and gives them a list of editors who will help them. Does Δ have to copy and paste the whole thing to their talk pages to get them to understand? There are quite a few of us who are trying to mitigate the conflict between NFCC enforcers and people who get mad their images are removed, but those folks have to meet us halfway. 28bytes (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Cas, you are missing the point. If people turn up and violate BLP all over the place, we block them and frankly we don't really care how we communicate with them. However with NFCC there appears to be the case that a vocal minority of the community thinks this particular policy should be treated differently. Yes, Delta is not always the easiest editor to deal with, but his usual edit pattern tells people what they're doing wrongly. Seriously - removing his ability to deal with huge amounts of non-controversial NFCC enforcement rather than trying to find a way to fix the issue without the pitchforks and torches? Isn't discussion the way this 💕 website is run? But since AGF has run out here, so has mine; the Arbs who have !voted for a site ban have made themselves look idiots. Kudos at least to Xeno here. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) I have to second 28- there all too often seems to be an "oh, it's those non-free content freaks again" mentality. I know you were using it as the unpleasant extreme, but a lot of people seem to actually view the situation as "wiki-cops versus content contributors", in the same way there is sometimes a "civility police versus article writers" dichotomy. I don't think that mentality is helpful. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm in total agreement with Cas here. The problems we're having now are essentially exactly the same problems we were having 3 and 4 years ago with the same user - I don't honestly believe he's demonstrated a capacity to change, and his interaction with new users is in the main lamentable. Orderinchaos 00:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• @SirFozzie: There actually is an exemption for NFCC enforcement. Please take a look at WP:3RR#3RR exemptions. Granted, it only covers "unquestionable" violations, but most (admittedly, not all) of Δ's reverting past 3 has been indeed to remove unquestionable violations. 28bytes (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I did. In the vast majority of cases, yes, he's right to go the way he does. However, there's enough edge cases where what he is doing is Edit warring, not covered by this exemption, that I do not feel compelled to change what I've said. Now admittedly, with the sheer amount of work he does, there's going to be edge cases left right and center, however he does the bull in the china shop treatment in all cases without recognizing if it's the best tactic, and that is why there is so much noise about him. SirFozzie (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, with respect, I think ArbCom would serve the community much better if it were to tackle these edge cases rather than throwing away the obvious and uncontroversial good work he does along with it. Why not propose a motion to tackle these edge cases? Something like "no breaking 3RR, even if the policy says other editors can"? I mean, come on, right now the site ban is winning the day among ArbCom even though that exact proposal was soundly rejected by the community just today. ArbCom is essentially telling us it doesn't care what we think. You're all smart people, surely a more imaginative solution to the problems than "ban him" can be formulated? 28bytes (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • (edit conflict)x2 I'm also going to have to agree with 28bytes. No disrespect intended to AC, and I appreciate that they are attempting to reduce the drama; but, the image removals are fully within the NFCC policy, and the WMF has even posted their desire to move away from the fair use stuff. Delta get a lot of harsh talk thrown his way, and to be honest, I think he's shown a tremendous amount of restraint. I understand he's not a "warm & fuzzy" conversationalist, and I know he's made mistakes, and pushed boundaries. This just seems to be kind of harsh, and I have to wonder if it's feelings from the past which are influencing decisions in the present. — Ched :  ?  01:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say feelings, but I think most all of us (arbs, parties and interested onlookers) are cognizant of the history of Delta in this area, and it guides us in our decisions by answering the question "Can/Will Delta improve behavior in those edge cases?". SirFozzie (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Arbs: it's probably too late at this point, but I would urge you to consider a less restrictive motion, as I had proposed in recent community discussions at ANI about a topic ban. I had suggested "make it temporary (3 months), and make it clear that all activity except image removal is allowed." This gets to the core of the matter, and ensures that things like the current proposals for Delta disambiguation fixing and NFCC 10c notification are unaffected. It would seem to me a highly constructive compromise. Delta is the posterboy for NFCC enforcement, but hardly the sole editor to carry that flag in a way others dislike; and it seems perverse for Arbcom to take him out of the game just as these constructive things (Misplaced Pages:AN#Request_exemption_of_restrictions) may be about to happen. So, at this point you might prefer to make it indefinite, but I'd urge you to focus the topic ban on the actual problem area, which is NFCC image removals. Rd232 public 01:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the topic ban being considered will prevent any edit enforcing the criteria. The two bots proposed at AN would 1) bring content in line with the criteria and 2) advise on talk pages of possible non-free content issues. Δ would also presumably be free to create lists of content he felt may require attention to assist other individuals who focus on NFCC issues. –xeno 06:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if the motion is intended to achieve what I suggested, that's good - but that's certainly not what I get from the motion's wording of banning "any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed". Personally I find the distinction between "enforcing" and "bringing in line with" unconvincing, and if one is intended in the way you say, that really should be clarified more officially (as part of the motion?). Rd232 public 09:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Arbitrator discussion regarding scope of topic ban. –xeno 16:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sir Fozzie may I ask a question? (ok, 2. :)). And I understand that this is purely hypothetical but: If Betacommand and Delta were not the same person. And we were dealing with just the edits of Delta, would you still be making (or supporting) this motion? And I admit that I haven't been here as long as most of you. I was just wondering. — Ched :  ?  01:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • As a hypothetical? I can't speak for the other arbs, but I would say that we wouldn't be considering a site ban and possibly not a topic ban. There's a reason why we throw a Recidivism findings in some cases (one formulation states: Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to improve their behavior. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.) Or in other words, if Delta didn't have the history they do, we'd be looking at the situation and wondering if a lesser sanction could get them to modify their behavior. Here, we don't have that question. SirFozzie (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Though I disagree this is a proper fix to the overall problem, I agree with how it is being stated in that "Delta may be NFCC-correct, but the manner needs to stop". That said, in relationship to a comment that xeno made above, it would be extremely helpful for ArbCom to specify what they consider as "broadly". Given that this is Delta, and there are people that want to vilify him, this is going to leave open a huge hole for them to find a while to block/ban Delta from WP indefinitely if, say, he made a comment on a WT:NFC, or even a NFC recommendation on an article talk page. Is there any way to make a whitelist of the types of things he is allowed to do that are non-contentious in NFC actions? As suggested by xeno, tagging an image as being non-compliant (at the image page, article talk page , or user uploader page) is a far cry from actually enforcing NFC by removing the image, but as it is worded "broadly", someone will find a way to make the former actions grounds for a block. The more specific ArbCom can be here, the better this topic ban will be for Delta and everyone else involved. --MASEM (t) 12:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. Here are my current thoughts about how I would interpret it; perhaps Arbcom can start with these and edit them to make a final list.

1. The topic ban includes removing images from articles for NFCC reasons, or where the only plausible reason is NFCC enforcement.
2. The topic ban includes edits to leave tags, warnings, or messages, or other notices about NFCC on image pages, image talk pages, articles, article talk pages, or user talk pages.
3. In general, if Δ begins editing a new article (meaning he has not edited it in some time) and among his first edits he makes changes to images or discusses the non-free images, there is a reasonable presumption that the images are the reason that he began editing the article. If he makes occasional changes to images as part of other editing, this is acceptable.
4. In general, it is up to Δ to make sure that his edits cannot be reasonably construed as NFCC enforcement.

I am sure that these can be improved, please feel free to criticize and fix them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The first seems in line with the above discussion but 2 and 3 are counter to what xeno suggested in that Delta is free to comment on a broken NFC image, but he cannot take steps to remove it -- and I just realized -- to fix it (since, bringing a rationale to compliance by fixing a typo can "broadly" construed to be NFC enforcement). Again, four is begging for those editors that want to see Delta completely banished from the project a huge mallet to that with. That's why I really think that we need explicit white and blacklists of actions that the committee sees as acceptable or not w.r.t. NFC, simply to avoid the issue with others. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Arbitrator discussion regarding scope of topic ban. –xeno 16:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• That depends. some users often complain about his templating because the template seems aggressive. fix your image or you'll be blocked, big warning sign!! It's really unnecessary for the first template of a user to include any mentioning of blocking (unless its extremely blatant), and I think there is some text somewhere that indicates that all level 1 warnings shouldn't include that kind of language because it assumes bad faith. Let's look at one of his standard templates , in this ice breaker we've got a big warning sign and a bolded threat to block. This is not a conversation starter. Yes, it is a template. He didn't create it (but he was the one to make the warning sign larger and more menancing ), but for someone who has conflict issues, this is a poor choice for a template. As a community I think we need to rewrite this template (or create levels), but nothing precludes him from choosing a different one/creating his own now.--Crossmr (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  Fixing the level 1 template is certainly a reasonable step to do, I just don't believe that we can blame Delta for using that when that's a readily available tool that most other editors would use too. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  That's besides the point, I think. If Delta is banned from the topic he needs to stay far away from the topic, broadly construed, and the burden is on him not to test the boundaries. The problem isn't that he's been given faulty tools. He's been pushing, testing, rejecting, and subverting boundaries for years. Inviting him to test the boundaries again by helping out, writing bots to fix things, etc., is just going to end up with more trouble. The line should be that if he's working on a few personal articles and projects here and there then of course he can get involved in a few images that are incident to those articles, as long as he doesn't have a melt down over them. However, he should not be getting involved in any project-wide image compliance efforts. Drawing the line as image removal versus image fixing, or tagging versus deleting, is not going to work for the boundary reasons I just mentioned. Nor is the notion of commonly available tools versus custom made ones. You can crack a nut with a rock or a nutcracker, either way you cracked the nut. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• This was headed to ArbCom with a ticket on the express train anyway, even I was sketching out notes for a proper RFAR. The stall of the community topic-ban discussion with majority support but no consensus, close of AN3 notice as "no vio" with minimal explanation followed by close of another, similar case with a block, close of an RFE request with "Hounding needs to stop" - these are all indicative of a community in deadlock, which is where the Arbs typically get to earn their bloated pay. I'll stay as the lonely guy kicking a rock down the road, muttering "why didn't we try a 1RR restriction?" - but whatever, this way gets us part-way there. Franamax (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• I want to thank ArbCom for taking this up. Although both sides are attempting to spin the meaning of the various discussions to their best advantage, the problem of Delta's behavior is clearly not one that the community is able to resolve. The lines are drawn, positions have hardened, the same people man the barricades again and again, and each time the situation fails to reach any reasonable conclusion, instead continuing to fester. This kind of circumstance is precisely what ArbCom was created to deal with, even without a formal request for arbitration, and I'm glad you are doing so.

  For my part, I believe that Motion #1 is the best of these two options. It's clear that Delta still has value to offer to the project, as his SPIbot effort shows. My hope is that if Motion #1 passes, Delta will find other areas to work in, preferably ones in which his "customers" are a more select group and not (potentially) all editors, as is the case with NFCC work. If Delta creates that same kind of disruption in another area that he has done in image work, then I would be inclined to urge you towards a site ban, but, as bad as he has been over the long haul, I do not believe it is justified now. I would urge the passage of Motion #1 with a well-defined scope to discourage gaming the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion re: Motion 2

• See my response to motion 1. Further, today a proposal was made to ban Δ from the site. It was overwhelmingly opposed, 19-3. It isn't what the community wants. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You appear to be under the illusion that ArbCom is here to enable the community. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Or the illusion that a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS somehow 1) undoes the past community ban, or 2) is actually in the project's long-term best interest. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • That was a pretty clear consensus though, unlike the one on an NFCC ban on ANI. Yet ArbCom turn up and trample all over the community. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • According to GWH below, there was nearly a 2/3 support for a topic ban. If that is what Arbcom passes, it seems like they are simply making a decision for which there was substantial community support. Also, in your first comment, I originally read enable in the sense of the linked article. In that sense, Arbcom is certainly not here to enable to community. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • No, but neither is it here to do exactly the opposite of a community discussion. That stinks of "we know better than you peons", doesn't it? Black Kite (t) (c) 15:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• I cannot offer arguments beyond what everyone else has done time and time again. I'm not on ArbCom, I've never had much to do with ArbCom, and I doubt I will ever have much by way of dealings with ArbCom, but banning Delta would be a terrible thing to do, and I hope those who have voted in support will reconsider. J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No one is considering banning him. He's already banned. What is on the table is un-suspending that ban. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this distinction. Could someone please explain this? J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • My interpretation is that ArbCom are withdrawing the suspension they made of the community ban. That leaves Delta free to appeal the community ban (but to the community rather than ArbCom) and get it lifted, but that is different to whatever discussions took place recently in community venues to ban him (for a second time). The fact that those discussions failed is not the same as saying that the original community ban (whenever that was) has been overturned. It has not, it was only suspended (by ArbCom, not the community), and ArbCom are proposing to withdraw that suspension of the community ban. The whole history of arbitration cases and community ban discussions is a bit convoluted. Hopefully it has been laid out somewhere (and no-one has missed any nuances here or got things in the wrong order). Likely those proposing a community ban recently were not aware of the details of this history. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• My views are posted above as well. — Ched :  ?  01:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• To repeat here what I said below, reinstating a suspended community ban is not the same as an outright ban. I am sure that if Delta asks the committee (as a courtesy) for leave to appeal his community ban to the community, it will become clear whether or not there is a consensus to lift this reinstated community ban or not. This is different, of course, from lacking a consensus to ban someone. It is quite possible that if Motion 2 passes, the community will lift the community ban but will (sensibly) leave the (obviously passing) topic ban in place. Carcharoth (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• I would not favour ArbCom re-instaing the previous community ban at this time, though I laud their efforts in Motion 1 (except where is Motion 3, 1RR restriction in contentious areas?). Feelings are running too high for a community unban/endorse-AC-reban discussion to reach a proper result at this time. An NFCC topic restriction may or may not allow this editor to reach a better state of editingt. Only time will tell on that, but I prefer to allow the time. Franamax (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• In response to Hammersoft, specifically, in regard to consensus that delta/Betacommand is banned; He is banned by community consensus, and has been since 2008. After been banned Betacommand, as he was then, attempted several times to change that consensus and failed. In the event, Betacommand then agreed with the Arbitration Committee to suspend the ban, under strict conditions, for a year. After the year elapsed Betacommand was permitted to continue editing, providing he continued to comply with agreed restrictions on his editing speed and with WP:CIVIL as previously required. However, it has not at any point been noted that the existing ban has been voided or overturned. Therefore there needs to be a consensus that the existing ban is lifted, and not one for a new one to be enacted. I noted this to delta back in April of this year, shown here together with his response. I also noted the fact that the ban of Betacommand may still be in existence in one of the ANI discussions back in May. These points were rejected by delta and ignored or refuted by his "supporters" - and here we are again. At some point delta and his - and I will argue the appropriateness of this term if asked - enablers will have to confront the probability that it is their actions and viewpoints that has lead to these motions being discussed, and not the complaints by the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Sadly, I'm sure we'll be revisiting this proposal before too long. Nothing about Betacommand's attitude has changed in the past 5 years. If it isn't NFCC, I'm sure it'll be something else. Kaldari (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  If this edit and what's leading up to it are any indication, the locus of the problem seems to be mass editing efforts generally, not image use specifically. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

General discussion

Today, I was trying to find a venue to bring ArbCom's attention to the unending spat of ban/topic-ban proposals that have erupted over the last week, and the constant harassment that Δ has endured and couldn't find an appropriate place (complaint for another time). I had a false hope that ArbCom might have the wherewithal to recognize the serious situation for what it was; a massive conflict with a ton of flame added by a number of editors contributing to the dispute. I had hoped ArbCom would have been willing to step in and calm the waters. Instead, it appears ArbCom is willing to take the cop out, and refuse to address the serious problems created by all contributors to this dispute. Shame on you ArbCom, shame on you. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said elsewhere from the last weeks of additions: If you take out Delta from the "NFCC and Delta" problem, the issue will only return as "NFCC and (someone else)", whether that be Hammersoft, Black Kite, or a half-other dozen editors that keep NFC in line on WP, because there are editors that simply bother not to learn the policy or have come to resent it. I cannot fully clear Delta on his behavior on certain actions of late (as there's a confluence of numerous issues). But to simply to ban/block Delta without addressing the other side of the issue (whether this be the consensus for NFC, or those that employ a very loose interpretation of it, or a number of other factors) is a temporary reprieve. I will say this: there may be several pending ideas to improve NFC, and it may be a wise idea to try to bring in ArbCom to at minimum assign a moderator to assure the consensus process is not derailed by personal issues. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If another editor decides to step into Beta's shoes with clumsy disputed mass edits followed by scolding, insults, threats, and edit warring, over what Chase Me describes as "extreme interpretation of the NFCC policy and refusal to compromise", then they will ultimately have to stop as well. The phrase "editors that simply bother not to learn the policy" is indicative of the problem, an utter and complete refusal to acknowledge that some editors legitimately and reasonably believe NFCC policy and the NFC guideline urge an image be kept or its rationale fixed in a given case, or ask as the guideline instructs that some things are consensus matters to be resolved through discussion. Edit warring and incivility are the antithesis of constructive work on the encyclopedia, and the former is permitted as an exception to WP:3RR only in the extreme case where something "unquestionably" violates the policy. Telling others that their question doesn't count because you know you are right is no substitute for discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The place for discussion is at the policy page, not knowingly breaking the policy and then saying you don't agree with it. That should be obvious. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)And ergo, a ban/block on NFC is not the right solution if the issue is "edit warring and incivility" (and again, to be clear, I support Arbcom re-establishing this facet of the community restrictions). But again, the other facet is NFC itself (not Delta); I've pointed out many many times before that if there is a problem with how NFC is interpreted differently by different people, then there's should be proposals aplenty at WT:NFC to amend and revise the policy to either reaffirm what it says or bring it in line with what consensus suggests, but that's not happening relative to the amount of discussion there is about Delta's specific actions. No one wants to seem to touch the core problem, which is the dissent to which NFC is handled. There is an RFC attempting to generate ideas to improve it, and I will offer that Delta offered two automatic bots that would aid in fixing and tagging broken NFC images, so it is not like there's no attempts at all - just not what I'd think there would be. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It could also be argued that the correct way to go about getting one's editing sanctions lifted is to stay within them and to keep one's nose clean, rather than to repeatedly violate them while continuing to get into lame, petty spats like 3RR violations. I don't doubt for a minute that Delta was goaded into a good few of these (MMN taking him to ANI for a civility problem really takes the cake), but very few people seriously think this is a stitch-up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem has always been and continues to be Delta's behaviour. There is absolutely nothing in NFCC that dictates or mandates his behaviour. Nothing. Not a single word. I touched the core problem. I went out and enforced NFCC in a community focused manner without causing disruption, hurt feelings or generating any dissent. Neither one of us had our edits mandated by NFCC policy and there was an entirely different result. Delta's edits are his own choice and his own behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You did it well away from the edges where consensus may or may not be there for the types of actions Delta was doing; therefore, there's no reasonable expectation that you'd get hit with what Delta has. Delta operates at the fringes where he and several others (including myself at times) think he is right in application (not necessarily approach) and several others think he's wrong. Those that think he's in the wrong when the policy is not clear need be ready to revise and clarify the policy to bring that part of the policy closer to their view. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Or vice-versa. Policy is almost never black and white where reasonable editors disagree, for if it were their disagreement would not be reasonable. Disagreements have to be handled through reasoned discussion, not force of aggressive content changes. The encyclopedia has largely complied at this point with the Foundation's requirement for non-free use rationales and we are in a stage of maintenance and refinement (if a huge problem remained the Foundation or ArbCom could step in at any time, and they have not). Thus, any editor wanting to enact a large scale change across many article in how we handle images needs to establish that consensus, policy, or the Foundation is on their side. Saying "you're wrong" many times in succession doesn't make it so. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the removal of files without a rationale, then that consensus has existed for years. The policy requires that any usage has a rationale, and so any usage without a rationale can be removed. That's not controversial. Some people don't like it, and some people dislike/misunderstand the NFCC, but that does not mean that it's not the policy, and that does not mean that the policy does not have consensus. J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all - you're quite mistaken on that. There are two different issues here. I was speaking to the first, where there is a legitimate difference of opinion on how the policy and guidelines apply to specific images and whether they are justifiable in articles. Wherever you draw that line there are going to be matters of interpretation and some images that fall on the line, so editors have to work together in a spirit of cooperation to work through the hard choices on a case-by-case matter. "I'm enforcing NFCC so you're wrong" is not a legitimate way to deal with that. The second issue, regarding missing or flawed tags, is a different discussion. Everyone agrees that images should have use rationales. "Any usage can be removed" is a long way from "You can't disagree with any scheme I come up with that removes images and if you you're a disgrace to the project". - Wikidemon (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite mistaken on what? I really have no idea what you're talking about; so far as I can see, none of what you said has much to do with what I said... J Milburn (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaken if you believe there's a consensus for the manner in which Delta was removing images without rationales. He was racing through years-old image uses alphabetical order, possibly using automated tools, making a lot of mistakes, with zero effort to examine or fix obvious things before removing them, and leaving no good record of which images he had removed. As an example, before he was stopped he was removing every single free use from articles that had been moved, merged, split, or disambiguated, as well as obviously free images that had been given the wrong copyright tag. I can think of a whole bunch of ways to clean up noncompliant image uses, and his way is near the bottom. If he's going to do a few thousand of those he needs to work with other editors to do it right. Not every edit in service of policy is a good idea. A policy that says "no dogs on the lawn" does not justify taking out a bazooka and shooting grenades at everything on the lawn that might be a dog. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but it does justify removing anything labelled as a dog from said lawn, with an explanation that no dogs are allowed. That would be what Delta was doing. A bazooka would be automatic deletion, or blacklisting, or blockings, or some other ridiculous extreme. You mention removing images (I assume you mean non-free images) "from articles that had been moved, merged, split, or disambiguated, as well as obviously free images that had been given the wrong copyright tag". It is not Delta's fault that these were incorrectly labelled- removal is one way of dealing with the issue which, sometimes, will be a very real issue. You mention your longing for consensus "for the manner in which Delta was removing images without rationales", but that's a somewhat ridiculous demand. Do I need consensus to fix a spelling error using AWB? Tabbed browsing? What if I'm running through a category to look for articles to cleanup? If there were a large number of mistakes (that is, policy-compliant media being removed) you may have a case, but what you're demanding now is silly. J Milburn (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree and I'm not being silly. Perhaps you're not cognizant of the history, in which Delta and some followers were in process of removing somewhere north of 200,000 images from the encyclopedia. Guess how many of those are still here? More than half, no thanks to the bots. It's not delta's "fault" the first time he mistakenly removes a compliant image because of a technical problem that fooled his bot or his cut-and-paste fingers. But we can ask him not to remove five hundred compliant images at a time... again and again, year after year, despite pleas to think or discuss before he acts. It is also his responsibility if the mistake is pointed out and he says, like you, that he can't be blamed if his error happened because of another person's error and it's not his problem to sort out the details. Removal is one way of dealing with the issue, sure. But in some cases it is not the best way. If people are objecting to the removal when there is a better way, yet an editor persists without any attempt to work with anyone? Part of working together on the project is to, well, work together on the project. In your AWB spelling error example, you do not need consensus to fix a few articles here and there with spelling errors. On the other hand if you go through 100,000 pages in alphabetical order without notifying anyone or pausing to listen, and you change 13,000 instances of "yo" to "yon" as your autocorrect feature urges you, you just made a big goof. There were a lot of policy compliant media being removed. There were also many that could easily have been fixed because they were simple, blindingly obvious cases like logos and cover art, yet the way Beta was proceeding did not leave a log or usable organization that others could use to go back and fix them. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why we can't make things work by letting Delta and Crossmr collaborate on the issue of removing "illegal images". Delta could do what he is doing now, except that he should stick to 1RR when removing images. When reverted twice, he simply posts a notification on a page monitored by Crossmr. Then Crosmmr focusses on these cases where good personal interaction skills are more important.

So, the bulk of the removals are then handled by Delta, his approach is necessary to do that, but where the potential problems could arise, which is a small fraction of the total number of cases, Crossmr steps in. Count Iblis (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I am normally one of ArbCom's biggest supporters, but you're wrong here. If there was a community desire for this, it would have been done already. Today a site ban proposal for Delta was overwhelmingly shot down. A recent topic ban proposal got up there, but still failed. Overriding the community like this is perceptively why there is so much distrust for ArbCom, perceptively why people call you GovCom, and as much as I think a great deal of WR is nothing more than pathetic spewings from haters of Misplaced Pages, you're validating a whole lot of what they say about you. You've lost my respect. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  Several above have indicated that the recent community-initiated topic ban proposal "failed"; this is inaccurate as the proposal is actually still ongoing. –xeno 06:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  For the record, this proposal has since been closed as "no consensus" by causa sui. 28bytes (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is it's far too big of a job for just 2 people to handle, but perhaps 10 people could handle it. We don't even really know how big the NFCC problem is. No one can tell us how many new NFCC issues are generated each day (which really shouldn't be that hard to figure out, generate a list today at midnight, generate a list tomorrow at midnight and remove the image/article combos that appear on both lists, do that a few times and average it out). The problem starts with the way Delta does it. While he's improved his generic edit summary, it starts with his first edit and his first edit is simply a binary parse: Does it match? No. Remove it. Template, generic summary, move on. The way forward with NFCC is to improve the image of the project. The first question should be: Does this image look like it remotely belongs. It really does not take that long to read a possible description, check the source link if one is provided, look at the file name itself, and even look at the image and make a quick "Hmm.. there is a reasonable chance this should be here". If it's utterly ambiguous then it might require you contact the uploader/adder. In this case I'd recommend automatically adding the name of the file to a bot for removal from the article in 24-48 hours. Ask the user what the use is, and if they don't get back to you in a reasonable time it'll be automatically removed from the article. But there is no deadline. The foundation's directive doesn't say we have to remove them all today, this minute. We just need to work towards the goal of making them all complaint or removing the ones that can't be made compliant. While they say the remover doesn't have to do that, they don't say that the remover can't do that. And that's the important part. It needs to be a community driven effort to improve the image of NFCC and make it a non-negative part of daily wikipedia life that projects actually want to participate in and work with.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I had been mostly ignoring the massive threads about this, but it was clear that nothing was going to get resolved and it had become (again) something that the community was unable to deal with. Still, I hadn't expected this. Were the motions initiated here without warning, or was there some prelude to this? Hopefully Delta will get the chance to say something here at some point, and hopefully the rest of us will fall silent long enough for him to have the chance to say something. Oh, I see he is blocked for 24 hours. His response seems to be here. Still, I would hope that the motions stay open long enough for him to say something. I think the topic ban reinstatement is reasonable, but that any siteban should come with an explicit provision to allow an immediate appeal (to the community) of the community ban that is being reinstated. i.e. ArbCom are well within their rights to withdraw the suspension of the community ban (something I think they took a lot of flack for at the time), but the community need to show a clear consensus to lift that community ban, rather than a consensus to not reinstate it. Carcharoth (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Could arbs or a clerk clarify which arbs are recused and/or inactive and what the majority needed is for each motion?

The prelude was the aforementioned "massive threads about this". As it was this committee who suspended the community ban on Betacommand (and - perhaps too optimistically - included a one-year sunset clause for the attendant topic ban on NFCC-work), it is this committee's responsibility to evaluate the effect our modification of the community sanction is having, and make adjustments where necessary. –xeno 17:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Majority reference added

General discussion: arbitrary break

My few cents...

Last night, I was in the middle of a specific NFCC content dispute with Delta, in which first Wikidemon, then I, then (on another page, but the same problem) user 4twenty42o misinterpreted Delta in exactly the same manner (and we were all in the wrong, to be honest; Delta had called the situation properly initially).

I spent considerable time attempting to civilly discuss with Delta the importance of not repeating templated warnings or actions that were misunderstood or misinterpreted the first time. I was engaged for over five hours before going to bed; others continued the discussion afterwards.

For administrators, taking administrative action, we have the following policys:

(WP:ADMINACCT) "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

(WP:NOTPERFECT) "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Misplaced Pages is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.

Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct."

While Delta isn't an administrator at this time, I think this is and should be a rule all of those enforcing policy and administrative action should take to heart and live by.

We've all been through this before. This is a 4-year-old problem. My efforts last night were honest and extensive and as civil as I could be to point out the communications problem I do not feel that Delta accepted that there was a problem that he was contributing to, much less responsible or accountable for. His near-final response, after extensive discussions of how not just one, not two, but three long-long time editors had independently misinterpreted his templated warning in the same way, was "I don't know how much more clear I can be than xxxx(the templated warning)".

This is not about NFCC enforcement; if Delta's thing was NPA, or edit warring, or new page patrolling the results would be the same. There is a deficit in comprehension of how other people are understanding and responding to communications. We've had community findings on this, multiple arbcom findings, something approaching 100 blocks over 4 years (one every 2 weeks on the average).

NFCC is not a popular area, as there is great dispute over what the policy should be, what it is, and how it should be enforced. It requires special care by those engaging in enforcing it to avoid unnecessary disputes, and to resolve disputes that arise in as calm a manner as possible. Delta is not the right person to be doing this. We've known this for years. Even most of those who support his continued participation in the area have admitted so at one point or another.

More than 2/3 of the community who bothered to express an opinion on the subject !voted to topic ban him over the last few days. That's not our normal community consensus threshold for bans or blocks; but it is a clear and evident expression of exhaustion of commuity patience (and, the degree to which the community is now polarized).

It is entirely right that Arbcom review the situation. I don't know how anyone can say that this is not ripe for Arbcom action. The entire point of Arbcom is to be the intervenor of last community resort when the rest of the community is at odds. I can't even directly count the number of threads on noticeboards this has engendered in the last couple of weeks, and a 2/3 majority on a topic ban, and several hung restrictions reversal !votes, ...

As late as last night I was still acting on the assumption that hope was not lost, and that rational discussion could perhaps get Delta to change the problem behaviors.

This morning when I woke up and reviewed the overnight developments, I resolved to file the topic ban as an arbcom request. Work intervened and Roger Davies began this on his own initiative, rendering that intention moot. But this is entirely appropriate for Arbcom to take up, act, and resolve.

We've had four years for Delta to reform enough to not attract this negative response over and over again. Despite weeks of active criticism on noticeboards and community proposals, last night Delta demonstrated that he still does not get it. Under the circumstances, four years is enough.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. Nothing about either motion reprimands the work that's been done, only the non-collegial manner in which it has been undertaken. The first job of any Misplaced Pages editor is to get along with other good-faith Misplaced Pages editors--that is what has been breached here. It's sad that there are plenty of NFCC partisans who see a sanction of Delta as a repudiation of NFCC work--nothing is further from the truth. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the effective results will be the same, the motivation matters little. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite: From what you're saying, you endorse "Well, you can be a jerk, as long as you're mostly right"? SirFozzie (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You will see that I supported a civility restriction in the ANI thread. Anything further is simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No, a "civility restriction" is doing nothing about the issue except guaranteeing more and more long drawn out arguments (and as the 2009 decision shows, Delta is ALREADY under a civility restriction). Again, this is not a particularly new or innovative problem with Delta. It's been so bad in the past that the community said flat out that they did not want Delta working on WP, because of these very same issues with NFCC (amongst other things). The Committee lifted the community ban in hopes that Delta could improve his behavior. There's been a backslide, instead. So, the feeling of the committee, and many editors is "Ok, we've tried everything, but we're just not going to get a change in behavior in this area". SirFozzie (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, if his edits are usually fine but his civility is not, why are we targeting the editing rather than the actual cause - i.e. the communication - of people turning up at ANI? I'm sorry, however you justify it, the events here still stink of a lynchmob who couldn't get their wish through community discussion so decided to circumvent it by forum-shopping it along to an ArbCom who have a record of sanctioning Delta. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If we are in a position where Delta's work is being praised, but his manner is being challenged, would there be any legitimate objections to, hypothetically, another user taking up the work that he is doing, but taking care to, firstly, fix simple problems when they are found (Delta's disambiguation page bot would be helpful here) and, secondly, carefully explain the issues to anyone who objects? J Milburn (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If another editor did similar work to Δ but did it in a far more collegial fashion: with appropriate decorum and tact, striving to educate and explain to users why they feel there is an issue without rapidly edit warring using the same edit summary over-and-over, not creating problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect, no - I would not object. And there are many users who already do this - a good number of them have commented here already. –xeno 16:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

We are doing that, but realizing that his incivility often shows up when people oppose him over an NFCC issue. Take away his ability to create those situations and we take away that avenue of uncivil discourse generation. if the incivility shows up elsewhere than it's an indication a much further ban is required. As always Delta is in charge of his behaviour and he's had years to get his behaviour in check over NFCC stuff and he's failed, that's why he's being taken off it now.--Crossmr (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Georgewilliamherbert. Additionally, the constant hounding of those who bring up problems with Beta/Delta's behavior, and obvious filibustering over any community proposal to do anything about his behavior issues (see... everything above, for example) are what's made this necessary. People are sick of Delta, and they're sick of being shouted down every time that someone starts a discussion about him. The "zOMG NFCC!!!" defenses don't help anything, either. (and now, que the shouting directed at me just for speaking up here. Ugh. Oh well.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 11:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I thank the committee for deciding to take this up, however the manner that they wish to take it up has convinced me that the committee has gone from an appellate court to a kangaroo court of popularity. Should any motion pass that restricts Delta, I will note the Arbs voting for and will oppose their candidacy for the next community review period. That Delta has had to deal with repeated threads calling for various forms of censure should be a clue to ArbCom that something is very wrong. Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you threatening the arbitration committee? "Either vote the way I want or I'll vote you out next time". The fact that Delta has had to deal with those threads for years should be a very clear clue to you.--Crossmr (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's simply me declaring my intentions based on observations of the committee's actions (both as individuals and as a whole) over the past several months. As a hypothetical, how would you care to have a new thread every day at one of the governance forums calling for sanctions to be placed on you? Delta has tried (from what I can see) to be civil and polite about it, but now we're left with nothing but bitterness because he has to take time out of the work he would like to do and defend himself at one (or more) forums against the same argument over and over again. Hasteur (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Crossmr: It is acceptable to tell an elected representative that you will not vote for them again. On the other hand, part of the difficulty of being on arbcom is the necessity of handling difficult cases. I'll point out there were just as many people upset when Arbcom explicitly supported non-collegiality and uncooperative editing during the BLP deletion spree – nothing pleases everyone. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that depends entirely on how and when you tell them. It's one thing to say during elections "Because of your past decisions I'm not voting for you", it's another thing to say during an on-going process (During which I assume a member could change their position) to say "you aren't voting the way I like so I'm taking my vote away from you later". It seems like an utterly irrelevant statement to make right now during the on-going discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think there's ever anything wrong with making the statement that you're not going to vote for someone because you don't think they're doing their job properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is not only permissible but the foundation of a representative system (which ArbCom ultimately is). Of course, this doesn't mean I have to agree with Hasteur or change my own vote; ArbCom only intervenes, after all, when an issue is divisive which unfailingly means that someone will be displeased with what we have done (And if we do nothing, someone is sure to be displeased by that). — Coren  19:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

About damn time. A cadre of fanatical Betacommand-apologists, who believe that NFCC enforcement is an end justifying any and all means, loudly obstruct every community attempt to handle this issue. If Motion 1 above does not pass, I'll very likely file a full Arbcom request. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a wrong solution. Sure, there are discussable cases, but a great deal of edit warring is on cases where Delta (or the others removing the violations) are unquestionably right (images which are plainly replaceable, images which plainly do not have a rationale (not the ones where the rationale is broken in process), images which are on pages outside mainspace, clear, unquestionable failing NFCC) - but that does not matter, editors will edit war with Delta (or more general, with removers) anyway. Whether it is unquestionable or not (and generally more fierce when the violation is plainly unquestionable). And the way of discussing often it is You are an asshole <remover>, because there is no violation, I am reverting because you're a vandal (diff, ), or it is I don't see what is wrong, so it is right (diff), or, to a lesser extend: It is obviously broken, repair it instead of removing it / find a better solution in stead of removing (diff). So your solution is, take out the person who is right, but because others are always yelling at him, so he must be wrong. No matter how many cases there are where Delta is asked politely, and where Delta answers politely (this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this (until the 5th post in that thread ..), this), the yelling cases are exaggerated, amplified, and the good cases are ignored, what, people even filter specifically the cases where Delta is yelling, ignoring diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff - do you see any excessive (or even minor) incivility by Delta in these interactions?

• Xeno, too much editor and administrative time is wasted over this - yes, completely true, but not due to Delta, 4 years of editor and administrative time has been wasted on other things, ignoring solving the problem.
• SirFozzie, 'their bedside sucks' - see the examples provided above, if Delta's bedside manners suck, then for sure many, many others have worse bedside manners. And not just when they are next to Delta (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff).
• Coren, also, see the examples. And sure, someone will be displeased with this, but the question is, will it please the ones that are displeased now, and will it solve the problem? No.
• Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, also see the examples.
• Cool Hand Luke, and that would have solved the problem? Or do you think that people only yell at Delta (see examples given to SirFozzie). The issue is that people will NOT discuss when images get removed from 'their' pages, they start with yelling. Expecting the remover to solve their problems, don't assume good faith that the remover did see something wrong, but did not see the solution.

As far as I see lately, it are the re-inserters that start yelling, and whether the remover suggests positive solutions, or goes on removing, or repairs - the effect is the same, people will yell, what, they even yell 'why did you not solve the problem in the first place', instead of 'Oh, I did not see that that was wrong'. And yes, there are people that misunderstand Delta, but also that is just a minor group. But there are several who simply understand what the problem is: diff, diff.

And therefore, applying either of these bans is giving completely the wrong signal. --Dirk Beetstra 15:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, a vast number of Beta's edits are nonconsensus and destructive to the project. Not everything that achieves a policy-compliant outcome is a good result or process. Hypothetically I could blank every article with a WP:V violation, 95% of the encyclopedia, and we'd have a completely verifiable encyclopedia. Nor is every method to get that result reasonable. Pushing people around while claiming harassment and stalking when they oppose you is not any way to run a group project. Removing en masse images from across the proejct that have been here for years without leaving a usable record of the deletions, based on finding missing rationales in obvious and universally accepted cases (as in logos and cover art), or those "broken in process" as you said, is not the right thing to do, particularly when done so in a way that is at once confrontational, unscheduled, and haphazard. It degrades article quality and creates a lot of frustration and busywork for everyone else. You may disagree. It's your prerogative as an editor to disagree. When there's a disagreement we're supposed to have a discussion and agree on a way to proceed. Instead of working collaboratively as we're supposed to, Betcommand and his enablers have been bludgeoning the community for years on this with threats, incivility, sloppy mass edits, and edit warring. This was a much more serious issue years ago when Beta was doing this with secret unapproved bots and hundreds of thousands of images were at stake, which were rescued only because the community intervened. Now it's only several thousands, at most low tens of thousands. The solution is that if you want to clean up the images and bring things into closer compliance with NFCC, you agree on and set up an orderly way to take care of it. The apologists are claiming with zero evidence that people who don't approve of Beta's methods will complain about everything because they just don't want NFCC enforced. How about putting your money where your mouth is and trying us? Try a solution that's constructive, orderly, collaborative, and courteous, and see what happens. If you concentrate on the core problem and propose a reasonable way to deal with it, you won't find any serious opposition. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Foundation requires us to adhere to our non-free content exception policy or otherwise delete offending images. It's not "should", it's "must". A type in a rationale is a broken rationale, regardless of how easy it is to fix. Does anyone, including Delta, want to get rid of the image? Heck no, not then, not now. The problem is that is a mandatory task that few actually do - if it was more a community effort, with community understanding of why this task has to be done and to what extent it is necessary, it would probably go a lot more smoothly and without drama. Instead, it is a combination of Delta's short fuse and people taking OWNership demands when images are stripped from pages without understanding the why (despite the number of pages we have dedicated to that) that set off these problems. The task of NFC enforcement - like BLP - needs to be a community effort since it the Foundation's charge that we strive to maintain it to the best of our abilities, and what instead happens is that the few that have committed themselves to this are in constant conflict with editors that haven't taken the time to fully understand the Resolution, and with those editors that think the Resolution and NFC is much looser than what consensus allows for.

Delta does not delete images however. Every edit he does is repairable by any registered editor. The only way an image can be removed from Delta's actions is if its removal makes it an orphan and then it is deleted by an admin 7 days later. He puts a message on the uploader's talk page to warn them of this. That's at least 2 gates that an image has to go through that that small mistake can be caught and fixed. I know people wanted Delta to fix these themselves, but again, at 10,000s of images that are broken, it needs to be the onus on the community to help correct these. The tasks proposed by his bots do just his with minimal of drama (since he wouldn't have even been removing images from pages).

And to that end, I take offense at labeling BetacommandBot's activity after the Foundation passed the Resolution as "secret unapproved bots and hundreds of thousands of images were at stake", because it was both approved and a requirement to try to get people to fix these images to retain as many as possible within the year we had been given to fix them. The problems with BCB started after the image cleanup happened, involved unauthorized and misuse of the bot to get at others, plus his attitude - there is no question that the ArbCom case on those matters was necessary and subsequent community restrictions appropriate. But the #10c actions of BCB were 100% backed by the community and BAG, and worked in all but a few odd cases due to MediaWiki trickery. The only problem: people hated having warning messages pop up on their talk pages (perhaps in bunches of 2 or more) and demanded Beta/Delta include code to ignore the messages, and some even going as far as saying "Well, I don't care if my images are deleted...". This is the problem is that we have community members that just don't care about these things and that's why any effort needs a combination of automated tools due to numbers and human intervention to verify the corrections. In other words- we've tried the community defined approach (all these image review tasks were set up a priori) and the community still responded negatively towards it. We're basically in a situation where we know that the average 80 mph traffic on a 65 mph road is unsafe, but as soon as the police try to enforce it, people get angry at that. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Any edit can be undone, that's not my point. I'm answering the claim that Beta's NFCC edits are uncontroversial. They aren't. There are many ways to bring the the project into compliance with NFCC policy, but this particular way has been widely opposed: the edits, the summaries, the timing, the notification, the warning messages, and the approach. Removing hundreds of images per day from articles in alphabetic order (thousands in the cases of the bots) without leaving a log of image removals creates a mess that's not practical to sort through. If it's not that, it's something else. You mention the removal notices. Beta's bots and mass edit schemes often leave a mess like this and he's never been so hot on the planning, approval, communication, working towards consensus, and acknowledgment of others' concerns. The repeated assertions that all of the opposition is from people who don't want to fix the problem is baseless. Plenty of us would like to fix the problem. We haven't tried a community approach to this. If we have, where is it? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Back when the image checks were being done after the Foundation's Resolution was put out, a community approach was planned (where a bot would tag non-compliant images and those uploaders would be notified, putting the burden on them to fix), and Betacommand got approval (search WT:NFC for "betacommandbot" and you can follow the paper trail); he also reported on various phases as the WMF deadline in March 2008 neared. Tagged images because of #10c was an approved action - what wasn't expected was the negative feedback of editors that got multiple messages about bad rationales on their pages. So again, it is not that Delta cannot explain his plan, because we basically relied on him to get all images compliant by the deadline, and he tracked it as it went along. Since he used his bot account for that, the actions were all logged in one place as well.

But back to the point is that NFC compliance is mandatory but as you say there are many roads to get there. Unfortunately, unless we take it really slow in the most friendliest of manners like Crossmr tried to, even a rate of 50 a day, we'd never get the backup cleared in a reasonable time, unless the community got involved. They have to be aware there's an issue that needs resolving and their help will make it go faster. This all needs to be set in place by automated systems, if at minimum to find the problem images, if not to tag them for review by the community (as been suggested, an article talk page message + image page message + category for resolving the problems will cover the widest possible swath of interested editors to get involved). We still need automated tools for that, and unless someone else is willing to run them and take the heat for automated messaging, Delta still seems like the right person. His past shows he can do it, and the tasks that he is proposing in no way disrupt the encyclopedia nor as true enforcement of NFCC, but the problem is that this arbcom ban could be read that he should be far far away from this. But unless another person with the ability and capacity to run a bot and manage it steps forward, Delta is all we have. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The unreferenced BLP issue was solved with simple bots that nobody shied away from coding, assisted by large participation from editors motivated to chip in and not put off by any flak it might bring their way. The NFCC enforcers could learn a whole lot from the approach taken to that issue, which at the start had the same problematic characteristics as NFCC did, with a tiny band of self proclaimed experts pushing with their fearmongering some poorly crafted nuclear options, insisting their own interpretations of what the Foundation wanted were the only show in town. But after a whole lot of drama and disruption, the suggested approach ultimately evolved, the campaigners changed to take into account their flaws in the understanding of the Foundation's ultimate wishes, toning down the condescension of their experienced and knowledgeable opponents, and the system that emerged was both sensible and proporionate, which therefore took the community with it. And thus it has now cleared a massive backlog, and has an ongoing enforcement regime that works, has wide community support, and doesn't piss off nearly every editor that encounters it, or cause the enforcers to blame anyone but themselves if it fails. In comparison, frankly, the approach to NFCC enforcement is as crude as it ever was, and as a result, as inneffective as it always has been, neeeding to be propped up by maniacal bursts of activity from a tiny minority. It is and always has been, broken. MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure whether these are replies to my comment, if so, Wikidemon, that is not what I meant, but I don't believe what you say is true either. Much of the cases get silently repaired, there are several examples where Delta is asked for clarification of the action, and where Delta explains (and generally nicely ..). What is destroying the Misplaced Pages are the few cases where editors start off by yelling. Wikidemon, many cases are unambiguously cases which need to be solved (either rationales are simple broken, plainly not there, 'broken' in a complicated way, images are mistagged, and where images should not be there at all). Sure, there is a significant lot where the use is fair-use, and one could argue that removal of these images from display is destructive to the encyclopedia, but I think that that is greatly, greatly exaggerated. And the plain truth is, many of these images are tagged for months already, and no-one bothers to solve the problem. Whatever solution in the past was put into place, all of them were shot down. But now, most of the situations get solved, or should not be there in the first place anyway. You'll have a hard time putting this into numbers of 'destructive removal' vs. 'proper removal' vs. 'a removal which gets repaired'.

More general: What this solution of ArbCom is, is like someone with a 37.4°C (say, 100.5°F) fever, and ArbCom wanting to solve the fever, decides to amputate a leg. ArbCom is completely ignoring that a) many situations get silently solved/repaired, b) that Delta does repair cases as well, c) that Delta answers properly to many friendly questions, d) Delta does not yell back at editors who excessively yell at him, but only sees that e) Delta removes images and since some of these images are fair-use this is massive destruction which is harming Misplaced Pages and f) that so many editors are yelling at Delta while the violation is clear and unquestionable (yes, there are also many cases which maybe are questionable, but those generally get solved and the situation stops).

You know what is next, let me give some examples:

• here (12:40, 7 July 2011) I remove for the first time a set of images, which IMHO are clear overuse (other editors have removed those images as well, but I am focussing on my actions here). Which is followed, here (17:15, 8 July 2011 - 28 hours later) by a 3rd-level (!) warning (on a first edit on this article!!) and a revert (also mentioning WP:OWN - after a first removal?), which I revert, which is then followed by another revert (calling it vandalism), a 4th level warning for vandalism, ánd a 3RR warning (a 3RR warning for a first revert in 28 hours!) - OK, there was edit warring going on, but issuing a 3RR warning is very, very inappropriate (I notice the total lack of NPOV - [(here - and the interesting point is, that the 3RR warning is followed by a clear 3RR violation of the issuing editor for which they were blocked).
• diff. There is no need for talking about an editor like that, even when you are right or whatever. But editors think that they can insult Delta for free, because when I warn this editor for issuing a personal attack, it is returned with "I do not think that this is a personal attack because this user has been extremely rude. So, when you think that someone is extremely rude, you can return a personal attack? What law system are we following here?
• And I earlier mentioned a situation (vide supra) which is similar - an editor screaming, yelling, behaving uncivil, issuing multiple personal attacks aimed at someone who does an edit that they do not agree with (even after and while acknowledging that Delta was right).

And that is exactly what ArbCom is enabling here: If you yell and scream hard enough, you will get your way. It does not matter who is right or who is wrong in a situation, it does not matter whether things are seriously wrong or just broken in a complicated way, it comes down to who can yell the loudest. And now ArbCom is removing the editor being yelled at.

This solution is a totally ignorant of the problem, and it is utterly pathetic, and it is one which is seriously harming Misplaced Pages. As I said earlier, this is a wrong signal. --Dirk Beetstra 09:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That many of the image removals are appropriate does not change the fact that many are not, and that Beta and supporters have been pushing them through as I said in a sloppy, non-consensus way, without adequate logging, accompanied by threats and edit warring. We had a good handle on the numbers when this arose several years ago - how many thousands of images were used for book covers, album covers, company logos, video stills, and so on, how many were nominated for deletion, and how many were retained after being examined. Nobody has tried to assess that in a systematic way for this go-round, but I have spot checked a few dozen and found roughly 10-15% of Beta's removals to be outright errors (explainable, but nevertheless erroneous) and another 30% perhaps to be trivial to fix. There are also the cases where Beta is making judgment calls that others dispute, as in the "overuse" cases. Your first example is a prime cases where he edit warred past 3RR over a disputed guideline interpretation. This is not a good place to lay out dozens of examples, but I hardly think I'm exaggerating things. I've spot checked some other editors' deletions, e.g. Hammersoft, and found both the error rate and the surrounding incivility to be a great deal lower.

The "damage" to the project is that images are missing from articles, so we either do without or someone has to spend the time to find and fix the problem. The ones I've watched in particular are identifying uses: an album cover for a music album, a character image for an animated character, a company logo for the company, a video still or cover art for a videogame, and so on. If you don't think we should use company logos to identify companies that's a different discussion. Granted that we have them, people spend a good deal of time uploading them and adding them to articles. When beta summarily removes them he undoes in a fraction of a second work that someone spend several minutes doing. Multiply that by thousands and he's wasting a lot of time. If he would communicate with others to devise a more sensible approach, e.g. publicly posting a list of all the images he's found, or logging his removals, that time would not be wasted. If he had just generated a list it would have been fine to remove the images pending examination, because that way we could go through them in an orderly way. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit, you need to stop mis-characterizing my edits. Please provide diffs where my removals where not correct, or shut up. I doubt you can find more than 5 total in my multi-thousand edits of removals for missing rationales. Yes a majority of them are fixable, but that is besides the point, Im not tagging nor deleting the files I remove. If you giving percentages of edits, I know for a fact that I have over a 95% correct rate for removal. My your own words you have a 28.57% error rate. I know mines less than a tenth of that. So either put up or shut up. Im getting sick of you false statements. ΔT 15:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hell, I just ran some numbers and Ive come up with 7279 removals for lacking rationales, I doubt you can come up with enough diffs for a 0.3% error rate with regards for those removals. ΔT 15:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And there it is, the problem - incivility, personal accusations, confrontational attitude, refusal to listen or work with others, defiance of the community, etc. A little humility and respect is called for here, and some understanding of the nature of the flaws in his work, but instead we just get more abuse. Beta's wrong on the facts and misstating something from the history but I'm not going to get dragged into a tiff over this. I just don't think Beta is apt to work on images without more of the same. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So you attacks, insults and blatant lies can be ignored and when you get called out on it, its personal attacks? Nice try, either provide proof of your claims or leave this conversation. I only get hostile if/when Im repeatedly attacked and I ask for proof about the false claims that they are making and you refuse/cannot provide said proof. Instead you prefer to insult and attack me. Either put up or shut up, you need to try to back your lies with fact (which you cannot do), or leave this discussion to those who dont lie and mis-represent the facts. ΔT 16:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You really should stop and perhaps take a short respite away from the keyboard, you're digging your hole deeper and deeper with this. As I said I'm not going to get into a tiff. I'm presenting a reasoned assessment, not trying to debate. I'll add to my list: hostile outbursts against those he perceives are victimizing him when he does not get his way (elsewhere he accuses others of stalking and harassing). - Wikidemon (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You made the statement "I have spot checked a few dozen and found roughly 10-15% of Beta's removals to be outright errors." Show us. 28bytes (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the same faces go running off to ANI every time that Beta does something that could be perceived as wrong show that, yes, it is clear that a number of people are stalking his edits. Whether that behaviour can be defined as harassment probably depends which end of it you're on. And, I'm pretty sure that making up fictional numbers of errors in Beta's edits is harassment (unless of course you can prove it...) Black Kite (t) (c) 17:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I pointed out several issues to Beta a few days back, particularly related to images used on articles that had been renamed. For example, the image at Elmwood Park High School (Illinois), or the image described by this post. If Wikidemon is counting these as erroneous (which they arguably are, since the image clearly is eligible for use, and just needs to be fixed), the rate could certainly be quite high. Beta even admits something like this when he says "Yes a majority of them are fixable, but that is besides the point, ...". The issue is that that is not "besides the point". Other NFCC editors manage to distinguish between clearly inappropriate uses and simple typos. Many people, including me, wish that our policies were more restrictive, but that's not a justification for mindlessly removing images that are clearly permissible. The number I would like to see is what percentage of the images Beta removes are restored within a week.

As for 'stalking' his edits – Beta is under an editing restriction, so he can hardly complain if people check his edits to see if he is following it. The current restriction is specifically designed to empower people to review Beta's edits. Just following changes to math articles, I ran into this broken edit (not image related) today. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

@28bytes: I will consider laying out a sample of Beta's deletions when I have a chance, likely later today. Beta claims 5% error rate (basis unknown), I assert 10-15% (based on recollection of spot check). The reason I don't think the specifics are pertinent to this page is that the difference isn't monumental, and Beta is under consideration for a topic ban because of his manner, not his accuracy rate. I'm pointing out that both are disputed.

@Black Kite: you're an admin so I think a fuller understanding is in order regarding the difference between stalking and following policy issues. Surely you don't mean to imply that it's okay for an editor to embark on a mass image deletion campaign yet not okay for others to follow the progress of that campaign. Above, Beta mentions 7,279 image removals. As even his supporters claim, those removals aren't necessarily destructive, he's leaving it up to other editors to follow his efforts, fix any errors, and restore the images with rationales where that's called for. In fact, because he does not announce any schedule or keep any public logs, the only way to follow the progress of his campaign is to watch his edit history. For an editor to make controversial edits to thousands of articles, then lash out at those watching with a skeptical eye with accusations of stalking and harassment, is not appropriate. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this edit, an inappropriate accusation for an administrator to make, encourages me not to prepare a log. Beta is the one under review here, not me, and I'm not going to play the sucker. Go ahead, make wild accusations that I'm harassing Beta by disputing the wisdom of his edits. One of the more unseemly aspects of this whole affair is the way a number of Beta's defenders and enablers have pounced on those who question him. That doesn't do him any good, it only emboldens him to self-defeating behavior like his little outburst above. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate to make at all - you can't toss out a figure like that without backing it up, which you haven't. Beta makes thousands of NFCC edits and to throw out that figure you'd have to provide evidence that hundreds of edits are wrong. I'm not saying he's perfect but even assuming good faith, without evidence I have to assume you're simply plucking that figure out of thin air. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Assume what you wish, but that's incorrect as a matter of basic evidence and statistics, and on Misplaced Pages that kind of advocacy crosses the line of making unfounded accusations and assuming bad faith. I've told you exactly where and how I came up with the figure, and I've proven my case. Spot checking an editor's activity is a perfectly valid way of checking for a possible problem. Again, I know you're here as an editor and not an administrator, but that badge does come with some expectation of decorum in throwing about terms like "stalking" and "harassment". You're not doing Beta any favors by launching collateral attacks on the integrity of editors for disagreeing with his approach. As I told Beta directly, the spotlight is on him an nobody else. He seems to have little chance to forestall a topic ban at this point, but if he does have a future on Misplaced Pages it's going to come by listening to and working with other editors, not shouting them down as liars while claiming he's being persecuted. You've made your accusations, another editor and I have laid out some edits and a number have spoken up on the subject. The arbitrators and other readers can make up their own minds without hearing you call me names. Can you please get off that horse now? There is no good to come from it. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not calling you names, I am pointing out politely to you that trying to make an argument by throwing around statistics which you can't back up with any evidence is frowned upon here. You are actually undermining your own argument by doing so, in fact. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? In the event you're retracting the accusations of harassing and stalking, and of making stuff up, thank you. It's abundantly clear that Delta made a bunch of erroneous and unwise edits, and I've illustrated that. My observation of percentage error rate is just that, an estimate, not statistics. In my spot check I estimate 10-15% clearly erroneous, and 30% or so more that are technical and fixable, which other editors and I assert should have been fixed rather than removed. My 5-item survey was 100% but I have seen some valid edits. The main statistical misstatement you make (and Delta, who should know better) is that you have to falsify every item in the sample to show a sample error. Spot checking. Ground truth. Look it up. The point is that Delta's edits are controversial and thus need consensus. That's all. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that you're still not providing any evidence of your "spot checks" or "surveys" showing that 10-15% of Beta's edits are erroneous speaks for itself, doesn't it? Anyone reading this from a neutral perspective will be able to make their own mind up on what that lack of evidence shows, I think. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• And None of the articles you point to passed WP:NFCC#10c at the time that I removed them. As for mis-tagged file that are free but tagged as non-free, I have stated I am not familiar enough with ToO to make those calls, I treat them as non-free (the default behavior until proven otherwise). So please show me any file that I removed that passes 10c when I removed it. So please show me an actuall error. ΔT 20:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• You will get nowhere arguing that black is white here. A careful, collaborative editor would not have made any of those edits. The first two image removals I reviewed were not NFCC violations even in a technical sense because they are free images. The remaining three were mis-tagged, one from vandalism and two by pointing to a disambiguation page. In all five cases you propagated errors instead of fixing them. By doing it without a log or list, you made it hard for others to correct. I've pointed out serious flaws in your deletion campaign. In case this hasn't sunk in, you're in the hot seat here. Arbitrators are deciding, with community input, whether to reverse their overturning your outright banishment from Misplaced Pages by the community, likely in favor of a ban from NFCC enforcement. Telling those who disagree with your edits that they're wrong and out of line, and that they haven't convinced you, is not going to win people over. You can agree with them or not. It would have been best if you heeded others' concerns and tried to work with them. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Wikidemon and CBM. You together exactly showed the points that I am making. Wikidemon, as Δ says, which one of the images did have a valid fair-use rationale written down on the image description page. Hardly any, maybe none. Hence, those removals are not errors. I agree, there may be better solutions, some can easily be solved (some are waiting for years to be solved), but hey, when it is Δ who is doing something, it is Δ that has to perform the better solutions. But all those solutions have been proposed before, what, even Δ is regularly proposing solutions, and nothing helped, and they are even shot down while they are being proposed now. "I've spot checked some other editors' deletions, e.g. Hammersoft, and found both the error rate and the surrounding incivility to be a great deal lower." - that is exactly the point that I am making. You are mistaken, have you seen the incivility towards me (what happend before the 3RR violation, the language and warnings issued there) - and that is one point, thát is exactly what this Motion is enabling - take Delta out of NFCC, and the other enforcers will by definition have the highest rate of incivility towards them, so next is to ban Hammersoft from NFCC, because they is getting a constant stream of incivility (and for sure, they and I will get more incivility addressed at us from now, because it obviously works to get your point through - the ArbCom is banning people because too many people are yelling at him).

But the incivility is much higher because it is Δ. Delta is in a constant stream of incivility, personal attacks, wikihounding, harassment, etc. etc. And that is exactly where CBM comes in. Look at this comment by CBM on Δ's talkpage, diff. If that is not wikihounding and harassment, then I don't know anymore what is. And it is plainly another perfect example of the wrongness of this Arbitration Motion - it shows exactly the double standards applied, it shows exactly why Δ is getting so much wikihounding, harassment, personal attacks and incivility addressed at him, and it shows exactly why the wikihounding, harassment, personal attacks and incivility towards Delta is not going to stop.

This Motion is utterly pathetic and, again, a totally wrong signal. --Dirk Beetstra 07:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What you view as "harassment" I view as a necessary warning that continued edits of that sort will lead to a block under the editing restriction. Δ is aware of his editing restriction and should not be making careless mistakes as he did in (which is not NFCC related). I had previously told him I would give him another warning before blocking him for violating that part of his editing restriction, hence the warning was necessary.

Back to NFCC. I have argued below, the mere non-existence of rationales is not a reason to ignore all other context. If we wanted to just remove every image without a rationale, a bot would have already done it. The reason that we don't have a bot do it, and have people inspect them instead, is because there are many cases where just removing the image is not the right action. For example, many of the images Δ removed had rationales, but the page title had changed, and the rationale just needed to be updated. The situation is similar with WP:V: in principle any unsourced statement can be removed, but we expect editors to use common sense, and if an editor began blindly removing things from thousands of articles solely because they were unsourced, we would also put editing restrictions on that editor. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What I mainly mean there, CBM, that it is the tone that does it. That 'warning' could have been stated in many different ways. 'Hey, you introduced an error there, maybe you should, in light of your restrictions, be a bit careful there.'. Sounds quite different, CBM.

Back to NFCC. What I am saying is, that there have been a lot of other suggestions, and there are currently suggestions active, some with a significant support. And many have been previously suggested by Δ. Also the disambiguation-problem, Δ was told it existed, and has written a script to take care of it. In the past it was the redirects, but also that was taken care of. Sure, there are often other solutions to those that are not simple cases, but then still it needs to be done. And if I see that many images are tagged as having a problem for months, it is still not solved. And also there Δ (and I as well) have suggested solutions, but still we are here. --Dirk Beetstra 11:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote in a neutral tone because Δ will be blocked if he continues that sort of editing, so a more serious note is required. There was nothing incivil or harassing in my warning, I simply pointed out the edit and why it was incorrect. Note that "careful editor" is language from the edit restriction itself. I never write "Hey" in comments and there is nothing "maybe" about the warning. Here is the diff of my warning again, for the record .

I think that there are many NFCC patrollers who handle things in a calm and reasonable way. Unfortunately, by pushing things as he did, Δ has made it more difficult to get things done, by sensistizing people to NFCC enforcement. But once the topic ban is in place I think things should calm down some. Wikidemon has suggested sorting the broken images by type (logo, album cover, screenshot, PR pic) to see exactly how the problem is distributed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, CBM, I still think that that could be worded differently.

I am working on something similar as that at the moment. Do note that both Delta and I have a lot of false-negatives. --Dirk Beetstra 12:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sample of edits

I am no advocate of non-free images, but I have a sense of what NFCC permits and what it does not. I looked at several edits to see what images were removed. Here are some examples I found in the last 200 edits of this type by Δ:

• Live At Sasquatch Festival 2010 - album cover on article for that album. An unquestionably acceptable use for a non-free image under our policies. Image since restored.
• Gaurav Chakrabarty - removed a non-free photo of a living person. Not an acceptable non-free image, so this is definitely a good removal.
• XHPNH-TV - logo of TV station on article about that station. An established use of non-free images. Image since restored. Several other similar edits were made, e.g. XHMLC-TV
• Claro_Puerto_Rico - logo of company on article about company. An established use of non-free images. Repeatedly removed by Δ, Hammersoft, and Beestra, but none of them added the trivial FUR to resolve the situation. Currently not restored. Δ made several similar edits, e.g. Claro Guatemala.
• Tony Duran (photographer) - removed a gallery of magazine covers shot by the author. This sort of use is questionable, with arguments going both ways. Images not restored.
• Belle Amie - another non-free photo of a living person.

Overall, looking through the edits, I see a mixture of a good removals (the non-free photos of people) with extremely questionable removals (e.g. logos of companies). It is true that in principle an image can be removed for not having a rationale, but any careful editor would have noticed long series of similar articles and looked into them more closely (e.g. XHPNH-TV, XHMLC-TV, XHNOH-TV, XHNOH-TV, XHCHW-TV , XHFI-TV, XHJUB-TV, XHGC-TV , XHLLO-TV, XHPNW-TV, XHSBC-TV, XHPFE-TV, XHMLA-TV - all of which which Δ edited in a row without seeming to acknowledge the pattern).

I put a list of 200 articles that Δ edited, with the edit timestamp, at User:CBM/Sandbox, in case anyone else is interested in browsing them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

While I am someone who will often add rationales to images when I am working through lists (and, yes, occasionally skip over images without rationales that are otherwise OK, hoping someone gets to it...), it's worth pointing out that even the "established uses" you have listed here unambiguously failed the NFCC, as they lacked rationales. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your practice is quite common. The problem with Beta's editing was that there is no sign he took context into consideration in any way, emphasizing the bureaucratic aspects of NFCC instead of the spirit of the policy to limit non-free usage. We have many practices that are fine when done with moderation and common sense but become disruptive when done blindly on a large scale. Someone could in principle apply a PROD tag to every article about a TV station, and they would not violate the literal policy at WP:PROD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I first became marginally involved in the latest kerfuffle by offering qualified support for a new beta bot and qualified opposition to lifting Beta's sanctions. at AN/I. Next, I noticed edit removing the logo from the original Fairmont hotel, an article on my watch list. That was clearly erroneous because the image in question is a stylized text logo, which we all know (or should know, if we're removing lots of images) is ineligible for copyright. Beta presumably found this image because it had an incorrect copyright tag. No question this is an error, Beta removed a free image, but in this case it was an error triggered by an earlier error. So I fixed the tag and the article, did some poking around, and asked for a pause in the deletions. I thought this was a modest, sensible middle ground as others had already proposed a topic ban for Beta, but I was nevertheless roundly chastised and accused of bad faith by an editor who had been defending Beta. Rather poisonous editing grounds that.

Anywayhere's a list of 30 (plus one non-image edit). I won't go through them all but here are a few in chronological order, beginning with the Fairmont removal.

1. Removes Image:Fairmont Logo.svg (a free image) from Fairmont San Francisco.. Obvious error triggered by earlier error in image copyright tag. It could be prevented by examining logos for free status, something I believe Beta has said he is unwilling to do. Image subsequently restored and fixed.
2. Removes same image (a free image) from Fairmont San Jose. Same error as above, also subsequently fixed. I remain concerned that Beta may have removed this logo from other articles, but because there is no log there is no practical way to tell. I caught this one only because Beta was going in alphabetical order and I was "stalking" (as some would say) his edit history to check on things.
3. Removes cover art (an acceptable use) from Fairytale (Kalafina song). This is one of those cases where the rationale is there but points to a disambiguation page that in turn pointed to the article. This misdirection was caused by the author of the rationale. In other cases it gets created later when articles are renamed or disambiguated. An attentive editor would have caught this.
4. Removes city seal image (an acceptable use) from Fairmont, North Carolina, where it has been since 2008. This is an acceptable use that had a rationale, but the rationale was deleted without explanation by an IP editor soon after. Subsequently fixed. An attentive editor would have caught and fixed this.
5. Removes cover art (an acceptable use) from Fake (Alexander O'Neal song). Another case of a rationale that incorrectly pointed to a disambiguation page. Subsequently fixed.

I could go on but this takes a long time and <sarcasm>I'm just a stalking harassing liar who is making stuff up because I'm out to get Beta and don't believe in image policy</sarcasm>. You can check for yourself. There are some good removals in there, some disputable ones, some erroneous ones, and many with technical defects that could much more easily have been fixed rather than removing. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Carl & Wikidemon, a sincere thanks for digging up examples of edits you have concerns with. Carl, I disagree with your first example: in my opinion, Δ did the right thing here. He removed an image from a non-article-space page (an unquestionable NFCC violation), then removed it again after the article was moved to mainspace and the image re-added with no rationale whatsoever (another unquestionable NFCC violation). In both cases, he included in his edit summary links to documents that explain why a rationale is needed, with guidance on how to add one. Eventually someone did add the rationale, and once they did, Δ had no reason to remove it again, and therefore didn't.

Wikidemon, regarding Fairmont, North Carolina... I agree with you 100%. There's no excuse for seeing "Fairmont is gay. Only losers live here. Ltown is where it's at." where a rationale should be and just leaving it that way and instead removing the image from the article because there's no rationale. Δ, this is precisely what's meant by the "careful editor" business in the editing restriction. I don't want to lose all the useful work you do in the NFCC arena, but with edits like that you're not making it easy for those of us who think the topic ban is a bad idea. An honest mistake/oversight/whatever, sure, no big deal, we all make 'em, but for crying out loud don't try to defend that edit, because if this is the type of edit you think is OK, no one in their right mind is going to sign on for more of that. 28bytes (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Beta removed the image from Live At Sasquatch Festival 2010 twice after it was in main space. The use of an album cover image on an article about the album is one of the most clear-cut uses of non-free images allowed by NFCC. Any careful editor would realize that and just point out that the image needs a rationale; instead Beta simply removed the image twice. This "form over function" insistence on removing images solely based on lack of rationale, with no consideration whether the image is used appropriately, is a common thread in Beta's edits. In other edits, he removed images for articles that had just been renamed -- something that a careful editor could have been expected to notice. Although editors have discretion to remove images just based on lack of rationale, Beta's edits abused that discretion by failing to demonstrate any consideration of context. We have many processes that are OK when editors use common sense but which can be abused; we handle the rare cases of abuse by dealing with the editors rather than by removing discretion from people who don't abuse it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words the problem is not just the single edit, which could be chalked up to editorial discretion. The problem is a pattern of many edits of the same sort, which together reveal an abuse of discretion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this one: I think it's perfectly legitimate to remove an album cover until such time as someone can write a rationale for it. Δ's giving people the tools they need to write one by linking to the appropriate documents in his edit summaries; I think requiring NFCC workers to spend time writing rationales for every plausibly valid use for a rationale-less image use they encounter is asking a bit much, frankly. We don't demand that recent changes patrolers go hunting down sources to support every quite-possibly-true unsourced statement people add to articles, although some of us indeed do that if the article's about something we're interested in. 28bytes (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But we also don't expect recent changes patrollers to revert every single recent change for which no source is explicitly provided, even though WP:V does in principle allow them to do that. They can simply skip changes that are obviously unproblematic, without reverting them or adding a source. Or they can add a citation needed tag. Similarly, I am not suggesting that NFCC editors need to add rationales. If it is completely obvious that the image is acceptable apart from the formal requirement of a rationale, they could just leave a note that a rationale is needed, or move on to another image. It is part of the Misplaced Pages system that editors are expected to think rather than applying rules blindly to large numbers of articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the "let's just skip this one" approach has its problems too: what happens when the note that's left is ignored? Let's look at this practically. The current approach Δ uses goes something like this:

1. Δ removes the image with an explanatory edit summary.
2. Someone who wants the image restored fixes the problem and restores it.

The approach you are suggesting is:

1. Δ notices an image use with no rationale, leaves a note for someone (who?) and takes it off his list.
2. It languishes in a state of technical NFCC violation forever, since there's no real incentive for anybody to write a rationale for it.

At least, that's my estimation of what's likely to happen. In any case, the first approach works well most of the time: the person who wants the image in the article takes responsibility of writing the rationale for it, per the spirit of WP:BURDEN. Where things go off the rails is when someone wants an image in the article, but can't be arsed to write a rationale for it and just shoves it back in there anyway, Δ removes it again, the restoring editor gets pissed and yells at Δ, and then other people join in with edit-warring and it's a giant clusterfuck and we end up here. Quite obviously that's not ideal, but if we actually take the time to educate people about how to write a rationale and why one's needed, and not just give a free pass to the people edit-warring to put an image back in without one, perhaps we can get somewhere. 28bytes (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

While I've only seen the tiniest fraction of Delta's edits, the times that I've looked, the problem breaks down at #2 more like "there is disagreement on interpretation of the policy" and we go back to step #1 three or four times. With the occasional pile-on where three or four people "vote in lockstep" with Delta on the issue. I believe that if we could decrease the general level of hostility that surrounds these issues, we'd spread the discussion around a bit better at #2 and reach more collegial editting outcomes. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for decreasing hostility. I'm certainly open to suggestions on how to achieve that. 28bytes (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• All Im seeing are cases where they dont have a valid rationale (fails 10c The name of each article), which are fixable, I have yet to see an actual case where I have preformed a 10c removal and been wrong. Policy is fairly clear: files tagged as nonfree must have a valid rationale. One of the keys for a rationale is stating the article where its being used. Yes a lot of the issues are fixable, however policy places the burden to fix the files on those who use non-free content, not those enforcing it. Again I will ask please show me proof of where I made a mistake and removed a file with a valid rationale (where it stated the correct article required in 10c and not a Disambig or other page). You will have a very very tough time doing that (if its possible which I doubt). My NFCC enforcement is black and white, is it tagged non-free (yes/no) does it state the article where its being used (yes/no). That is the bare basics of a rationale that Im currently checking for, when I remove a file its because it is non-free and does not have a valid rationale, many may have a rationale but none are valid. So again please actually provide proof that my removals go against 10c and I removed a file with a rationale that stated the article it was being used on. You cant, so please shut up and stop making false claims. Yes a majority of the files I remove have fixable issues but thats not the really the issue policy requires those who want to use the non-free media to have valid rationales, if you fail 10c you dont have a valid rationale. You really cannot get much more black and white. ΔT 03:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No shutting up here. Your edits are in dispute and the approach you describe is what's getting you banned. A number of editors have concluded that your edits are in error, and you're redefining the question rather than looking at their objections. You did remove many images that had valid rationales, and many others that should have been fixed instead. Large scale aggressive rule enforcement without a working understanding of rudimentary rule interpretation, plus utter inflexibility and refusal to cooperate, plus hostility to those who who unwittingly break the rules or who disagree on what they mean, is a tough nut to crack. You appear to be a very intelligent person and a coder, which implies familiarity with logical constructs. If you were facing a coding task and you were given an acceptance condition, for example, that "nonfree image uses must have use rationales", don't you see that there are different ways to achieve that outcome, some better, some worse? Just because your method achieves the bare specifications does not mean it's a good method, nor does it give you any special privilege to accuse, berate, insult, and attempt to override people who propose alternate methods. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon, please show me examples where there were specific valid rationales written on the file description pages for the pages where the images were removed. --Dirk Beetstra 09:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an impertinent and argumentative request. Of my five examples two of the images did not need rationales so their lack of rationales is beside the point. The other three had valid rationales, one that was hit by a vandal and two pointing to a disambiguation page. In all five cases Delta propagated a mistake in removing the images. I believe you are smart too, and we all know the exact situation, so rhetorical arguments aren't helpful. Again, for the umpteenth time, Delta's image removal edits, not just the attendant incivility, are in dispute. If he, or you, have a problem with that the appropriate venue is talk pages, not accusations and edit warring. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

So, they did not have a valid rationale at the moment of removal. That is not an error, Wikidemon. --Dirk Beetstra 09:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is, Wikidemon, that the images were all tagged as non-free, and did not carry a valid fair-use rationale. All the cases that you show as errors/mistakes, are cases where a better solution would be available. So all that is needed is to have a list of cases where there seem to be problems, and a collaborative way to solve the problems. First of all, there are several proposals open to that effect (some from Δ), such approaches have been tried in the past, can we now please go on and actually set up such a system? Δ has shown to be willing to help there, but all such suggestions are categorically shot down or ignored. --Dirk Beetstra 09:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself here, a large part of the reason that good ideas are "categorically shot down or ignored" is due in no small part to the overall level of hostility that NFC enforcers (and I mean you explicitly, here, Beestra) frequently engage in. Charges of "harassment" and "stalking" get thrown around with easy nonchalance. Again, speaking only for myself, it's dreadfully simple to be tarred with the "anti-delta" brush and *poof* instantly be rendered out of bounds of normal conversation. On this very page, Bees, you say "Look at this comment by CBM on Δ's talkpage, diff. If that is not wikihounding and harassment, then I don't know anymore what is." The edit in full is

In this edit you introduced a references error that was not present in the previous version . The big red error message "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show ..." is certainly something that a careful editor would be expected to notice when previewing the page. Moreover, the external link was already in the references section as part of a reference, so changing it to a footnote is very unusual. It appears as if it was changed by a cleanup script and you did not inspect it. Please follow your editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please explain to me how this was "wikihounding" or "harassment." If we're not listening to Delta's reasonable suggestions, it's at least partly because you spend so much time shouting. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Aaron, I don't think that I am shouting too much, and I am certainly not the one to start shouting. And hostility from my side, well, I am afraid that there is a lot of hostility from all sides, Aaron. And maybe it is not even just NFCC related. But I do think that a lot of hostility against Δ is totally out of line and unnecessary. As I reply above, such messages can carry a completely different tone. --Dirk Beetstra 11:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok mate, I do totally understand that you don't think you're shouting too much. Most of the time when I'm wearing my arse for a hat I think I look great. Delta clearly doesn't think he's doing anything wrong either. Does it give you pause at all, though, that yours was one of the first names I thought of? And you're right, too, about hostility at times coming from both sides. I was a total dick to Hammer, and when he politely told me so I was an even bigger dick in response. So yeah, true story.

I was even agreeing with you on this when the enforcement thread was closed. But (for the most part) the genuine abuse and harassment directed Delta's way (or yours, or Hammers) is from clueless noobs. And I see it get under your skin, and you guys start seeing everyone as harrassers. Like *cough* me. And, like me, that kind of treatment very quickly turns people into the thing you saw them as in the first place. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, Aaron, you're right there. The point is, that there is never a reason to yell. I agree, most incivility is pretty minor, and I will not report editors for calling me a vandal once (even when they are absolutely not right - removing an image with a repairable, though missing rationale is still the same as removing one sentence without a reference, it is not an error, it is certainly not vandalism, and for both there is a better solution). Point remains, people are quickly grabbing that weapon at the moment, some push it way over the edge, and it seems to be especially when NFCC is involved (I don't think I have seen anyone yell at someone else when they removed an unreferenced statement, calling it vandalism). I am not used to be called a vandal, while I have removed a lot of spam in the past (and spammers are not typical vandals, they earn money with what they do, they are persistent, they go far .. very far). Years of spam removal has not earned me so many (mainly minor) insults as this. People get tagged wrong by COIBot, mainly accidentally, and most are n00bs in terms of why they might appear on those reports, but I have never been approached with insults or anger. And I (think I) always react in a friendly way.

And though there is (IMHO) no reason (ever) to be a dick, I do understand that sometimes people are (temporarily) getting over the edge. But why is NFCC attracting so much opposition? And why is all negativity concentrated here against Delta. There is no eye for all the compliments, all the friendly answers to friendly questions, all the attempts to work around found problems (the disambiguation pages are coming back here, while in the meantime Delta already showed that he can repair most of those automatically). I think that I show that I also try to repair rationales if I see they are broken (I still remove the images if there is simply no rationale written out), but I also get mildly hostile remarks when I did not see that, and removed it as a missing rationale ('you saw it was broken, but did not see how it was broken' .. no, missed it, sorry). NFCC seems to be very thin of assuming good faith on the removers, and though many here say 'well, you are removing images with repairable rationales, of course people start yelling' - people yell also in cases where the rationale is plainly not repairable. People simply choose to yell. And as response to that, 'well, if you are all yelling at XX, of course XX is then not going to be cooperative' .. a bit of respect goes a long way here. Hence, I still believe that this Motion is giving the wrong signal, I do think that gives the signal to the n00by editors who yell at Delta, that they were right in yelling, and I do already see it propagating since they start to (excessively) 'yell' at me. --Dirk Beetstra 13:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a personality issue, frankly. Delta basically just wants to be a bot, free of any and all expectations you would put on a human editor. That's the only way anyone can read his justification for his approach to 10c enforcement above, which basically amounts to blind editting at mass scale, passing off the fallout to others. He disregards all other site policies & guidelines except NFCC in his justification, something vandal/spam fighers etc would never do, but he also doesn't even consider the NFCC policy as a whole - what is the point of messing around with removals and notifications designed to get non-free iamges to adhere to 10c, if the image is ultimately not going to be usable in the first place on all other counts? Simple - because that's how a bot would view this task. The analogy to enforcing WP:V is perfect - he is doing nothing better than if someone chose to steam through the pedia article by article, paragraph by paragraph, deleting every single sentence that has no ref tag at the end of it, handing the fallout to other editors (while not even examining in those cases he 'passes' whether the presence of a ref may still not satisfy WP:V by either being unreliable, irrelevant, or pure garbage). This is certainly not how most people 'enforce' WP:V at all. Even though in a wikilawyer's court it's probably all technically correct and within policy, it's ultimately a very inefficient and extremely dickish way to acheive the basic goal - to ensure everything is verifiable. People pick up on that, and react accordingly, especially when we are at where we are at - with Delta still having the same approach and outlook after years and years of feedback that it doesn't work. And that's before we even start to examine the strength of support behind some of his statements on the actual 'black & white' issue of 10c - the guideline might well say that typos completely invalidate an otherwise intact rationale and must be removed immediately, but the Resolution it supposedly comes from certainly doesn't. The Foundation never has, and never will, defended such an outlook. It's in this context that we should remember that Delta has recently said to people querying his enforcement on other issues he sees as black & white, that "NFCC is not allowed in lists", which is flat wrong. That comes from one of your own examples of Delta being polite in response to polite queries. MickMacNee (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

On "reminders"

I think this whole "formally reminded" business is insufficient given how the whole 'Delta issue' is currently perceived by many admins, to whom such reminders are aimed, as well as Delta himself. To illustrate, I offer the ANI report I filed yesterday, asking for action or assurance over personal attacks on me & others by Delta, and their deliberate restoration by him. You can read it to see what the facts of my complaint was. Unfortunately, it was immediately derailed by *somebody else* proposing a site ban, which had just one predictable effect, but which also completely derailed the ANI report too, with many thinking it was me who proposed it and simply jumping in to 'vote' before even reading the complaint. However, the various actual responses to the actual substance of the report were to my mind:

• deny it's an attack (it's an obvious attack)
• admit it was an attack, but not serious (Delta flatly denies it's an attack of any kind)
• blame the reporter for the attack (or suggest that's why no action needs to be taken)
• claim it was a heat of the moment thing (the restoration was 33+ hours later)
• claim it was a 1 off incident (I cited a long term pattern of behaviour, right up to last month)
• claim his NFCC work is to blame, not him (I included a non-NFCC example)
• suggest he's too valuable to the project to be held to basic standards
• repeat the attack!

What should really shock arbitrators is that the above list was not drawn from all the responders, but a sample of what actual admins said. Now, I'm a big boy, I don't cry wolf and I'm not particularly precious or sensitive, but his attacks are serious accusations requiring serious evidence, per the policy. There are editors out there who will believe this crap if it's just repeated often enough, with no action seen to be taken. As such, per WP:NPA, it's simply unnacceptable for admins to be treating reports in this manner. If I'm wrong, if there's an actual consensus it's categorically not an attack (and the committee are free to say so here), then fine, I'll drop the complaint. I don't think that's the case, and such a consensus will never arrive. But neither will what's needed in the opposite case, either from Delta or admins. ANI has become next to useless in that regard. As such, I would like to see at a minumum, the appointment of a single arbitrator or other suitable person, to whom such complaints against Delta can be brought for a fair, proper, and ultimately decisive, outcome, free of the kneejerk drama & irrelevance that is now the default when trying in the normal processes. Otherwise, I'm still minded to make the issue of Delta's personal behaviour & its handling the subject of a request if all that passes here is Motion 1, as it doesn't stop a repeat of the behaviour in non-NFCC areas, and doesn't fix what is by now is an institutional failure to deal with what are basic & obvious violations in the normal channels. Yes, his sanctions & past record are not a tool with which he is to be beaten, but they are expected to be taken into account without fear or favour, when he is shown to be in 2011 still deliberately & intentionally violating basic policies like NPA, and hiding behind his NFCC work to do so. I strongly suspect that there are a few admins whose trust by the community to remain unbiased and neutral when it comes to matters involving Delta, or at the very minumum hold their tongue if they can't at venues like ANI where such opinions are being sought, has been pretty much forgotten. MickMacNee (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

With the lack of another motion or modification re. this (or any other) issue yet appearing, and with Motion 1 the only one passing at this point, am I to take the lack of any comment here from the committee as a green light for filing the mentioned request? Given the comments of his vocal supporters and even some admins in response who still seek to blame shift & smear, then it's obvious that a simple topic ban and reminder is not going to change the failures in administration cited above. Delta doesn't appear to accept the basic facts of these motions, so I've no doubt he'll repeat his attacks against those who he will no doubt blame for him being topic banned. And when it comes to discussing whoever next inadvisedly takes the Delta approach to this work, or if he is ever allowed to do it again, then these failures will occur again. Failing to recognise this for what it is, has a serious chilling & paralysing effect on actual community discussion of NFCC enforcement - it can already be seen in the terminal state of non-closure in things like the banknote Rfc. This was raised in response to the conflict caused by his approach to enforcement of NFCC#3 in that area. I suspect it remains unclosed because the outcome doesn't support what Delta was doing, and in the current environment, closing it in a way that goes against Delta adds you to the list of people who can then be smeared and attacked as NFCC deniers or Delta harassers. The people doing this includes some of the admins being reminded here with this very motion. I find it really odd that in light of the comparisons with BLP made above, in which a major non-compliance issue is now almost completely resolved after the committee stopped other Delta-like approaches to enforcement in that field, in favour of encouraging proper community processes, that they don't want to do something similar here. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-arbitrator comments on scope of topic ban

I hope that the ban does not literally refer to the content of the edit summary, because that sort of restriction can be gamed by just giving a different edit summary or not giving any edit summary at all. If the limits say something like "apparent justification" or "only plausible justification", they will be less vulnerable to that sort of manipulation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is an appropriate start; I would still be worried of some users taking the "suggestion" of non-free problems as a warning. And for a hypothetical, if an image has a single rationale for one page but lacks a second one for another page, it's very hard for Delta to "suggest" there is a problem because that is a problem per policy. And that may interfer with the automated tasks he's suggesting. I realize that most of the regulars involved here would be able to make the right judgement call, but all it takes is one editor that is unaware of this history and sees a comment from Delta and decides its a violation, and we're back here again. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• For the sake of discussion, since this stuff still needs to get done, would Delta be allowed to, so long as he dosen't edit file pages in doing so, generate lists of possible issues for other people to look at and/or generate a set of instructions so that other people can fill in for this task (hopefully with less drama)? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC
  • My opinion is that any sort of activity like that qualifies as NFCC enforcement. The point of the topic ban is that Δ should do something else entirely, and leave non-free images completely to other people to deal with. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The issue with that is that Delta is tremendously knowledgeable with the NFCC, the issue is with his interactions and his error rate. If he's willing to show other people the ropes, it'll save the knowledge while cutting the drama, which I think would be a good thing. Mind you I'm not convinced that the harassment of Delta is going to stop because of this, there are a few editors who have dedicated their lives to running him off the project entirely. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • For the sake of argument, if people are trying to drive him off entirely, and Δ wants to avoid that, it would make much more sense for him to completely leave the NFCC area. I'm not sure, though, exactly what knowledge he has about NFCC that other people who work in the area don't have. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Delta handing off his NFCC issue detection bot code to someone else would probably be optimal. He's resisted that as he's afraid his bots will be misused by vandals (as I understand it). If he remains unwilling, someone else could code up replacement code. If that's not going to happen... I don't know. I don't object to the work being done, by someone. I don't object to automated repairs. I don't object to automated listing of stuff for review and possibly removal. I don't feel comfortable with Delta working in the topic field to do those things. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • "I don't object to the work being done, by someone". Short term memory loss?. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
            • I was objecting to your apparent focusing efforts on those who criticized Delta. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
              • You would have had a point if it had been an area that I hadn't edited before, instead of one I've wasted hour upon hour trying to fix. Should've looked more carefully. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • He generates that list off wiki on the toolserver. He's not interacting with files on-wiki when he generates that list so there is no problem.--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (e/c, possibly in right spot) I personally don't see any problem with Beta generating lists of targets. Via their toolserver access they are already doing this, regardless of local topic bans. The interaction and direct page editing has proven problematic. However, Beta can be quite good at dentifying targets, and potentially could be good at categorisig them for projects to address. It's in the individual discussions that problems arise. Franamax (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish to draw the committee's (and other editor) attention to two issues of concern to me as regards bot tasks. These revolve around my opposition expressed at the AN exemption request from 00:20, 7 July 2011 and subsequent discussion there with Beta. First, when discussing "task-1", Beta is using phrases such as "its not really machine readable, its using several guess algorithms to check and try to repair rationales" and "Ive still got a few kinks to work out". I had somehow formed the impression on reading Beta's proposal the first time that this was some kind of easy shit that could be knocked off quickly. A little discussion showed that perhaps it was not all so cut-and-dried. I think that AC, BAG, and contrary to the overwhelming endorsement of giving Beta a bot task to do in that thread, extreme caution is needed when proceeding. See my small-print comment there, if it's so easy, it already is in machine-readable format. Secondly, I'll just use this one example (it was hard enough to wade back to find it) but look at this edit and the subsequent discussion. Beta has consistently stated that you just have to read the edit summary, but there is no mention in that edsum that hidden comments are considered "clutter" and should be removed without notice. Yep, just one instance. I found a few more at the time and was going to discuss it with Beta, but 8 days ago I figured they already had too much on their plate (!) This edit ties into my concern that when Beta edits rapidly, they also tie all their various self- or community-approved tasks into one big bundle which you can either take or leave, fuck you very much. I'd love to see a change, and I'm absolutely fine with getting productive results - I'd just urge caution when setting parameters going forward. Franamax (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested alternate motion for an arbitrator to propose

• Delta is indefinitely (but not perpetually) injuncted to disengage from discussions about specific instances of NFC enforcement. To this end:
  1. He is to add a link to WP:NFCR (Non-free content review) to each enforcement edit he makes, directing queries to be made there.
  2. In the event that one (or more) of his enforcement edits are undone, he will avoid re-making that edit.
  3. In the event that one (or more) of his enforcement edits are undone, he may post a factual statement of that fact on WP:NFC.

Reason for offering this proposal

1. It allows Delta to continue with the good work.
2. It avoids the Delta being involved in edit wars over NFC.
3. It avoids Delta being involved in heated disputes (indeed in any disputes) over NFC.
4. It allows editors who dispute or support Delta's actions a fora to discuss them.
5. It does not make value judgements on a complex and protracted discussion, and the events leading up to it.

I would prefer this to be an agreement between the community and Delta than an injunction form Arbcom. I will not comment on the reasons that this has come to Arbcom in various guises, nor on the events of the past few days, except to say that they are, in the vernacular "not a pretty sight". I hope that the above or something similar can be used as a platform for moving forward positively.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

Note: a similar or identical suggestion was proposed on Delta's talk page by user:Worm That Turned. Rich Farmbrough, 00:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

So in other words let him edit in an area, but not actually communicate with people? oh yes, that will end well. If he can't communicate with editors in the area he's working in he shouldn't be working in that area. He does in fact become no better than a bot.--Crossmr (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as he is contributing to the encyclopaedia in a positive way, I see no problem. You can create a useful (rather than scathing) analogy with a bot, if you wanted to, the NFC expert part of the community would in effect be the botmaster, checking individual queries and feeding back any systemic problems to Delta. Delta would still be free to discuss policy, and indeed anything else. He would also be free to concentrate on the bulk of the enforcement work, rather than concerning himself with the small percentage which are challenged. Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

Except in this case Delta is in fact worse than a bot. He's shown a repeated unwillingness to investigate any images he's removing and simply parses "does the FUR rationale link here?" and removes the image if it doesn't. A bot could do that. What Delta adds is conflict when he's opposed where a bot would just plow on forward. So if you're going to take away his ability to create that conflict, well you might as well just be running a bot, but that's not really the answer. His expertise is not fully supported. He's certainly experienced in that he's done it a lot, but several editors don't seem to trust his judgment regarding how and when to remove images, which is what leads to some of the conflicts. His making those edits in the first place will still generate conflict. We need editors handling NFCC who are in it for more than just a race to the finish line.--Crossmr (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I did suggest this as one of a few remedies (I thought a more helpful edit summary and an early warning system might also help), and I still think it's a good idea. If we take the edit warring out of the equation and replace it with discussion, everything stops being about Delta and his interpretation. It's all about shifting the problem back to the content, not the editor. EDIT to add, I thought at the time I might have piped up too late, and conversation stilted very quickly on my suggestions, probably due to this page. Worm · (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested alternate motion for an arbitrator to propose (#2 from Δ)

The request at AN edited fairly well it was 21 support 9 opposed to the bot tasks. To that end I propose that I be granted permission to implement both tasks in a two step process, and I will step back from active enforcement of NFCC (I will not remove/tag files) and instead take a role as a organizer and informer. I will leave the actual enforcement up to others.

This follows the intent of the topic ban, while providing the best of both worlds to everyone else. ΔT 00:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting very confused about what proposals are where and are proposed by whom... Delta, a large part of the current confusion is because you made a proposal on one board that drew support while an opposite proposal on another board drew support. Can we perhaps all stop making proposals for a couple of days? Worst case scenario is that the motion number one passes and you get to go on a holiday for three or four days while we deal which whatever proposal is next in line? Is that not a reasonable suggestion? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Both bots would require exceptions to a topic ban because they fit squarely within NFCC enforcement - one to automatically disambiguate nonfree rationales that point to disambiguation pages (which is innocuous), and another to autotag articles believed noncompliant for 10c purposes (which is not innocuous without community agreement on how tagging and post-tagging process would work). Both are good ideas in the abstract but either could go afoul in the same way that other Beta + NFCC + bots gone wild matters have devolved, which is the reason why we're here. I initially supported the proposal as an exception to any sanctions, but changed my mind after observing Beta edit warring past 3RR on several disputed nonfree uses while his topic ban and the proposal were under consideration in different fora. If Beta can't restrain his edit warring when all eyes are on him and his participation is at stake, I think it's reasonable to fear trouble later if we give him an NFCC bot task and all go home. Further, the message from his talk page (reproduced above) that this whole process is a "farce" shows a lack of respect for whatever may be decided here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Will the arbs at least show me a little respect and comment on this proposal? ΔT 13:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've asked my colleagues above to comment on the scope of the topic ban to determine if the two tasks proposed at AN would fall afoul of the topic ban as written. If the topic ban passes without the required clarification, you can ask when you seek the required exemption in your restrictions to run the tasks. It may make sense (for greater clarity) to begin drafting the BRFA page, as there have been concerned raised above the scope of the proposed task. Once you've drafted the two BRFA pages, you should update the VPR thread to seek additional comments with a view to determining whether consensus exists for the tasks to proceed. –xeno 13:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@BC/Delta, In regards to stepping back from active enforcement of NFCC, I think it would be sufficient for you to be allowed to remove the images from pages, but not allowed to revert. This would allow you to work autonomously, except when someone reverts. I would like to see you and other NFCC enforcers constructively participate on improving NFCC enforcement practises to avoid biting newbies – they should be taught with a carrot rather than a stick in the first instance. John Vandenberg 02:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Do excuse me, but are you aware that he has bitten newbies and elites alike. What concerns me is that his approach to NFCC enforcement is dictator-like and in violation of Misplaced Pages:Civility: Instead of nominating the perceived-as-offending images for speedy-deletion or sending them to FFD, he removes them from the articles, thus denying those who disagree the benefit of a neutral administrative review while putting the disagreeing party under the strain of time. All he needs to do is to edit-war long enough until a bot deleted the images as orphaned non-free images. Fleet Command (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Removing unwarranted images from articles is pretty much standard practice, and in a lot of cases (for instance, when there is a valid usage of the image on another article) is clearly preferable to nominating for deletion. People have complained about the opposite approach, calling for an article-centered process, rather than just skimming through images. J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's more than ridiculous. As I said above, forget NFCC and replace it with BLP. Would you refuse to remove a BLP violation and instead send the article to AfD? Removing policy-incompliant articles is policy. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP is a perfect example of an enforcement regime that works, it can only embarass the NFCC enforcers whenever they try and use it as an example of what should and shouldn't be done in their chosen area. If only the tiny amount of people still arguing that their aggressive, divisive, unsupported, disproportionate, mechanical, inflexible, un-nuanced and frankly, failing, approach to the NFCC policy and its enforcement would simply see the reality of what works and what doesn't on this site, this community based site, then maybe within the year the NFCC backlog could be fixed and under control through a proper community effort using a community supported approach, just like it has been with unreferenced BLPs, which became possible only once the Reichstag climbing activists in that area wised up. You don't see anyone in that area claiming to be victims of harassment or stalking for what comes at them for simply enforcing policy, or decrying arbcom as the destroyers of the pedia for removing one of their poster boys from the arena when he fails to Get It for the hundredth time. MickMacNee (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP only works as an enforcement regime because BLP violations are seen as "wrong" whereas NFCC violations, whilst people still know they're wrong, are seen as unimportant. An analogy would be between drinking and driving (illegal, and very much frowned upon) versus speeding (just as illegal, but not seen as a heinous crime). But in the end, they're both policy violations and NFCC is one of the five pillars. If ArbCom chooses to only pay lip service to it, that's not their problem, it's a major problem for a "Free" encyclopedia. I won't bother answering your list of adjectives for obvious reasons. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. As always, you equate people opposing your enforcement methods, with opposing the policy, period. Nothing's going to change until you & the small band of others who think like that wise up to this crucial difference, just as the people concerned with BLP did. You can claim its a serious problem for the encyclopoedia all you want, you don't seem to realise that the only people who make up this encyclopoedia are the Community and the Foundation. And thus far, in contrast to BLP, neither care a damn about your extreme interpretations of the clear & present danger to the project of things like typos in rationales. Again, can either wise up to this, or you will continue to be ignored by both. MickMacNee (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"the only people who make up this encyclopoedia are the Community and the Foundation." Glad you mentioned that, because it's the Foundation that have mandated that we follow the policy on NFCC. I'm not entirely sure what "extreme enforcement methods" you're talking about, but I can only assume it's ones that you don't like. Per policy, the only method of enforcing NFCC where the use of the item is clearly non-compliant is to remove them. If you don't like that, please feel free to complain to the Foundation, because that's exactly what's going to continue to happen. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The foundation mandated we have to follow some policy on non-free content, but they did not mandate our specific policy. The other example they give of an acceptable non-free content policy, Polish Wikinews, does not require a written rationale for every non-free image use, but it is still acceptable from the point of view of the Foundation resolution. In principle, we could modify our policy so that certain types of uses (e.g. album cover on article about album) did not require a separate NFUR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do I need to complain to the Foundation? Just because you assume I don't like something, doesn't make it true. Just because you think the NFCC and the Resolution are one and the same, doesn't make it true. I support making our NFCC policy fit for purpose rather than widely ignored/misunderstood, and then proceeding with a system of proportionate removal in a manner that achieves the goals of the policy and thus the Foundation in a manner that has community support and is sustainable, just like the system set up for unreferenced BLPs. For 'extreme methods', read any and all actions where you do something just because you insist that's what NFCC supports, and then end up screaming that the sky is falling in when they don't work or meet mass resistance, or get people topic banned for doing them. You've said for years that the Foundation supports your methods, but they've never once actually said so. So yes, no doubt you will continue to try and do it your way, but we've seen how ineffective that really is. You seem utterly blind to the point I am trying to make with the BLP comparison, so I'll leave it there for now. We have years ahead to keep rehashing these points while the backlog remains. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But is that not just besides the point? We do have a policy, and we have images that fail said policy (sure, some are plain typo's, or got broken in some process, others plainly do not have a rationale written down on them, still all fail that policy). One solution is to fix all rationales, another one is to remove all images without a valid rationale from display, and a third one is to change policy. All three are very valid, correct ways of making our pages follow the policy, and we can discuss which method is the best way of achieving that goal, but I don't think that totally ignoring the problem is a solution, and frankly, I don't care what the Foundation there thinks, but the community at the moment has decided that WP:NFCC is the policy to follow. --Dirk Beetstra 13:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure on that last point, there is a distinct difference between what the small band of NFCC enforcers thinks about the NFCC, influenced by the fact a large proportion of them want no non-free content here at all, and what the wide community thinks on it. Things like the banknote Rfc show that. There is an cabal/ownership issue over all things NFCC here frankly, not least the policy wording itself, with people frequently using the falsity that the NFCC is the word of the Foundation, as a way of stifling any and all discussion of chages to its wording and enforcement that would actually make it workable. MickMacNee (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not helpful to misrepresent those enforcing NFCC as trying to remove all NFCC. They are trying to minimize the amount of NFCC to meet the goals of the free content mission, and to keep images in line with US Fair Use law by making sure they meet the Resolution. These people understand there is room for discussion in NFCC for when , say, images can be used throughout a list-style article, or the like, but they also are finding ways to say "hey, you can do the same job with 1 non-free instead of 5", which is specifically a goal the Foundation wants. They are not saying "you can't have any nonfree" but instead urge people if they really need to add non-free to get the same educational message across. And what happens is that you get people that are more visual thinkers than verbal who insist that NFC is the only way to show something and refuse to back down that there's apossibly that they're wrong. The issue works both ways, in other words. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Foundation has said that non-free content must be minimised, in a manner appropriate to building a high quality encyclopoedic resource. Whether in particular instances, 1 image does the job of 5 is a matter for local consensus, nothing more. And as far as that's concerned, as the banknotes Rfc shows, many NFCC enforcers are willfully and deliberately ignoring local consensus, in favour of continuing to act as if their arguments are the word of the Foundation, or in favour of pushing the 100% free agenda, by the back door. Shit, one of them openly declares 'consensus doesn't matter' in that very Rfc, after realising his tendentious method of argument by assertion and Resolution waving wasn't working. It's simply unnacceptable, and does not stem from simple good faith disagreement about how to interpret the NFCC, but something rather more ideological than that. MickMacNee (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, the view that Delta and others want to strip en.wiki of all non-frees is what fuels the issue, because that is not their goal. Their goal is to minimize and ensure that the simple checks required by the Foundation are in place. It's also improper for local consensus to override global, that being how non-frees are used in list articles. And again, when the page is warned that it is using too many images and no one responds for a month, and suddenly react when the images are actually removed, that is way too reactive. My point: NFC needs to be handled proactively by everyone that incorporates it and maintains it. When it is reactive - because people aren't proactive - you end up with edit wars and countless arguing. If people responded to the announcement the month before the image removals, there might have still been an RFC but not one based on presumptions that Delta and others wanted to fully strip the articles of images, thus making it difficult to make any progress forward. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It would help if Delta et al would not treat such notifications as mere 'paperwork', and worse, give off the impression it doesn't matter whether someone responds to the notifications or not as to what they end up doing a month later anyway, which is strip the article of all images. How many times has the concept of 'global consensus' been utterly abused, where a blanket ruling on discographies is magically transplanted to other completely different classes of articles, and this is then painted as the pre-existing consensus on the issue? He claimed using one or two banknote images was 'policy' before the Rfc, and he's still claiming it now. The notification/discussion phase is pointless where he's concerned, unless you simply want to be told for the 1000th time all about the Resolution. He has for example directly said to someone who attempts communication in one of Dirk's examples of polite communication being met with polite communication, that "Non free content is not allowed in lists", a bold one line response. Except it's not true, and not an unquestionable violation of NFCC which is exempt from 3RR. That's not being proactive, that's being disruptive. That's what Delta does, that's why he gets into edit wars, and that's why he's now topic banned. MickMacNee (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@Black Kite: First, BLP is none of our concerns here! Comparing NFCC with BLP is a pure straw man argument. I do not know why some people think NFCC enforcement is so critical that merits time-sensitive and heavy-handed reaction: It is important; very important; but speedy-deletion is speedy enough.

Second, unquestionable is only unquestionable as long as it remains unquestioned. Once someone objected, it is questionable.

Third, as for removing them from the article, the result is still the same: Template:Orfud and Template:di-fails NFCC both mark the images for deletion within seven days. So, instead of giving "7 days in hell" to fellow Wikipedians, it is better to give them a standard "speedy-deletion within seven days". If anyone here thinks that removing an image from an article helps improve NFCC compliance status of that image, he must read WP:NFCC and find out that he is wrong.

And I know why it is preposterous to you, Black Kite. You are an admin. Delta won't dare touching the images that you contest removing. (Or maybe he does and that is why he has such a long list of blocks!) But I have no such privileges.

Fleet Command (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

FleetCommand, images get only marked with Orfud/di-fails NFCC when they are not displayed on any page anymore. There are many images which have one fair-use-use, and one non-fair-use-use, if it is removed from the latter, it is not up for deletion. If it is fair-use in one article, but not in another, it is not up for speedy deletion, it will not be tagged for deletion, simply, fair-use is not about deletion of the file. --Dirk Beetstra 15:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh? And what makes you think Delta is unable to remove one image from multiple articles? And what makes you think it is impossible to be uncivil and impertinent when removing an image from only a single article? Finally, what makes you doubt that Delta has done all of these times and again? Fleet Command (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sure, if the image fails NFCC on all pages it is used on, then certainly it gets removed from all those pages .. and that may indeed orphan the image, which may result in deletion. If an image fails fair use while it is only on one page, it also gets orphaned. But that is besides the point, it is not about the deletion of the file, it is about failure of NFCC, and sometimes deletion may happen then. Files that have a valid fair-use are not going to be discussed on FFD or speedied, so that is not a suitable process for discussion. Furthermore, and that has been said over and over, removal of the file may not be the best solution (and often it is), but it certainly is not uncivil or impertinent. And I am not doubting, I've never said that that did not happen. --Dirk Beetstra 11:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right, FleetCommand, this is newbies and elite alike, both have problems with NFCC and both have problems with editors who enforce NFCC. But no, FleetCommand, you misunderstand the problem (and I have seen this argument before). Many of these images are not up for speedy deletion or FFD, this has nothing to do with the deletion of the files. Only a very minor fraction of the images on display get to a deletion process. Example, if an image of 'subject' is displayed on 'subject' then that is likely fair-use, and often images have rationales for that use on the subject-page. But then it is also used in 'list of similar subject'-pages. Often it there is not fair-use (though it can be), and often it does not have a rationale for that second use. So the image then can fail fair-use on one page, but does not on the other. It should then be removed from the one page where it fails fair-use, but still should be displayed on the other, and hence, is in use, and should not be deleted. Fair-use claims are about the use, not about the file. The image is not fair-use, the use is - and that also means that if it is fair-use on one page, that it does not automatically mean that it is fair-use for everything else on Misplaced Pages and that it can be displayed everywhere else. Hence the wording, that it needs a fair-use rationale for every use. --Dirk Beetstra 11:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a tactic used in our discussion classes. A moderator plays dumb and forgetful, pretending to have not fully understood or have forgotten what is recently discussed. Thus, he plays verbal thug-of-the-war with rest, playing with their nerves until someone gives in and uses a mild offending word. Result: Moderator bans him from further participation in the discussion. The rule to avoid being banned is easy: "Do not lose sight of the core of the discussion and always assume someone is doing this to you, though never accuse him of doing this."

Now, passing over assume part, the core of the discussion is that I neither care about your side discussions nor your statistics here. All I care is that there is no evidence to make us believe that Delta has the competence or collaborative spirit of being an NFCC compliance enforcer. In fact, there is evidence that he doesn't have. As for the rest, Village Pump is the correct place, not here. Fleet Command (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And note, when the image was only used on one page, and hence would then be orphaned - you still have 7 days to solve the problem of the rationale - images do not get deleted immediately then, while maybe there is no reason to edit war to keep them out, there is also no reason to edit war to keep them in, there is enough time to discuss either option. --Dirk Beetstra 11:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of disagreement about the way Beta's been doing this. Limiting Beta to 1RR only solves a small part of the problem, his hand in edit warring. It doesn't solve any of the other issues that have accompanied Beta's efforts for years: incivility, lack of communication, not working with others, error rate, buggy bots, and so on. Removing, or fixing, noncompliant image uses is standard practice to be sure, and it's too bad that Beta hasn't been able to do it in a smooth way. Giving him one more chance to run bots is a risky proposition, and there's nearly a 100% chance that this will end up on the administrative notice boards again and become another huge community time sink. If Beta's the only one who can run a bot, why not restrict that bot from making any NFCC edits? Just post a master list of all the presumptively noncompliant image uses and let the community go through them. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it needs to be an ongoing process - there is always the introduction of new problems where an image is used on an article where no rationale exists. A bot is the most logical answer to this to at least caution and tag the image into a cleanup category. If you just shuffle the list of offending images into a list and don't put any deadline on resolution (effectively ignoring our 7 day deletion policy from NFCC), and wait for the community to be involved, we'll still be waiting. Black Kite said it well - people absolutely see the need for BLP (as slander and libel are obvious problems) but with NFC, people go "well, isn't it fair use?" and ignore the issue and get upset when it is enforced, whether its Delta, Hammersoft, or whomever. There needs to be a matter of urgency - not dire, but more than enough to warn people to spend the few seconds they have on images they uploaded or know about to get them in place, and get more of the community involved to deal with images that slip through those cracks. When the community turns its back on the issue (likely from the necessary drive in 2007 by BCB - not because of BCB but because of attitudes like "I don't think this is necessary" - I can't see the community coming to help here again.

To that end, it would be helpful for ArbCom to at least say something binding to the community that NFC policy is to be maintained in light of the Foundation's Resolution, to deal with images that fail the mechanical parts of NFCC (eg a rationale for each article used) in a quick and efficient, nondisruptive manner. Its one thing for those that partol NFC to try to point to the Foundation Resolution to be told that that doesn't matter, and another to point to ArbCom as a "higher" authority for many WP Editors. Yes, it seems silly, but this is the larger problem with how NFC is viewed. If ArbCom is going to pass motions to block Delta from performing any NFCC, they need to at least state that NFCC is of high importance for any editor - just like with BLP - if only to make it clear to the community that ignoring or pish-poshing NFCC is not acceptable behavior. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, Arbcom, please don't enable a battleground mentality or meddle in content. If this were a full case then of course one statement of principle all agree on is that the Foundation has enacted a requirement for nonfree use rules and use statements, in support of Misplaced Pages's mission to be a high quality source of free content, and that NFCC and NFC are the rules the community adopted in response. Nobody here is proposing disregarding the Foundation's resolution or common sense. What we're talking about is one editor's excesses in the name of that policy, or some would say, that editor's unlikelihood of getting along with others in the future. You could point the finger in either direction for inaction, that doesn't excuse a flawed approach. When Beta doesn't act up for a year, then acts up again, why does it suddenly turn into a case of "the community wasn't dealing with the problem so he has to do something extreme and provocative"? I'm not sure I speak for everyone here but in case it isn't obvious, I don't particularly care whether an image is removed or not pending outcome, only that there's an orderly process and adequate recordkeeping. We also need to distinguish between new image additions and uploads, and those that have been in the encyclopedia for years. An incorrect image addition can and should be reverted immediately, by human or bot, with a friendly, informative invitation to learn the rules. If we did that consistently there would be no NFCC 10(c) violations except for the odd technical case. The problem here is mopping up years of old nonconformities, where the editor who added or uploaded the image is long gone and the article is left to the community to maintain. We're not talking about too many images anymore, a few tens of thousands? In the time we've spent dealing with Beta we could have dealt with a good many of them. With the templates each takes less than a minute to assess, fix the rationale or declare it unfixable. That's several 24 hour editor-days of work, probably no more than has been wasted in this behavioral process. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

We also need to distinguish between new image additions and uploads, and those that have been in the encyclopedia for years. Absolutely wrong. The bot that Delta ran in 2007 and 2008 got every image up to March 23, 2008 in #10c compliance. That required going through 100,000s of images. Since then, pages have been moved or images used without rationale on other pages, and because BCB was taken down from misuse and other problems, that backlog is now in the 10,000s of images - not as bad, but technically as per the Resolution "all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." At this point in time, no file - new or old - gets special treatment. But again, those enforcing NFCC are not demanding to see these images removed, only that people get their eyes on thme and fix them. You say that the community could do this pretty quickly - but again, I point to several pages worth of discussion from the last few months alone where the community thinks that those trying to maintain NFCC requirements should be fixing these "trivial" errors. That attitude - whether hatred against Delta or dislike of NFCC and a "not my problem" issue, is fuel for why we are here now, and that unless ArbCom points to the community that they need to be involved in proper NFCC maintenance, it will be near impossible to get them to be involved. Again, I want to be clear: Delta is at fault for some of his actions, and something there must be done, but addressing only Delta and not recognizing the other problems of community disinterest in NFCC is simply going to lead to the same problems in the future. --MASEM (t) 12:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And that's not even the whole of it. What about the fact that there are 749 articles with 7 or more non-free files?, or even the number of non-free files that are missing a rationale at all? Black Kite (t) (c) 12:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's be careful: I am talking about the machine-readable enforcement of NFCC. Broken or missing rationales, yes, but multiple images -- that's a subjective measure of #3a, and while there are specific cases where the community agreed to cut down images (like on discographies), it is not something that can be handled mechanically and with blatant edit warring. NFCC does require us to review such pages but as we've always said, there may valid reasons that an article can support that many images. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's really my point - few editors want to get into the subjective area (and given the amount of abuse you get that's not surprising) but fixing non-free images that don't have rationales at all is something that is unlikely to involve any friction and can be done by anyone. Perhaps we ought to have an NFCC drive in the same way as the BLP project did. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Also I do want to add: it would be completely oblivious to say why we are here - not just the events of the last few months but since 2008 - can't be blamed on Delta. His actions in 2008 towards the former ArbCom led to the community restrictions, led to the negative attitude of others towards him, and so on. That's created the persistent negative attitude that we have in regards to the NFCC. That part is irreparable. If ArbCom is stepping in to try to resolve matters, in part by removing Delta from the equation, then they could also attempt to reset the community's opinion of NFCC simply by stating that it is a task everyone must be wary of, just like BLP is. It won't clear the NFCC stigma, but it would go a long way to getting more people involved in any community plan to resolve the backlog and continue forward with new files. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No one on the committee is suggesting that working to ensure compliance with the non-free content criteria is not valuable, useful, important work that supports our mission. However, rapid, bot-like edit warring (especially in cases where subjective interpretation comes into play), is not an appropriate way to accomplish this goal. Every editor - no matter what area they happen to focus on - must edit with regard to the collaborative nature of the project. There are five pillars - we should not disregard one to support another. –xeno 13:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why "there are 749 articles with 7 or more non-free files?" is a problem? I understand the "minimal use" thing, but why is "X or more non-free files used on one article" in itself a problem? If each use is justifiable, why is the raw number of non-free files being used a problem?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a problem, but I can say from experience that a high number of non-free images on a page is often indicative of a problem; for instance, galleries of non-free logos, over-illustrated lists, articles with too many music samples. It's possible, of course, that a single article genuinely could support a large number of non-free images. Articles on visual arts spring to mind. J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That I understand, it's just that maintenance lists like this get thrown around in the manner that Black Kite used it above. He makes it sound like some sort of "hit list" to go after, you know?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's understanding that if someone is patrolling NFCC#3a there are two machine-assisted discoveries they can find: pages with large numbers of images, and images used on multiple pages. Identifying them in a mechanical fashion is one thing and should be done - but reviewing and determined if all those uses are appropriate is something that has to be determine by consensus if appropriate. In some very select cases, as JM notes, consensus has already stated that we don't need images in lists like discographies and episode list, so there's clear consensus to remove them here, but others do need a better handling - not the level of what Delta was doing. But at the same time, when such is suggested and there's no resistance until the actual removal is done a month later (as in the case of several currency articles), one has to question the level of committment the rest of the community takes in NFCC, instead of just a pesky little bookkeeping thing. People like Delta and Hammersoft are not trying to use NFC to power play, they are trying to support the Foundation's free content mission, and reducing NFC overuse is always one way to do that. What is overuse just needs to be determined before edit wars go crazy over them. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's understood and agreed that some articles can't really stand without a large number of non-free images (for example, History of painting). However, along with those the list does flag up articles that have problems. I'm willing to bet that 80% of those 750 articles have one or more images that don't need to be there. But in the end the list is a tool, not a hit list. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Separate or alternate motions

From this edit (making one of the motions a first choice) and this edit (saying that the motions are separate), it seems there is some confusion among arbitrators about whether these are separate or alternate motions. I know this is somewhat of a perennial problem, but it would be good to sort that out before the confusion spreads. Carcharoth (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That's part of the reason I explicitly made the motions separate. If they were alternates, we can just quit now and topic ban him, because that's clearly got superior support, and we all knew that prior to the motions ever being posted. Iff they're separate does proposing to undo the suspension of the site ban make any sense. Jclemens (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In situations like this, I thought "first choice" simply means that, if that first choice passes, that person's vote for the other motion should not be counted. That doesn't prevent both motions from passing anyway, if different people support them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, which suggests Kirill's vote for a site ban should not be counted; though that may well be moot given the recent voting. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Enough already

Let's just kick this up to a full arbcom case already. It's going to end up that way eventually so we might as well just save some time and have it out all at once one way or the other. Jtrainor (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

For heaven's sake no. Attempts to deal with this issue have been derailed often enough and consumed far too much of the community's energies. The case has been heard, evidence presented, a ruling reached. The only question now is enforcement of the ruling. The last thing we need is yet another redo. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I realize this is pretty much SOP, but at this point it's all done but the close. The arbs have weighed in, and the outcome is not that ambiguous. You're unlikely to get a different result taking this as a full arbcom case right now.--Crossmr (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been over 2 days since David Fuchs's vote gave motion 1 the majority needed to pass. Is there a reason for the delay in closing it? TotientDragooned (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Motion 2 requires at least one more vote before we can mark it as "failed", I believe. That's what I read in my email this morning anyway. NW (Talk) 11:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't Motion 1 be closed and acted on regardless of what happens with Motion 2? After all, if something strange was to happen and Motion 2 was suddenly to carry, a site ban would override the previous topic ban. (Another way to look at it is that a site ban includes the topic ban.) It doesn't seem right to allow the lack of an additional vote on #2 to hold up #1, when a majority of arbs have voted for #1. It creates something like a pocket veto, or a "hold" in the U.S. Senate, where the non-voting arbs are, in effect, negating the will of the majority by not allowing #2 to be closed. I'm not saying that's what's happening, but that is the practical result. (If there is a deadlock, and not simply a situation where we are waiting for an arb to make up his or her mind, I suppose it could be broken if Roger Davies were to withdraw Motion #2, leaving #1 as the only item on the table?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Delta has been making enforcement edits even today, well after the motion has acheived a majority, so a hurry up of clerks to do the formalities is more than in order and not in the least bit 'grave dancing'. What's the alternative? A block of Delta to prevent further disruption until the formalties can be done? I of course fully expect to be blamed and attacked as one of the hate squad for merely pointing out Delta's astonishing show of contempt here, but fuck it, I'm a big boy, I can take it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The one thing that's bugged me about this whole issue for a long time now is the zeal with which a group of editors seem to work together to shout down any and all criticism. I don't think of it as a centrally coordinated "cabal" or anything like that (as far as I'm aware, they don't have a private forum or anything. It's possible that they all have each other's email and/or IM addresses of course, and they could be communicating that way, but... well, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that in and of itself), but there does appear to be one group of people who vehemently feel that non-free images shouldn't be allowed on Misplaced Pages at all and they are going to do whatever they can get away with in order to reduce or eliminate the use of non-free content from Misplaced Pages. I've heard protestations that my perception is prejudiced, basically, but... I mean, I see what I see. I am prejudiced in feeling that there is no need to make Misplaced Pages completely free (which is a conversation that User:Hammersoft and I had a discussion about a while back), so maybe "they're" right and myself and others are prejudiced. However, there's been nothing to convince me (and apparently I'm not alone) that my opinion is wrong, and the Foundation's stance appears to be similar to my own (that free is preferred, but not required). So... here we are. That delta can't work with people with similar views to my own (he completely disregards my opinion on the issue, essentially) is why this motion is required, I think. My impression is that there are several members of "the cadre" who are sacred of this motion because they worry that it represents... a willingness for arbitrators to come after them for NFCC enforcement? That and it being a rejection of their views. I think that those two subjects are worth discussing further.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

They do need discussing further, yes. One could even narrow it down to 'are we primarily free, or primarily an encyclopaedia?' if you needed it massively simplified. However, I don't think here is the place to do that - an RFC (after a suitable break for everyone to calm down) would be better. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree that this is a less than optimal location for the 'are we primarily free, or primarily an encyclopaedia?' sort of discussion to take place. However... we're here, and there certainly seems to be interest in the subject, so... <shrug> I brought it up.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ohms, Think we are actually closer together than you think with regards to our stance on NFC. If someone proposed complete removal of all NFC am heavily against that, however I dont think liberal usage acceptable either. As per Foundation resolution I think we need to use as little as possible, however that is going to be more than zero, but less than 200 per page. As for the list of pages with 7 or more NFC files that is not necessarily an issue, however few articles can really justify that number and most of those can loose multiple files as not all of them are needed. ΔT 20:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with that whole "are we free, are we an encyclopedia" dichotomy for a number of reasons, but what I would certainly like to say is that it's unfair to characterise the "cabal" (I assume I'm a part of it- I don't mind saying that I actively work in non-free content enforcement, though it's hardly the work of which I'm most proud) as anti-NFC as such. I've uploaded non-free content for my own articles and other articles, and defended non-free content removed from articles and/or targetted for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto; I've uploaded non-free images myself. I don't see why it has to be a dichotomy though - surely it's part of a whole. Ah well, it's late here ... Black Kite (t) (c) 22:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that we're all closer then everyone thinks, but at this point there's been so much hyperbole and politicking going on that it's (really) hard to tell. I'll say this much, I've avoided doing anything with images for a log time now, just to avoid... well, there's four of ya right here. I don't really have anything against y'all personally, it's just that... well, I don't completely share you're views (see: this revision of Hammersoft's talk page ) and (more importantly) I just don't care enough about images that I'd like to use in articles to get into an argument about them, with anyone. It's too much work to deal with files any more, too much angst, so I simply avoid them altogether, as much as that's possible. That sucks, but... whatever. Like I said, I don't really care enough about it to get really involved. It's certainly true that there's not a firm dichotomy between "free vs. encyclopedia", but there's certainly a continuum to that question. Right or wrong, the perception is that the "cadre" that you guys belong to present the appearance of trying to push the line as far toward "free" as possible, through both words and deeds. I kinda admire that actually, even if I don't completely agree with it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to know I'm part of the evil anti-NFCC group called "The Cadre". Hmm, now to come up with a super-secret eHandshake. <facepalm>. Wait! That's it! It's not a handshake! It's a <facepalm>! --Hammersoft (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't you mean pro-NFCC? You know, in favor of the criteria, against the content. Unless there's been a factional revolt of some kind. Who's in charge at Cabal Command? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the pro image hooligans all get together, drink rum, and dress up as copyright pirates. We're a lot more fun than you law and order types. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And now you've got us cadre members so confused that we're not sure which cadre we're supposed to be in. Personally I agree with the rum drinking part though. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Where.... Has all the Rum.... Gone?

You lots? Bah.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)