Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Damiens.rfc block review

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can we get a block review for user:Damiens.rf please? Jehochman appears to have pulled the classic controversial block and run maneuver. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. CoM, you are up at RFC for assumptions of bad faith on a massive scale. And yet here you are telling us that Jehochman has "pulled the classic block and run maneuver". Has it not occurred to you that blocking someone and then going offline so as not to be around to discuss the block only works with blocks of between 12-24 hours duration? This is an indef block. Even if this were not the case, Jehochman has every right to block someone and then go get some sleep, or food, or whatever. This does not need to be hashed out right now.
That said, I'll leave the actual block review to someone else. Moreschi (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has occured to me that we have many abusive admins who make inappropriate blocks and then disappear. And as I recall your beef with me started when I pointed out to you that your personal attacks on an editor you then blocked were wholly inappropriate. Your comments don't have anything to do with the requested block review and your argument that admins should block and then go do other things because there's no hurry to address the concerns of the blocked editor are ridiculous and outrageous. If an admin isn't going to be around to answer concerns then they shouldn't be making the block in the first place. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At present, I see substantial discussion of the block between Jehochman and Damiens.rf at User talk:Damiens.rf. It also appears they've been in contact via email, and Jehochman has offered to review the block himself within 24 hours with a eye toward setting a definite length. I'm having trouble seeing how that adds up to "block and run". MastCell Talk 19:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COM, your claims that am somehow a party to this indef block are preposterous. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Jehochman stuck around for two hours after the block, and responded several times on the user's talk page.   Will Beback  talk  19:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, link to the "running" part, please? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like he was around for a short time after Damiens came online and found himself blocked. He hasn't been around since to answer concerns on his talk page or Damien's page. He also made an unsupported allegation of racism. And it appears he refused to post his block for review when a request by the block editor to do so was made. I would rather not have gotten involved because I'm well aware that I'm a target for criticism by editors and admins whose abusive behavior I've noted previously. That comes with the territory.
Damiens requested review of the block at 16:10 and Jehochman took off shortly afterwards. If an editor is contesting a block then the blocking admin should certainly oblige a review request. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stepped out for a tennis lesson and a quick bite. Nobody is expected to be online 24/7. I've posted a selection of diffs at User talk:Damiens.rf, at User:Frank's request. ChildofMidnight, instead of posting this premature thread, why don't you post something at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight#Response. An uninvolved admin is needed to review the unblock request at User talk:Damiens.rf. Please don't unblock without a consensus to do so. Jehochman Brrr 20:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over Damiens.rf's recent contribs, and Jehochman's block, it seems there is a history of lots of tendentious sort of stuff, including wikilawyering, gameing the system and other general disruption. The block seems fine until Damiens.rf agrees to avoid conflict and edit only in non-controversial areas... --Jayron32 19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any diffs Jayron? I looked through the edit history just now and I see that Damiens initiated discussion at the Village Pump on the the issue of extensive quotes regarding medal of honor winners. He's also been responsive to communications from other editors and quite open about trying to clean up an area of articles that he thinks are overly adulatory and unencyclopedic, as well as tagging improperly licensed photos for deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at his contribs and promptly found this which points at Wikipedia:Files for deletion#File:SamGiancana.jpg. I don't see this as helpful and suspect it supports the 'disruptive editor' allegation. Jack Merridew 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checked that case: Damiens was right about it. The website the image was taken from does not document the provenance and status of its images, and this one most likely doesn't belong to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - this image looks like a copyright violation. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't there a long discussion about Damiens' behavior here on ANI a little while ago, which determined that while he rubs people the wrong way, he's not so disruptive that he should be blocked for it? What changed?--Atlan (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link? He was blocked, and came back, and resumed exactly the sort of behavior that got him blocked. Jehochman Brrr 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is another discussion where similar issues where raised 1 and Damiens response was classic. --Jmundo (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (copied here from Jehochman's talk). Sorry for being lengthy. I'm tending towards overturning this block. The main reason is that at least two of the rationales Jehochman cited for the block are quite problematic, in my view: first, the charge of "racism" is a very hefty one and, without evidence, indeed constitutes a severe personal attack. It should never have been made without citing clear evidence right from the start. Personally, I believe the charge is quite absurdly mistaken. Secondly, I object in the strongest possible terms against Jehochman's use of the charge of "vandalism" to describe D's attempt at removing those quotes. It is an unfortunate myth, hard to eradicate but a myth nevertheless, that "removal of cited information" ipso facto constitutes vandalism. It is bad enough that many of our inexperienced users keep making such claims in all sorts of situations; seeing a senior administrator of J's standing echo that myth [1] is, with all due respect, very disappointing. There can be any number of valid editorial reasons for removing correctly cited information, and in this case D. evidently felt he had such reasons – and he did explain them properly and followed reasonable dispute resolution methods when challenged about them. This was a legitimate content dispute, nothing else. As for the charge of "hounding" through repeated IfD nominations, this problem has been discussed repeatedly and the result is always the same: it is a fact that some users – including good-faith highly productive users, unfortunately – tend to upload very large numbers of borderline or problematic non-free images, and often succeed in establishing local consensus over a limited topic area leaving them and their immediate fellow editors with the (mistaken) assumption that such liberal usage is legitimate. When an image patroller chances across that topic area, he will then have no choice but to tackle the whole bunch. It is easy to agree that this will cause stress and possibly some aggravation to the parties involved, but it is unavoidable. It would simply not be efficient to tackle only a few and let the remaining 95% of problematic images stand untouched, in the hope that some other patroller will come across them some other time. The demand that image patrollers should divide their attention in some "random" fashion across many uploaders and topic areas in order to save individuals the stress of having large batches of their work scrutinised at once is simply not a reasonable demand to make. This has repeatedly been discussed with respect to D.'s work (last time in mid-December, if I remember correctly), and it always boils down to the recognition that we have the contributions log for a good reason, and using them to clean up problematic editing patterns is not "hounding".

As for the civility concerns, yes, it may be that D. can sometimes sound abrasive, but the treatment he is getting here in cases like this is hardly going to improve his mood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd quite like to see the allegation of racism evidenced or redacted very quickly and the response to Fut perfs reasonable questions on the blocking admins talk page was just pathetic. I'm far from persuaded of the merits of this block as it stands and would like to see proper documentation put up here by the blocking admin to justify their actions. Spartaz Humbug! 20:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damiens should not be unbloqued until he is willing to address the issues that has been raised several times by the community and he seems to ignore it by playing Wikilawyering. I have left the following questions on his talk page: Do you plan to address issues raised here? Do you think this response is sort of personal 1? Do you plan to continue using policy to target Marines work and Puerto Rican related articles and editors if you get unbloqued? Do you plan to move to Commons and continue your deletions nominations of Puerto Rican related topics like you did when you where blocked here? --Jmundo (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking briefly at Damiens.rf's recent contributions and IfD's, it did look like they were being distinctly WP:POINTy about Puerto Rican marines. Just a first impression. Perhaps that is what Jehochman meant by "racism". Mathsci (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Damiens goes by topic areas. He always does. He doesn't care any more or less about Puerto Ricans than he cares about Australians or Greeks or whatever (other topic areas he used to work on, as he said somewhere). He finds what he considers a problematic pattern of editing, sometimes connected to a single editor or small group of editors working on a common topic, and then tries to do what he considers necessary cleanup work until that area is fixed. Calling that a sign of "racism" is a very far stretch of ABF indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y'all ought to read what I said, instead of making snap judgments on hearsay: "Avoid further actions that appear to be racist, or that bait editors of a particular race. (Questionable image deletion nominations of famous Puertorriquenos [2][3][4])" The problem is appearances, and baiting, and frankly, grave dancing. Marine 69-71 appears to have quit due to the hounding of Damiens.rf. A week later Damiens comes off a block and nominates a slew of Marine's Puerto Rican subject matter uploads for deletion. We have no idea what the motivation is, but this action[5] was needless, uncivil, a form of baiting, and obviously not going to elicit any sort of collegial response. Jehochman Brrr 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • FPAS, I have great respect for you as an editor and admin, but you are way too involved in the image issue to be doing an unblock here. That'd be like me unblocking and indef'd Scouting user. — Rlevse • Talk •
      • Marine 69-71 quit because he didn't like Damiens.rf cleaning up his problematic image uploads. Well, yes, Damiens also made some less than friendly moves during that process, but that doesn't change the fact that Marine's upload log was indeed badly in need of cleanup, and the large majority of nominations have in the meantime led to valid deletions. Should the necessary cleanup work be stopped now, just because Marine has left? It's still as necessary as it was before. The three nominations you cited are not in the least bit problematic; I consider them all as prima facie valid and very likely to lead to valid deletions like most of the others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Over-aggressive application of the rules can be uncivil. It would be far better for somebody without any personal conflict to explain the issues and work with Marine 69-71 to fix any technical rules violations, step by step, rather than ruining all Marine 69-71's hard work by doing a rapid sequence of deletions, thus creating so many issues at once that Marine 69-71 cannot respond, and cannot repair, things before decisions are made. It takes much longer to respond to a deletion nomination than to make one. That process was nuts, uncivil, and bad for Wikipedia. It's trying to get one's way in a dispute by overwhelming the other side. Jehochman Brrr 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • FPAS, TTM left, at least temporarily because of the way Damiens treated him. And Damiens being right on most of the IFDs is NO EXCUSE for his behavior. You should know that. His repeated refusal to address valid community concerns simply not acceptable. What about these issues:

Personal attacks because he lost an IFD, Fact tag bombing on a BLP, Cuba bashing, POV, POV, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angel_Moya_Acosta&diff=prev&oldid=323297561], Nominates articles even though he knew it wasn’t policy, Adds weasel wording while purportedly removing weasel wording, and there's the deletion he overturned because he didn't like the decision after it was validly closed by an admin, but I'll have to go dig more to find it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Don't know much about the editor who has been blocked, but all of the images you cite can reasonably seen as potentially or actually violating copyright. It does look like FTOW was right - he goes through image categories to find potential image violations. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to discuss D's political stance here (I see signs of that for the first time now, and it has apparently nothing to do with the rest of the issue). Most of the diffs you quote are entirely unproblematic. Rlevse, you seem to be affected by your own biases here a lot more than I could ever be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s where he undid a legit close and insulted the admin who closed: [6], [7], [8], [9] — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching Damiens.rf for the past year, mostly due to nominations and interration at files-for-deletion. Yes he can be hostile, relentless, and sometimes fights stupidly to get his position across; and the block on the 31st was justified. I have certainly been watching as much as Jehochman, but have different conclusions. This Puerto-Rico image run is, as Fut Perf states, how he (an others in fact) work. Once it was Australian politicians, now the topic has changed. Since coming back from the block (I've gone through all the edits) he has been fairly good and, I think, a net positive to the site. I see an editor who is going through a work list, nominating images that are problematic, and editing the same articles. There are some things I would like changed but I cannot see the justification to say enough—what ever happened to mature, thick-skinned, mentoring or discussion here before a fly-in indef block ? I can certainly understand the frustration that lead to the block, but think it a bridge to far - Peripitus (Talk) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor relentlessly attacked the work of another contributor, and drove them off. What's good about that? Wikipedia does not exist so that cops can hold contests to see who can write more tickets. The goal is to add content, not to destroy the work of others. If something is not quite right, it should be fixed. If you want to nominate things for deletion, go ahead, but don't hit so many files by a single editor with challenges all at once that they have no possible way of responding. That's just uncool in the extreme. Jehochman Brrr 22:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am stating that his work since returning from the 1wk block appears ok. Not that his actions in the past that lead to the 1wk block were. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not go into those "building" vs "destroying" lyrics. When it's bad content, such as bad non-free image use, then removing content is in fact the goal here. It's not "cops writing tickets", it's "improving the encyclopedia". If there's a lot of bad content, then a lot of content needs to be removed. It's hard, but there's no way around it. And I don't see how it would be "nicer" to the editors concerned if it was done more slowly – it just draws out the pain more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have stumbled into a wikiphilosophical dispute about how image deletions should be handled. Perhaps the larger issue needs to be discussed. There are problems with (1) mass nominations related to a single uploading editor; how can the editor respond to so many nominations at once, and (2) working by topic area can really upset some people (e.g. Puertorriquenos) by creating the appearance of racism/nationalism. Working alphabetically might be a much better way to go as this would avoid inflamming conflicts with individual editors or groups of editors. Also, prior to nominating, wouldn't it be better to contact the editor and tell them what's wrong with the image and see if the problem could be fixed? Then if not fixed within a reasonable time, nominate for deletion. These are the issues I was hoping to clarify with Damiens.rf. If he'd agree to work in a less inflammatory, more friendly manner, I was willing to unblock. Instead this has turned into just another useless battle. Perhaps cooler heads can prevail. I see an editor working at great speed with an utter lack of concern for other editors. Jehochman Brrr 22:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that upsetting a particular group is not really a good enough reason for a block if the IFDs are over legitimate concerns about whether they are free content. For myself, I once pissed off an immense amount of people by deleting fair use Time covers that were being used inappropriately. This did not mean that I had anything against Time, or people who read Time magazine! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not convinced this block is appropriate. User:Jehochman has kindly provided diffs to support the list of five reasons for the block (at User talk:Damiens.rf) and I have reviewed each of them and I don't find any of them compelling. These are largely content disputes, and I think the reality here is similar to just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean people really aren't out to get me. I want to stress strongly that I am not endorsing the behavior of User:Damiens.rf because I simply don't have the time necessary to evaluate the user and his contributions. There may well be cause for concern, and there may well be reasons for Damiens.rf to behave differently, because even if my interpretation is correct, content disputes must still be resolved properly. What I'm saying very specifically is that the diffs don't support an indefinite block, and the request for Damiens.rf to do something/anything to cause the block to be reduced is not in keeping with any policy I know of. I believe that User:Jehochman is acting in good faith, but I disagree that the diffs provided are sufficient for an indef block. I'm willing to be convinced, but so far I don't see that an indef is the right course of action. This is an edit-conflicted message and in the meantime I see additional entries by the blocking admin which I have sympathy for, so I want to stress that I'm not saying the block is necessarily bad...I'm just not convinced it's correct. I do agree this may be a dispute about how deletions should be handled, but that's a policy and/or content dispute that probably shouldn't result in an indef block. Again - I'm not endorsing Damiens.rf's action; I'm not familiar enough to do say anything one way or the other.  Frank  |  talk  22:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if my opinion here is warranted or wanted but I am going to give it anyway. I personally don't have a "problem" with Damiens deleting problematic articles or making edits that he feels are inappropriate. My problem was that the volume of images he was submitting were such that it was impossible to review them in a timely manner, they appeared to be targetting a specific user and culture and after being asked to stop deleting certain things he not only refused but in no uncertain terms made it clear that he would do as he wanted and there was nothing anyone could do or say that would make him stop. So for those reasons I support an extended block and think it entirely appropriate given that he was just returning from a one week block he received for the same reasons. Although I would be inclined to say indefinate might be a bit extreme. With that said I think that some good can still come out of this from the edits he made. In my opinion some of the images he identified ARE problematic and in the process of making some of the article edits he brought to light (at least to me anyway) other issues that could/should/will be addressed. For example in regards to the List of Puerto rican Medal of Honor recipients were he was deleting the citations as nonencyclopedic. I believe that the citations are valid, but perhaps the complete versions of the very large citations should not be on lists (just the article for the recipient) and just have an abbreviated version of the action for the list. Also in regards to this list in particular I have a problem with its length, it is not long enough in my opinion to warrant being its own list and the members are already on the Hispanic recipients list. In this case I intend to merge the two articles and add a sections explaining the role that puerto ricans served. Also, in regards to the images, and I am by no means an image expert. Perhaps someone could review the comments used by Marine 69-71 for the images. To me the inconcise wording used in the comment is such that it would be confusing to the average user and we probably should review if that particular one (and perhaps others as well) are too vague and troublesome to be useful.--Kumioko (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible unblock conditions

[edit]
  • Indefinite does not mean infinite Damiens.rf's actions are problematic. His people skills suck, and that's putting it mildly. I don't think laying out a set of behavioral guidelines for him to agree to abide by is a bad thing. Should he agree to moderate or change the way he interacts with other users, the block will be lifted. AniMate 23:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What AniMate said. He can be unblocked as soon as he accepts that he needs to change and shows how he will. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "he needs to change" claim would be perfectly reasonable if anyone had pointed out the things that he needs to moderate or change; I am not seeing that (yet). I do see differences of opinion regarding nominations for image deletion, but that is not the same thing. The charges of racism are not supported. The notion that negative past interactions precludes (or should preclude) nomination of images for deletion is also not supported. If a file is against policy, that's what we do.  Frank  |  talk  00:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, I gave diffs showing he rv'd a closed review, insulted admins, and there are diffs about Tony the Marine quitting and other rudeness. You call that things he shouldn't change? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's late and I do recall fleetingly seeing that you had done so, but I can't find that now. Would you be kind enough to point me at that link or links? As for Tony, I am really not sure what to say. I know even less of Tony's work than of Damiens.rf's, and I am dismayed if I see an editor leave because of the actions of another. I did see where Tony is far more conciliatory and collegial than Damiens.rf, and that has to count for something. I hope nobody is construing my discussion here to mean I think Damiens.rf should be left alone to run amok with no regard for policy. On the other hand, after coming off a 1-week block and going back to what most seem to agree is his area of expertise and keeping to the task at hand, I wonder if an indef block a day or so later is really in the spirit of AGF.  Frank  |  talk  03:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (re to JzG/AniMate, ec with Frank): That may be reasonable, but it is hardly possible as long as the catalogue of demands posed to him contains items filled with such absurdly unfair assumptions of bad faith as the list presented to him by the blocking admin in the beginning. What is he supposed to say? "Yes, I will stop vandalising; yes, I will stop being racist; yes, I will stop beating my wife"? Make up your minds first about what in fairness you actually want him to do. Hint: asking him to stop cleaning images by topic area is not going to be part of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree completely with AniMate. Let's work out the terms of an unblock. Massive image deletions initiated against individual editors' work is generally a bad idea, and for Damiens.rf, it's extremely problematic due to the non-stellar people skills. How about limiting him to working on articles alphabetically, or randomly, instead of by topic, and that he's not to do multiple nominations against any particular editor. If he finds an editor who seems to be causing serious problems with images, he can report the situation to any administrator for follow up. In addition, before nominating images for deletion he will check whether the image might be source-able or if it looks like a fair use rationale could be provided. As for quotation removal, I think Damiens.rf should avoid the Medal of Honor, Navy Cross and similar pages entirely as his view is not in agreement with standard practice and he's been edit warring with multiple editors. I think the above changes would address a lot of my concerns. How do others feel, in particular User:Rlevse? Jehochman Brrr 00:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think these are unreasonable, given that the image deletion nominations have not been shown to be pointy, and the large amount of sourcing text for the medal winners isn't shown to be outside standard practice. Edit warring is of course problematic...but are there diffs to show 3RR?
    Are we seriously blocking an editor indefinitely because "his people skills suck"? And unless he agrees to "stop sucking" he can't be unblocked? Isn't that the very definition of a punitive block? I realize I'm answering my own questions in the affirmative here so I invite other opinion, but...that's what it's starting to look like here. If that's what is going on here, I think we need WP:CONSENSUS to block in the first place...not to unblock for policy violations which are open to wide interpretation. If that's what we need, let's open an WP:RfC.  Frank  |  talk  00:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some judgement. You and FPaS wouldn't block. I and apparently Rlevse, MastCell, JzG, Jayron32 and Animate think some sort of block until conditions are established is acceptable. If we weigh these opinions of clueful editors, the block has a consensus. Let's discuss reasonable conditions for unblocking, rather than apologizing for the disruptive, uncivil editor. Let him apologize for himself if he wishes. Jehochman Brrr 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see which way consensus is leaning here, but I've seen far less civil and far more disruptive editors remain part of this project for longer than I thought (think!) appropriate, and I'm having a hard time seeing that this block is the right way to go. If there is community consensus in an RfC to block for long-term incivility and disruption, that's a different story. What I see here is a 1-week block and then, after a one-day look at the end of the block, an indef. I can't stress enough that I'm not saying Damiens.rf is perfect, but I also don't see any indef-worthy behavior. The one specific, tangible thing that really sticks to the wall is the stalking of one user's image uploads. Here's the problem with that: how many of the images actually meet our licensing requirements today? I looked at several that have been here for 4 and 5 years...when image policy wasn't well known and/or followed. I don't think that's a reason to leave them. We may agree - here, or as a community - that it's in poor taste to mine one user's 5-year-old uploads in an attempt to find deletable content. But...is it really within policy to block someone for having poor taste? If you think the answer is yes, I say OK...via an RfC or ArbComm. Not "indef first, and convince me to unblock later if you can."  Frank  |  talk  04:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen Damiens.rf nominate dozens of images uploaded by a single user at one time. Perhaps, in terms of image deletions, we can but a number cap up rather than trying to keep him away from one topic at a time. Let's say no more than 5 images uploaded by one user at any given time. After the deletion discussions are finished he can nominate 5 more if necessary. AniMate 00:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again: would that really help? It would only draw out the conflict with that hypothetical user over a much longer time – and slow down the progress of the encyclopedia. Would it reduce the bitterness in any way? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having someone nominate for deletion 40+ images you've uploaded tends to be disheartening. We've lost one contributor because of this approach, and I'm sure Damiens.rf has driven off others. I know I had to talk down at least one user who he did this to. So what is impeding the progress of the encyclopedia more: the loss of prolific content contributors or the reduction of nominations by a user who focuses almost solely on deleting content? AniMate 00:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Woah, FP. If a user is problematic in uploading images, then use the reporting mechanisms for that user - get other people involved. Bad images can be reviewed on different criteria other than by editor, and the net result is the same in the number being removed every day but with the bonus of editors not thinking they are being picked on. If this means that there are dozens of contributors rather than one asking why their work is being removed then that is part of the workload; if the nominator cannot handle it then they need to work in areas where it won't happen - we shouldn't protect the sensitivities of one established editor by allowing to hurt those of newbies. This is a variant of WP:BITE; do not target an editor because they uploaded in good faith dozens of images with wrong/bad/no rationales, etc. If an editor is going to say that it is their way or the highway, then they can go truck themselves. Really. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just those who know policy and procedure by heart. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, LessHeard, I think your comment misses the point in a number of ways. This is not about "protecting the sensitivities" of the nominators; it's also not about newbs vs established users; it's about allowing efficiency to happen. In the interest of everybody involved. The batches that get nominated are not only by the same editor or from the same set of articles; most crucially, they tend to represent similar issues. Similar cases need to be treated together; that makes it easier for all parties (commenters, closing admins, etc) and ensures greater transparency and consistency of results. The remark about "reporting mechanisms" seems quite off the mark – these are typically not cases where the uploaders would need to be reported – to where? ANI? Would that be any less offending to them? You also failed to respond to my main argument: is it any less disheartening to have your 40 images nominated in the course of three months, than in the course of a week? "Do not target an editor because they uploaded in good faith dozens of images"? No, no, no, no. This is utterly unavoidable; I do this myself, all the time; everybody who has ever done image patrolling does it. If you find one bad apple, the only efficient way of finding the remaining bad apples is to poke around in the neighbourhood of the first. This whole idea of working by random schemes or alphabetically is utterly unrealistic and inefficient. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If someone uploads a dozen images and gets messages from a few editors all saying that there are problems, then the uploader is aware of a problem. Yes, that can be discouraging. If the uploader finds one person going through all their uploads, and are sufficiently savvy to look at contrib histories, then they can start to feel harassed. The first may mean they do not contribute to WP. The second means they will not contribute to WP, and they may comment adversely about the environment to other potential contributors. WP is in the business of encouraging contributions, and directing new editors to the correct methods, and not discouraging - hence the WP:BITE guideline. You appear, although I am sure that it is not your intention, to be saying that it should be disregarded since the editor does a lot of work clearing up image issues - others are saying the same results can be achieved by the editor changing their focus from reviewing accounts uploads to another criteria. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm honestly not quite sure what argument you are trying to convey here, but the point seems to hinge on a misunderstanding anyway: very few of the editors who have been complaining about Damiens are actually newbies. These cases arise far more often with established long-term contributors who have built up their local use-a-lot-of-nonfree-images regime on their favourite topic area over a long time (as in the case of Marine and his Puerto Rico articles, Dr.K. and his Greek history articles, or the various wikiprojects involved). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • FP, you're measuring progress only in terms of images. You're forgetting about stopping his problematic behavior and disruption, which is also progress. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Difficult to do otherwise, as long as the concerns about other behaviour still come mixed inextricably with spurious complaints about "he made some content edit once that I didn't like", as in the case of the removals of those medal of honour quotations, or the Cuba diffs you dug up. Legitimate as some of the other concerns may be, these need first to be filtered out properly before any reasonable remedies can be discussed here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damiens is good at nominating image for deletion, which seems to be his expertise. Of course the editor (Marine) wasn't an expert image uploaded. This is not about Damiens nominating images, which seems the main factor that those who oppose his blocking are primarily focused on. We need people with Damiens expertise, what we do not need is people like Damiens who are rude, uncivil and disrespectful towards others. Not only are his actions deplorable, they should be condemned. Do you need prove of his reproachable actions towards other? See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=335140360#User:Damiens.rf_should_be_told_to_stop_his_rudeness_and_Wikihounding. He is stalking. He has followed Marine throughout and has without any justification deleted content from many articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Damiens.rf Had he only dedicated himself only to his field of expertise, then I wouldn't even be here, however when he goes out of his way to target one person contributions and hounds that person, then I agree with those who say that he deserves to be blocked. Antonio Martin (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship proposal

[edit]

To get this onto more productive tracks, here's one way forward that I think might possibly work: mentorship coupled with a partial cap on rate of nominations. If Damiens comes across what he considers a problematic group of cases, he should be directed to do a first "test" batch of only a limited number of image nominations representative of the issue (let's say 5). While those IfDs run, he should be ready to engage in a constructive discussion with affected editors about ways of improving the situation with regard to any remaining cases, preparing them politely to the prospect of having more of their work scrutinised. If the outcome of the first batch has led to deletions, this should serve as proof to the affected uploaders that Damiens' moves are not just some personal rampage but represent a legitimate concern; therefore there should then be no further limit on the rate of subsequent nominations from the same area. However, before proceeding, Damiens will consult with the mentor. To give him the go-ahead for further nominations, the mentor will take into consideration Damiens' conduct during the preceding discussions; if that is found to be reasonably constructive, Damiens will be given the go-ahead to proceed without quantitative limits. The mentor will also endeavor to protect Damiens from unfair accusations of "vandalism", "racism" or "hounding" and the like, which occasionally come his way as we've seen.

I am not proposing any restrictions on his non-image-related content editing, as I haven't seen anything of systematic concern here.

I'd be available as a mentor if needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've recognized the severity of the problem; therefore, you would not be the ideal mentor. Jehochman Brrr 10:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing Unblock in an Hour

[edit]

I slept on this but I'm still not convinced that we have consensus to block Damiens indefinitely for the reasons given by Jehochman. The blocking rationale is deeply flawed and using weasel words to falsely accuse a user of racism with the the most flimsy of possible evidence is completely unacceptable. This completely undermines the credibility of the block and I am not seeing a clear consensus that this user has exhausted his stay here although I do see plenty pf concerns that they would do well to listen to and learn from. I am going to leave this up here for comments for an hour before unblocking. Spartaz Humbug! 05:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with Spartaz's unblock here. Speaking as a major softie when it comes to the block button, I think any "indef" block needs a strong consensus, and I don't see that in the discussion above (others could take the view that there's not a consensus to unblock which is a perfectly valid view, but just not my own). I don't question Jehochman's good intentions in deciding to impose an indefinite block, but there are enough doubts here to not let it stick.
I don't know all the background to this situation and am only here tangentially, but clearly there are some major issues with User:Damiens.rf, and that's the main reason I'm commenting here. I came across one diff that made me outright angry. Maybe the following was already cited somewhere, or maybe it was not really noticed, but where I live Nuyoricans and their friends would definitely consider this casual and gratuitous "type-o" ("trying to clean up the mess on Porto Rico related articles"--emphasis added) to be blatantly offensive. If you don't know the background, check out the first couple sentences of this section of History of Puerto Rico (a featured article) to learn why talking snidely about "Porto Rico" might be a highly racially inflammatory term to use with respect to folks of Puerto Rican heritage. en.wikipedia has serious problems when it comes to racial diversity (and a whole lot of other diversities), so in the absence of further evidence I feel the need to call major bullshit on that comment by Damiens.rf. I'm all ears for a legit explanation now that the editor in question is unblocked. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classic! Silence is not consensus, especially in the middle of the night when people are sleeping. You broke WP:WHEEL where it says "Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion.". There's an ongoing discussion here, and you just substituted your peculiar opinion for the consensus of administrators above, which was to arrange some unblock conditions, but not to unblock yet. You've done Damiens.rf no favors either, because instead of solving the problem, you've enabled further disruption, which will only result in further blocks. Jehochman Brrr 10:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be a dick. Wikipedia doesn't revolve around US timezones - we have a whole world to contribute and I posted the comment at 08.00 my time and waited an hour and there was activity on this board through this time. Your problem is that this was a crass and poorly thought through block and it was never going to stick. You made some wild accusations to justify your actions that you then failed to properly evidence them when challenged. The aggressive and bullying way you went around responding to questions and challenges is far more offensive than anything that Damiens had done. After all, you are an admin and should think long and hard about what kind of wikipedia your actions promote. So don't blame me because you make a bad block that was never going to stick. Spartaz Humbug! 10:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look in the mirror. You're not helping this situation by throwing around personal attacks. Jehochman Brrr 10:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No doubt but if the cap fits.... Spartaz Humbug! 10:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I don't understand that comment. You're mixing metaphors, caps and dicks. Which is it? Jehochman Brrr 10:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I sincerely hope that I'm not mixing caps with dicks but thank you very much for your comment Spartaz Humbug! 10:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Indeed. As the father of four, I occasionally receive unsolicited advice about such matters. Jehochman Brrr 11:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • And on that note I'm going to take my kids down the park. Spartaz Humbug! 11:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I have to agree that posting such 'If no-one says anything in an hour' at 5am on a saturday GMT (so between 10pm and 6am for most of our editors, west coast USA to Western Europe) was always going to be a daft thing to do. It is said that Jehochman should stop focusing on your actions and instead look at his bad block. Perhaps what is good for the goose is good for the gander? Using summary and poor methods to overturn a summary and poor block is just building a larger house on some pretty shoddy foundations. I'd hate to see this mehod become part of the tool kit of admining. Imagine if a user said that if no-one posted anything in an hour, they would make a highly contentious edit. Do you believe we would accept that? --Narson ~ Talk • 12:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Both of you are acting like children. This thread is getting more than ridicilous. I can't believe that one admin is advocating that an unblock be done because bad faith deletions were not occuring, while the other admin is now throwing around personal attacks but blocked because the editor was undertaking bad faith deletions and personal attacks! I really need to question this whole block now. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Twinkle as a Machine Gun

[edit]

User:Dr.K. said, "As one of Damiens' victims, overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the software-assisted mass deletion assault initiated by Damiens.rf, I can honestly say that Rlevse and Jehochman have finally stood up and given notice that robotic-aided assaults on individual editors cannot continue."[10] And furthermore, "Twinkle should not be used as a rapid-fire machine gun to obliterate the morale of editors here."[11] I agree. Therefore, I have warned Damiens.rf next time he carpet bombs another editor with deletion nominations, he will be blocked. If he discovers somebody with a pattern of bad uploads, he is invited to file a report at WP:ANI instead. Jehochman Brrr 10:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must specify more precisely what you mean by "mass tag" [12]; it's quite unclear how many is too many. Some users will cry harassment if two of their uploads are nominated for deletion, others will be apparently unfazed by twenty. Without a concrete (or at least much clearer) limit this warning will be used as a smokescreen by people whose unsuitable non-free image uploads are discovered in their contribution history. CIreland (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read over the whole debate, but haven't really investigated the user. However, validly tagging lots of images for deletion - whoever they've been uploaded by - is definitely not against policy. It rather suggests to me, in fact, that the uploader should be more careful about the images they are uploading. Therefore, I strongly oppose any sanction of this kind being applied, unless you can convince me which policy it is violating. Ale_Jrbtalk 10:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Fair point. What do you think is a reasonable number? If three or fewer tag them, and if more, go to WP:ANI instead? Jehochman Brrr 10:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you thought about this before issuing the warning? Spartaz Humbug! 10:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. I was thinking max five open discussions at a time per user. Jehochman Brrr 10:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say something like two per user per day. So if a deletion process takes 5 days, that would be 10 images in single batch. Damiens.rf has normally noted many, though not all, serious image issues at WT:NFC and that seems a good venue to me and that he ought to continue that practice. CIreland (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can agree with that, and also to add WT:NFC as a possible reporting venue for serious issues. Let's wait a bit for any other comments, then I or somebody else can leave a clarification for Damiens as to what "mass tagging" means. Jehochman Brrr 10:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated my own proposal above: first test batch of 5, then open limit if the test batch has established there is a legitimate issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to limit to two per user per day. If there are more that need looking into, start a discussion at WT:NFC or WP:ANI, and then do whatever the consensus establishes. If the consensus is to nuke the images from orbit, that would be fine, but only after discussion. Jehochman Brrr 11:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A general discussion may help in some cases (where there are clearly defined groups of very similar cases) but won't do the trick in most: in the end, somebody will still have to do the dirty work and argue the individual case-by-case nominations. Most items are still so individual that a wholesale discussion on a noticeboard won't settle the case. And people other than Damiens are unlikely to do this final work, because it's just so ugly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damiens.rf was recently stripping Medal of Honor citations from articles. He thought this was an appropriate application of WP:NFCC. It wasn't. After being informed, he edit warred. I want to avoid situations like that. Before going on a mass deletion or removal campaign, Damiens.rf and others should explain what they intend to do and why, and make sure their mass edits comply with policy. They also need to be careful not to bite other contributors by mass tagging those contributors contributions in a way that creates a fait accompli situation (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli), or worse, drives off good faith contributors, as happened with User:Marine 69-71. Jehochman Brrr 12:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many articles were affected here, and how often did he revert? Half a dozen articles, a dozen? And I cannot see more than one revert on each page. This is still well inside acceptable behavioural norms. The people who reverted him the first time with abusive "vandalism" charges or with the impoliteness of a lacking edit summary are more at fault here than he was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the initial proposal

[edit]
About the initial proposal and the Dr.K quote: let's cut the facile polemics, shall we. I know Dr.K. has been very eloquent in raising (and reiterating) this complaint, but as subjectively understandable as it may be (and I have a lot of respect for Dr.K. as a contributor), this complaint about "Twinkle carpet bombing" remains factually incorrect, plain and simple. It is simply not true that the batch deletions "overwhelm" users. It's simply not true that responding to a deletion nomination takes more work than making the nomination, with or without Twinkle. In Dr.K.'s case in December, it can easily be seen that he wasn't "overwhelmed" at all: not only did he and several others find the time to respond to each nomination, he also found more than enough time to raise protests on noticeboards and elsewhere. In the end, each image got its fair share of scrutiny and discussion and a fair, well-argued decision was made. Several were rescued through the efforts of third parties (some by myself), with fair collaboration by Damiens.rf. Please don't reiterate unconstructive hyperbole here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are disregarding legitimate concerns and saying that everybody must agree with you or else they are engaging in hyperbole. Jehochman Brrr 11:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am advancing concrete arguments here, while you are not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are pouring concrete to solidify a rotten status quo. A recent ArbCom proposed decision says (emphasis added):
  • Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, or performing large numbers of similar tasks, and are apprised that those edits or tasks are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli
  • While the reasons for which an editor may validly nominate an article for deletion are not exhaustive, Wikipedia's deletion policy and practices generally prefer that nominations express at least one generally accepted reason for deletion, and that alternative courses of action (such as merging, redirection, or curing problems through editing) are generally preferable to deletion.- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed_decision#Deletion best practices
Do we need to take this case to arbitration also to curtail the uncivil use of high volume deletion tagging? If we cannot work out a suitable agreement, that may be the eventual result. Jehochman Brrr 12:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both the quotes you cited are inapplicable here: the first because, as I just proved, these nominations never approached the point where they "exhausted" somebody's capacity to respond (everybody did respond, and got a fair hearing), and because "attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion" is exactly what the IFD page is for (seriously, where else would you do it?). The second because every single deletion nomination I have seen from Damiens has in fact expressed at least "one generally accepted reason for deletion", and he tends not actually to bother with those cases where a simple fix to a FUR or some other such "alternative course of action" easily offers itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you playing ostrich with me? User:Marine 69-71 quit because he was so disheartened. User:Dr.K. testified about how terrible it is to be the target of Damiens.rf's tagging attack. In the cases I looked at, Damiens.rf did not make any attempts to correct simple problems. I saw nominations of files that had apparently good fair use rationales attached. If you are going to keep posting misdirections on this thread, I am going to have to request arbitration to get to the bottom of this. Jehochman Brrr 12:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Jehochman, above I suggested a limit of 2 nominations per user per day, (and hence 2 x length of deletion process per batch) and you appeared to agree that this was a roughly acceptable rate. This is approximately the rate of Damiens.rf's recent deletion nominations of Jan 7 (16 files from Marine 69-71, 7 day discussion length). Yet now you would characterize this as "high volume deletion tagging" so I am unclear what your opinion on an appropriate volume (for any user, not only Damiens.rf) is. CIreland (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before going to Arbcom, we should obviously try to work out an acceptable behaviour guideline here, as we have been doing. My proposal above still stands, and so far nobody has commented on the merits of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@CIreland: Marine 69-71 quit on about December 31 after about 40 of his images had been nominated for deletion. Those recent nominations you mention were after Damiens.rf had been blocked for prior activities. I agree with the two per day per editor limit. That is a volume that most editors could handle. Additionally, I'd expect Damiens.rf to back off if an editor took the view that they were being hounded. Damiens.rf does not have the best communications skills. We don't need somebody with bad people skills driving off good faith contributors. Jehochman Brrr 12:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Future: I beg to differ. Defending these images was an ordeal. From my edit summaries you can plainly see my frustration and my remarks about following "robotic protocol" by copying and pasting identical defence rationales to multiple image deletion sections because I did not have the time to defend each individually. If you think copying and pasting is calm and reasoned debate then I have nothing else to add. The mass deletion notices made the history of my talpage look like a robot-ravaged wasteland. My morale fell to a level below ground. We treat vandals better using the formidable tool of Twinkle. At least our response is proportional to their vandal acts. Each act gets a Twinkle warning as it happens. Using Twinkle as a mass assault weapon to lay waste to a legitimate contributor's images in mere secods is disproportionate, exceeds human response levels and it is thus injurious to the human spirit. Because what contributor now will upload anything if they know that a robot is lurking in the shadows piecing together a chain of images, waiting for the right moment to chain-assault them with their contributions at a time of its choice? Is this your vision of Wikipedia Future? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 12:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.K., please, stop it at last. It is simply not true that Twinkle enables him to do some mysterious "machine-like" mass editing. He still investigates each case individually, checks the description pages and articles and writes out the deletion rationale individually in each case. It is one manual edit, just as it is one manual edit for you or me to respond. Twinkle only automates the mechanical paperwork. I know you've been offended by this, and your complaints are eloquent and finely worded and read beautifully, but repeating them twenty times doesn't actually make them more correct. Sorry for being blunt now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was his first post on this thread, compared to how many of yours? Why are you trying to muzzle him? Jehochman Brrr 12:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because he has raised this complaint (specifically about the Twinkle use, a red herring) about a two dozen times, was counseled about it repeatedly, and besides beautiful rhetorical fluff it contains very little of substance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Please, Future, spare me the patronising comments. I never claimed that he uses Twinkle to chain-assemble the deletion requests. I only claimed that he uses Twinkle to mass assault editors with deletion notices. I do not care how he constructs his chain of image deletion notices. I only care about the Twinkle assisted chain-whipping that ensues. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 12:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that issue about the mass notifications (not the mass nominations) was settled back in December. He was advised to consolidate his notifications into a single one where possible. Since this was settled, why are you bringing it up again? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was settled. See Jehochman's proposal below. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 12:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman never addressed the issue of notification protocols. In fact, his proposal (the way I read it) would make notifications heavier: if the nominator is forced to distribute nominations over a longer period of time, with maximally two per day, then of course he will also have to re-notify again and again over many days, so you get more of those ugly notices (though slowly). Allow him to nominate many at one go and the notifications can be reduced to one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any mass nominations, robot-assisted or not, targetting a single editor should be avoided. We must develop a better protocol for dealing with this phenomenon. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record however, even belatedly, I would like to make clear that I consider you, Future, a very fair and capable admin. We can have our disagreements but your tact and respectful tone are noted and appreciated. We have met many times over the years so I don't think that I will have to reiterate this every time I see you. But rest assured my respect for you has always been, and will remain, great. It was a pleasure debating with you :) Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two per day per editor

[edit]

CIreland suggested limiting Damiens.rf to limit of two file deletion nominations per uploading editor per day. I added that any situation requiring more or faster nominations should be brought up at WP:ANI or WT:NFC for a discussion about how to proceed. If this is agreeable, I will notify Damiens of these specifics, and we can finish up here. Jehochman Brrr 12:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purely practically speaking, five to ten nominations on a single day's IFD page are far more convenient to handle for all parties concerned than ten spread out over five different pages. Just a thought. I'd still prefer: allow one somewhat larger batch on a single day, wait till those have run out, then see how to proceed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that has a reasonable basis. How about maximum five per day per uploading editors, and wait for them to close before moving to the next batch with that same editor. Jehochman Brrr 13:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still uncomfortable as long as I haven't heard a response to my question: is it really less stressful to the editors concerned to have the scrutiny proceed at such a slow pace and over a long period, than to have it over within a shorter time? In a case like the present one, where there'd be, say, 40 images in question, your proposal would mean a process spanning two to three months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me, yes it is. I would prefer a longer process, more within human capabilities and allowing more opportunities for calm and reasoned action. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40/2=20 days, surely? --Narson ~ Talk • 13:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the second proposal: 5 every 7 days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I'd missed the 'requirement for them to close' secton of that. It does seem a little excessive for it to take 8 weeks. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five every seven days per editor

[edit]

An alternative proposal is to limit Damiens.rf to a maximum of five nominations per uploading editor per seven days. This would presumably give the uploading editors a chance to learn, and to correct, what mistakes they may have made, and to respond thoughtfully to each nomination. FPaS suggested that five at a time is more efficient than two at a time, as the discussions would not be spread out on different pages. Jehochman Brrr 13:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds reasonable. I support the idea. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonable, but I would still want to consider a flexibility clause that could allow a higher rate during subsequent nominations, on a case-by-case basis, if it turns out that there are large and relatively uniform groups and the first batch(es) have set relevant precedents. As I said, deciding about such flexibility would be a point where a mentor might come in handy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This flexibility can be achieved by starting a thread at WT:NFC or WP:ANI. If a few other editors agree, then he can proceed on that basis. The key idea is to check to make sure there is a good basis for any mass tagging, and also to make sure to explain to the uploading editor understands what's going on so they don't feel bitten or demoralized. Jehochman Brrr 14:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To J.: that's a reasonable view about how it ought to work; it's just that if this whole rule set ends up as some kind of formal community restriction (presumably enforcable through blocks), then the actual decision to allow exceptions will also need to be formalised in some way to make it practicable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just going to leave it as a warning from me, and clarify what "mass nominations" meant. To really solve the problem we ought to have a community discussion about how to handle mass deletion nominations, and write some sort of guideline. Damiens.rf is just one editor. There have been other complaints regarding other editors. Jehochman Brrr 14:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. Then I'm afraid any such attempt would find me in the strongest possible opposition, as a matter of principle. A quantitative throttle on deletion nominations as a general guideline? Never. Let's sort this out with regard to Damiens here now, given the personality concerns, but I will never accept a rule that would curtail my own flexibility and that of other people working in that area in such a way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Loggerheads

[edit]

Unless we can get more uninvolved parties to wade through the above and help generate a consensus, I'm afraid this matter will have to go to arbitration. Jehochman Brrr 12:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think it is long overdue. There is an issue among some admin that being correct excuses any level of incivility. There needs to be recognition that image work is important, removing copyright breaches is important, but doing so by causing unnecessary harm (through various methods, but I' thinking mostly of incivility here) is not desired. However, that being said, to take it to arbitration over something like this is probably an over reaction. Also unfair on the users who are caught between ideological debates --Narson ~ Talk • 12:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be best, since we seem to be coming to an agreement on this case, to have further discussions at WP:PUMP about how to handle things better? Jehochman Brrr 13:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. By the way thank you for your efforts. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About limits

[edit]

The thought that images (or, indeed, most contributions) should be limited to "X per editor per unit time" flies in the face of how Wikipedia works. As I have through this entire conversation, I am explicitly avoiding the suggestion of approval of Damiens.rf's actions on the basis of civility; there are definitely issues there. However, when you look at the substance of it, how is tagging images with invalid licensing attached to them against policy? And where is this accusation of "carpet bombing" an uploader coming from? Are we saying that when someone uploads an image, they own it? I surely hope not; that is the antithesis of what we are about here! When an editor in this situation feels overwhelmed, they should not feel the need to respond to each individually, unless the reasons are unique. (How about grouping them together, even if the nominator didn't see fit to do so?) But when problematic contributions are found, maybe we as a community should examine why that's occurring to our project rather than focusing on how one editor is being treated. And let's keep in mind that we're not talking about WP:3RR here. Image deletion discussions are not closed immediately, just as AfDs and copyright violations aren't. In the latter case, an article retains a notice about copyrighted content for 7 days before it is deleted (unless it was a G12, of course). 7 days is plenty of time for someone to raise a flag and say "what do I do?" or to fix the problem. In the case of images, it should be even easier than in copyvio cases; either a proper license is forthcoming or it's not. There's no re-write required (or available).

Yes, we need civility; it doesn't work without a large measure of that - perhaps quite a bit larger than we have seen. But to comment that a mass deletion nomination (choose your own definition; there are several above) is somehow an attack on an individual contributor? Unless we are changing policy such that WP:OWN no longer applies and contributions are henceforth going to be owned by the contributor, that just doesn't fly. Look at the paragraph right below your edit box: it covers copyright, verifiability, irrevocable release of contributions, and attribution. Then look at the smaller text below the "save page" button. If we limit image nominations, we're telling contributors "you can get away with X-1 per unit time". I've been involved in copyright cases where the users were long-time contributors; the first reaction was "this has never been a problem before". That doesn't mean it isn't a problem...and it still has to be taken care of.  Frank  |  talk  15:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We ought to retire to the appropriate policy and process pages to discuss how to best handle mass nominations. Clearly there is a problem with mass nominations being carried out badly or uncivilly. A user may feel hounded or harassed when they get dozens of messages on their talk pages about their work being erased. It is inhuman to think that somebody wouldn't be seriously offended by that. In the case of Damiens.rf, we've a consensus that the user has acted uncivilly, and that a limit is needed to help keep them out of trouble. Such a limit might not be needed for other, more clueful users. See Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion#Mass nominations which I've started, but don't own. Jehochman Brrr 15:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is consensus regarding invicility; I disagree that there is consensus regarding limits. Also agree that appropriate policy and process pages are the next step...that is where consensus regarding limits would be achieved.  Frank  |  talk  15:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference to WP:OWN was unnecessary and does not use WP:AGF. Do you understand the point that an editor feels compelled to defend an image not out of ownership instincts but motivated by a genuine belief that these images may be essential to the understanding of an article topic? Did you read Damiens.rf's flippant comments dismissing historic leaders of Greece as "some guys talking" and other such unhistoric garbage? We are all volunteer contributors here. I may be idealistic but looking at a picture-barren article fills me with sadness. I know Wikipedia can be more than that and I try to improve the project by contributing pictures. Trying to defend these pictures has nothing to do with ownership, thank you very much, but everything to do with making an article as relevant and informative as can be. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I understand that motivation, but the complaint against Damiens.rf is that mass deletion demoralizes a contributor. There are calls for limits on deletion nominations...where are the corresponding suggestions that it may be appropriate to have limits on uploading content? I think both are ill-advised, but only one is even being suggested. And the reasoning for it is that an individual contributor would be demoralized. If a contributor is truly interested in the project itself, said contributor isn't worried only about his or her own contributions and having them nominated would be no different (or at least, little different) than any other contribution being nominated for deletion. Images may very well help an individual article; images without suitable licensing hurt the project as a whole. The difference is the latter is against policy; there is no policy against an article without images. As I've repeated more than once: I'm not suggesting Damiens.rf's approach with respect to civility is correct, and I know nothing of your own contributions or Damiens.rf's reaction thereto. This is an overall discussion, not a contributor-specific comment. If an RfC is required, let's open it up.  Frank  |  talk  17:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to delete images (or better yet, fix fair use rationales) without upsetting other contributors. This takes some skill, which Damiens.rf seems to lack. ArbCom has made a number of statements, linked above, regarding ways that legitimate processes, such as deletion nominations, can be misused. Actions that comply with letter of one rule may still be grossly uncivil when viewed in context. After Damiens.rf ran off Marine 69-71, it was exceedingly poor judgement for Damiens.rf to continue hounding and harassing the departed editor, thereby ensuring that Marine 69-71 would not return. Even if hounding and harassment were not the intent, that was the effect. We have to judge things based on the overt actions and effects; we can never know what motivates somebody else. Jehochman Brrr 18:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the claim that it is "possible to delete images without upsetting other contributors" is simply wrong, and speaks of the perspective of somebody with little or no experience of the realities in the field. No, it is most definitely not possible. You can do everything right, you can be as friendly and polite as you like, people will still howl abuse at you once you become systematically active in that area. People are that way. Ask anybody who has ever tried. I know it, because I have. – And please stop the red herrings about "better yet fix the the FUR". If an image is objectively unjustifiable, no tinkering with the FURs will help. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Future. I don't agree. I know your comment is not directed at me but, as an example, I will not feel upset if an image gets deleted after a proper and fair debate. Having said that I still do not understand how Metapolitefsi was stripped of all the images. Is there no image important enough to keep in that article? I am not convinced of that. I think the deletionists stretched FUR to "achieve" that. As far as Jehochman's idea to attempt to improve the FUR of some eligible images, I don't see where you see a problem. Maybe some FURs are unsalvageable. But I am sure some can use some repair which could posibly save the image. I don't see the harm in trying. But as you said, if the image cannot be saved then this will come out from the relevant discussion. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we at least agree that while there may be no way to "delete images without upsetting other contributors", there is most definitely a way to do so without being egregiously snide, needlessly personal, openly insulting, or blindingly insensitive? Because if we are in fact discussing only this specific case, I'm going to have to say that what I saw of Damiens' actions (I hesitate to say "interactions" because there really weren't anything I'd want to dignify with such a name) on Marine's talkpage were all of the above. This is like Betacommand redux: Yes, image work is hard and thankless. Yes, people get mad. We understand that. No, that does NOT excuse blatant asshattery. No, REALLY it doesn't. Okay, we'll say it once more and then we're gonna...we're gonna...say it in capital letters, probably, or something.... I'm just not sure why we're having that same episode again, with just a different name and fewer bots. GJC 04:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. When the nominator uses snide remarks and other sarcastic comments about the nominated images they antagonise the other editors and this obviously does not help an already antagonistic and traumatic process such as the image deletion nomination process. I hope that, as Jehochman, CoM and others have suggested, a more collegial approach is tried during deletion nomination where some help may be given when possible so that the FUR may be improved and the image saved. This can go a long way toward defusing the existing tensions and the project will benefit as well. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In cases where there is a pattern of problematic edits or uploads I think it's best to bring it to the attention of the community. When this has been done in the past it seems to work quite well and allows consideration, input, and involvement from more than just a couple parties.
I agree that getting a mass deletion notification is demoralizing, but I think specific limits are arbitrary and unhelpful. In cases where there are multiple problems, requiring a consensus discussion on how to proceed before taking unilateral action might make sense though. Sorting out the issues openly with broad input and involvent in collegial discussion is the way to go.
The core issue seems to be getting collegial discussion and input on how to resolve problem areas so they don't become dust ups between the nominator and the receiving editor (referred to above as the "victim"). In cases where numerous problems are identified, a neutrally worded notice on ANI or the content noticeboard saying, hey I'm finding some problems with the images uploaded by X, can I get some help checking them out seems a good way to go. Collegiality is important for both good faith editors trying to add content and for those trying to keep it clean and orderly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CoM and with many points in Frank's reply above. Communication should be established in some way so that mass notifications and mass nominations may be avoided. The reason I would like to avoid mass noms is because I would like to have time to participate in discussions with time for response and intrelligent debate on a human scale. Twinkle makes it really easy, through menu choices to automatically create deletion nomination pages and automatic editor notifications. This in turn opens the door to creating mass nominations, where in the past it would have been very difficult, time-consuming and tedious for a single editor to create all this deletion nomination infrastructure without robotic help. As Frank pointed above maybe we should consider upload limits for editors as well, if for nothing more than to avoid a massive system response in the future against an editor who in good faith, and over time, uploaded what they thought were properly justified images under the FUR process. I am sure from the respectful tone of this debate we can find some middle ground so that we can avoid the excessive trauma and follow-up drama. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos of pretty much nothing: Anyone remember being "the new guy" at work, and you make a suggestion about something and all the non-new guys sit there and pick the suggestion to shreds, and then later--sometimes in the same meeting, sometimes much later--one of THEM comes up with this new, novel, "outside-the-box" suggestion, and everybody sits and smiles and nods sagely about what a totally AWESOME idea it is, and all the while you, "the new guy", are sitting there with clouds of steam coming out your ears because this awesome idea is EXACTLY the same one YOU had, the one that nobody would vouch for? I'm feeling a little Costanza-ish around the edges at the moment. Really, though--wouldn't it mitigate the perceived incivility if the nominator--as a step BEFORE an official nomination--could run a script that would say to the uploader "I've noticed there are problems with the following images you've uploaded:" followed by a list of images, preferably with a note that tells what the major problem is for each one..."Please address these by (date at least 5 days in the future); if the issues are not addressed by then, these images will be submitted for deletion based on the stated rationale." Then, on that date, another script could IfD any of the images on the list which hadn't been fixed?? We've avoided the "carpet-bombing" problem, we've given the uploader time to process the info and get his ducks in a row rationale-wise; and we've taken at least SOME of the weight off the guy who's reviewing the images, as well. (And damn, I really wish I could program right now, because I just totally clicked on a possible solution to the whole "but it would be impossible to compile a list and then generate a notice" problem....anyone with programming/database clue who's interested, hit my talkpage...) Anyhow, just a thought. Going to sleep now, for real. GJC 07:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FFD is already a "warn about possible future deletion"-process. All you suggest is giving 5 days more for discussion. --Damiens.rf 07:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wotta you talking about? If you mean Files for deletion, the problem is that not every editor edits every day. Somebody might be gone for a few days, come back and find 40 of their images nominated for deletion (or already deleted), and get really pissed off at the person who denigrated many hours of their work. Chain whipping another editor with Twinkle is a really rude thing to do, and I reserve the right to block you or anybody else who does this. There is some reasonable number of discussions that an editor can be expected to participate in over a time, and then there is a number that is clearly too many all at once for somebody to be able to process. You may not overwhelm other editors with a volume of edits or actions that essentially turns your proposal into fait accompli. Jehochman Brrr 13:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the arguing for the slowing down of deletion nominations seem to be based on the assumption that most images get deleted because the uploader (somehow) didn't get the time for addressing the nomination. I take the opportunity here to ask Dr.K, Marine, Jehochman or any other: In retrospect, can you point some of your images that get deleted, but for which you could now (with all the time of the world in your hands) make a case for it to be kept? --Damiens.rf 19:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People get really pissed off if you list their spam for deletion. The question is whether the way Damien is personally doing it. Frankly, if people find him this uncivil on this particular thing, I say we move to a topic ban on listing images for deletion. Let him start a project on reviewing images or something and let others make the decisions. As someone who has been reviewing Category:Fair use in... images (and fulling up FFD myself), I get plenty of crap for being a horrible deletionist. Same thing I got when doing NPP and listing articles. It comes with the territory. However, I personally don't get why you would be going by contributors. That feels too WP:STALK-ish to me. If it's licensing problems, I understand but I cannot see why an individual contributor would have some systemic flaw in how they apply fair-use doctrine. I look at each image, perhaps the article and then I move on. I avoid going through every contribution particularly because that looks like you are picking on people. Also, nobody says you have to do forty separate notifications. It takes work but you can turn off the automation and give a single message listing each image in one notice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, <humour>thanks go to Ricky81682 for referring to images as spam. I didn't know that by uploading images under FUR is considered spam. But since you are a battle-hardened veteran of the image deletion process I can understand your point. One man's historical picture is another's spam. No problem.</humour> Anyway. I think you make some very valid points and I agree with your approach regarding vetting images for deletion. As far as mass notifications, I think that the problem has been addressed insofar as Damiens.rf has been advised and, hopefully agreed, not to do them any longer. This leaves us with mass nominations. To assemble tens of images for deletion and create the deletion subpages can be done by hand but it is tedious and time-consuming. Using Twinkle makes it much easier to mass-nominate images for deletion because you just press a menu choice and Twinkle creates all the image deletion subpages. So the robot-assisted method is an attractive option for those pursuing image deletion nominations. Now imagine the shock of the editor who gets forty notifications in one shot. They uploaded these images over a span of months, even years and now they see all of them in a single notice going for deletion. Now don't get me wrong. I am not here to defend loading Wikipedia with "spam" by the back door. So I am not saying that these hypothetical images must be kept. What I am trying to say is these forty notifications which were created with the help of a robot are too much for a human editor to handle. Limits must be set so that robot-aided output does not get dumped on good-faith editors all at once. It is a form of a robot-assisted assault. Here we are all volunteers. We may make mistakes but we don't deserve to be dumped upon with all our presumably faulty contributions all in one shot. This is too overwhelming for a human. So limits must be set so if a lot of images are involved there is a buffer, a human filter, a mediator or process that can stand between the robot output and the human user. And if on top of that there are other issues such as wiki-hounding, incivility etc. these must be addressed also. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that totally was NOT my intention. I should have said "People also get really pissed off if you list their spam for deletion." That's why I mentioned articles too. The fact that people get pissed off isn't sufficient for there to be a problem. It may be necessary. Most images are fine that I see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the clarification. I strike my humorous comments and I agree with all your points then. I find your approach a very fair and decent one. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is very, very rarely going to be a good reason to limit nominations and Dr.K's complaints fall far short of being of one these special cases. The case of Tony's uploads are different. I think they are one of those hard cases where there is a reason either for limits or, as I would prefer, an ad hoc process. Hard cases make bad law and policy or guidelines shouldn't be modified to deal with the occasional special case. That's what we have common sense for. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not speaking only about myself. I am sorry that you think my case is no big deal, but even if you were right about my case, and I doubt you are, I still think that my comments about robot-assisted assaults on editors are valid and that such assaults should be prevented from happening to any editor, not only myself. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dr.K. I would like to respectfully repeat what some have already pointed out somewhere above: Your repeated characterization of the use of deletion scripts as robot-aided assaults is misleading. These scripts give nominators no super-human powers. For every image I nominate for deletion, I have to check the image description page and check every page the images is being used in. Then if, after analyzing the image and its uses, I determine there is a problem, I click on the magic "Nominate for deletion" link and write down a deletion rationale that is relevant to that specific image. Once the uploader gets noticed, he is no much more clicks away from defending (or fixing) the image than I was before reaching it for the first time. If you think the nomination has no basis, click on "edit" and explain why. If you think the nomination has a valid point but the problem can be fixed (like adding a source), than you're also just 1 or 2 clicks from solving it. If you believe the problem can't be solved, just ignore the nomination altogether and it will take its course.
In most cases, users got the time for commenting on every nomination, call others to comment, attack the nominator and sometimes even start a discussion on WP:ANI. Seven days is more than enough and, in any case, it's common practice for admins to let some more "heated" discussion to run longer.
Tell me, Dr.K. In retrospect, do you believe some of your images deleted on Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 11 could have been saved if you had more time to argue? --Damiens.rf 04:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's make it simple Damiens.rf.Just answer Yes or No to the following questions: Do you believe that Twinkle makes it easy for you to create image deletion nominations? Would you do as many if you did not use Twinkle? How many nominations can an editor be expected to reasonably respond to in a single batch? Do you think that nominating the images of a single contributor for mass deletion can have a devastating effect on his/her morale? Do you believe that there should be a limit to robot-assisted deletion nominations so that they do not overwhelm the human contributors? (Possibly provide a number in the form of x nominations/per week). Do you realise that your nominating comments in many of the Greek history images were flippant and disrespectful to the history represented by these images? Please answer these before you ask me any other question. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why do I have to answer you six different question in order for you answer just one I have done before. I and also don't understand why do I have to restrict myself to "yes or no" answers while you're always using eloquently elaborated reiterations all over the discussion. This is the kind of when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife mentality frank pointed out below. I have no interest in taking part on a discussion with such unbalanced self-serving rules. --Damiens.rf 20:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I struck the "yes or no" requirement from above. Please answer any way you see fit. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be too picky here, but you apparently only took one point...were you planning to answer the question posed to you?  Frank  |  talk  22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Frank for the question. Of course I would like to answer the question posed by Damiens.rf but I would like to answer it after Damiens.rf replies to my questions first, because it is absolutely necessary to establish under what context the defence of an image is supposed to occur. If I defend an image knowing that the bulk of my contributions have been nominated for deletion and I just recovered from the shock of the bright yellow lights of doom lighting up every few minutes or even seconds informing me of incoming robotic missiles, sorry messages, then obviously no one can seriously ask me what my opinion is, because I don't even know where I am or who I am. Am I in an encyclopedia and am I a contributor? Or am I just a victim of cyber-wars and this happens to be just another robotic battlefield? So let's wait for Damiens.rf's answers to see what context we are operating under. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know the term is heavily loaded on Wikipedia, but wouldn't you agree your description of the facts above is a little bit dramatic?
To make things simpler, here it goes your way:
  1. "Do you believe that Twinkle makes it easy for you to create image deletion nominations?"
    • Sure. It automates all the bureaucratic effort and leaves me more time to analyze the image in question and how it's being used. It also guarantees that the uploader and the article readers are informed about the nomination as soon as it happens.
  2. "Would you do as many if you did not use Twinkle?"
    • My area of interest is the image polices, and not the pasting of templates. Without Twinkle, I would be wasting a lot of time in doing bureocratic automatable template-pasting in detriment of the time I contribute as an image patroller. My nominations would probably be in a small number and lower quality.
  3. "How many nominations can an editor be expected to reasonably respond to in a single batch?"
    • What's a "single batch"? Nominations take at least 7 days to be processed, and the closing admins usually let some discussions run for weeks when the outcome isn't yet clear. I had never seen and editor that had to stop his "everyday duties" on Wikipedia in order to address deletion nominations. Deletion discussions are always slow-paced, with rarely more than three comments per day on the average.
  4. "Do you think that nominating the images of a single contributor for mass deletion can have a devastating effect on his/her morale?"
    • "Devastating" is dramatic. I understand there are cases where the editor takes it personally, and it affects his/her morale. The same happens when we nominate for deletion some inadvertently created vanity page, or when we remove a WP:EL-violating link added by some COI user. Everybody agrees we shouldn't allow such actions from newbies just because they ignore our police. Would extending the nominations over a period of time improve their morales? I don't think so and I don't see this as a solution would want. Instead, we should educate users about the difference between "uploader" and "owner", and about the fact that deleting a file uploaded is not the same as attacking the project.
  5. "Do you believe that there should be a limit to robot-assisted deletion nominations so that they do not overwhelm the human contributors? (Possibly provide a number in the form of x nominations/per week).
    • There's obviously a theoretical limit somewhere, but I'm pretty sure we're far from there. I know of any image that have been deleted due to the upload not having enough time to make his case. Do you? --Damiens.rf 02:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, Damiens.rf, let me thank you for taking the time to reply in detail to my questions, even though you did not address my last question regarding your flippant nomination comments which were also disrespecful of the historical images but you can reply if you wish at some later time. For the sake of clarity I copied your replies to which I will add my comments in italics.
I know the term is heavily loaded on Wikipedia, but wouldn't you agree your description of the facts above is a little bit dramatic?
It was my first such experience in Wikipedia. I had never experienced sustained automatic software-aided bombardment of my talkpage before. I am still reeling from the experience.
To make things simpler, here it goes your way:
1"Do you believe that Twinkle makes it easy for you to create image deletion nominations?"
  1. 1* Sure. It automates all the bureaucratic effort and leaves me more time to analyze the image in question and how it's being used. It also guarantees that the uploader and the article readers are informed about the nomination as soon as it happens.
You may be partially correct. But given the prolific nature of your nominations it is also clear that your productivity regarding deletion nominations also increases. In effect you are using Twinkle to undo in minutes what took good-faith editors years to upload and then you dump the robot-assisted output on the humans in one fell swoop.
2"Would you do as many if you did not use Twinkle?"
2* My area of interest is the image polices, and not the pasting of templates. Without Twinkle, I would be wasting a lot of time in doing bureocratic automatable template-pasting in detriment of the time I contribute as an image patroller. My nominations would probably be in a small number and lower quality.
I am not convinced of that. Your nominations, if you did them by hand, might well have been fewer in number but the non-automated process could have made you a little more sympathetic for the uploader who, in good faith, uploaded these images, template by template, rationale by rationale over a very long period of time.
3"How many nominations can an editor be expected to reasonably respond to in a single batch?"
3* What's a "single batch"? Nominations take at least 7 days to be processed, and the closing admins usually let some discussions run for weeks when the outcome isn't yet clear. I had never seen and editor that had to stop his "everyday duties" on Wikipedia in order to address deletion nominations. Deletion discussions are always slow-paced, with rarely more than three comments per day on the average.
A single batch is let's say the nomination output of a single day. I got about twelve images nominated in a single day. That's a "batch". These twelve images kept me busy defending them for a long period of time, while I was also shocked from the mass-nomination experience. It breaks your spirit as a contributor to see that the history revealed and clarified by all these pictures will forever disappear as these images are nominated for deletion and most probably are going to oblivion. The sheer volume of the nominations shocks you even more and puts a lot of stress on you. Not to mention that despite the keep !votes in favour the images get deleted anyway without, in my opinion, good reasons. Overall a terrible experience.
4"Do you think that nominating the images of a single contributor for mass deletion can have a devastating effect on his/her morale?"
4* "Devastating" is dramatic. I understand there are cases where the editor takes it personally, and it affects his/her morale. The same happens when we nominate for deletion some inadvertently created vanity page, or when we remove a WP:EL-violating link added by some COI user. Everybody agrees we shouldn't allow such actions from newbies just because they ignore our police. Would extending the nominations over a period of time improve their morales? I don't think so and I don't see this as a solution would want. Instead, we should educate users about the difference between "uploader" and "owner", and about the fact that deleting a file uploaded is not the same as attacking the project.
See, you still do not understand the effect of your software-aided nominations on single editors, otherwise you wouldn't think that "devastating" is a dramatic term. Here we lost the Marine, a dedicated Wikipedian and I almost lost my faith as well. I nearly, for the first time here, blanked my userpage in the aftermath of this. I only left a wikibreak message for my user and talk pages and nothing else for the first time in almost four years. And you play the ownership card again. Please see my reply to Frank somewhere above. But I will repeat a point I made here as well. This is not about ownership. I never claimed that I owned anything here, least of all pictures I never took myself. If I own anything is the knowledge of the historical value of these pictures and the sincere belief that these pictures are irreplaceable historical documents that add great value to the articles I contribute to. I also think that they belong to the common historical heritage of humankind and greatly enhance the relevance and appeal of Wikipedia if Wikipedia has to fulfill its destiny as the universal repository of all human knowledge. Articles without them just become impoverished walls of text. Where do you see the ownership in that?
5"Do you believe that there should be a limit to robot-assisted deletion nominations so that they do not overwhelm the human contributors? (Possibly provide a number in the form of x nominations/per week).
5* There's obviously a theoretical limit somewhere, but I'm pretty sure we're far from there. I know of any image that have been deleted due to the upload not having enough time to make his case. Do you?
Mass nominating images for deletion of a single editor has a very negative impact on that editor and significantly affects his/her ability to debate the merits of the deletion because the editor becomes distressed due to the sheer volume of deletion nominations of the images he/she uploaded. A distressed person is not able to contribute effectively and as the case of the Marine shows they may even leave the project. What makes it even more callous is that you use automated tools and you just dump the automated output on the hapless contributor. We treat vandals with more courtesy using Twinkle. As far as I am aware we don't go digging for vandalism through the years and all of a sudden dump a hundred messages all at once on them. Anyway I have, personally, learned my lesson. I don't think I will ever upload any FUR image on Wikipedia again. I used the term chain-whipping somewhere in my comments above. This is how it feels when the system has a convulsive, robot-aided chain-reaction-like dump on you, the human contributor. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel compelled to defend my proposal here by clarifying the following: 1. I am not in favor of limiting nominations. I agree that limits would just draw out the process; rather like having a tooth pulled by increments, instead of by one big YANK. However: 2. I disagree with those who say that making one list of nominations, rather than 40 individual ones, does nothing to solve the problem. I've seen pages where 10 notices are posted, bangbangbangbang...if I was that editor, and logged onto that page after expending the work of uploading images, and finding instead of "gee, thanks!" a swarm of sequencial noms of my images without so much as a humanizing comment--if that were me, I have to say my reaction would be "F*ck this noise, I'm'ma go play Tetris instead." I don't think the one-list option buys time, as much as it acknowledges that an editor is HUMAN. I think a large part of the objection to the bulk messaging is that it is entirely impersonal, and in what is supposedly a collegial editing environment, to find your page full of frigid warning messages strikes a wrong tone, especially to editors who have done, to the best of their knowledge, nothing wrong. GJC 21:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not getting it GJC. On one hand your mesage seems so positive, strike one for the human side. On the other you claim that you are against setting nomination limits. Strike one for the bots. Which side are you on? Please decide. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which side am I on? Yeah, I find myself in situations like that quite often--the consequences of being a Gemini, perhaps? Anyhoo. I think that if there are problems with images, obviously there needs to be a way of notifying the uploaders in such a way that their intervention is required. If I uploaded an image and received a message saying "There's a problem with your image's fair use rationale. Please fix it ASAP," my natural tendencies toward dealing with the most-critically-pressing issues first would probably end up with "fixing that fair-use rationale" filed on my to-do list somewhere between "alphabetizing the spice rack" and "flossing the cat". There's no compelling reason to act on a message like that, whereas "your image will be deleted in 5 days unless...." creates an extremely-compelling reason indeed.
Now, say that an uploader has created MANY files of this sort. Like it or not, WP policy mandates that every image have a complete FUR. I'm going to have to side with those who think that a random, scattershot method of notification, not organized by uploader, would prolong EVERYONE's agony, and for everyone who's now saying "too many notifications at once," the few-at-a-time method would have just as many users saying "just tell me about all of them at once so I can get this overwith!!" But I -do- disagree with the habit of "carpet-bombing" a given editor's talkpage with 20 or 40 or 100 notifications; I've seen what that looks like, and it would surely lead me to say "f*ckit" if I found such a seemingly-insurmountable pile of work on my talkpage!
I think the best workable compromise would involve ONE notification with a list of all files uploaded by the user which are still in need of a complete FUR. Ideally, each list item would clarify exactly what change or addition would be needed for each file, but I can see how that would be a)technically difficult to create, and b)difficult to format in such a way that it didn't resemble, at least in length, the carpet-bombing of old. I'm also in favor of perhaps extending the deadline in the case of users who have more than, say, 20 images to investigate; it seems only fair to give them extra time to resolve the issue rather than asking them to cram 20 rationales into the same time required for users who only have one or two articles to fix.
Does this give you a better idea of what I'm proposing and why? I don't think either side is going to get its wishes fulfilled wholly; I'm trying to remove the elements that seem to be bringing on the most objections, while preserving as much as possible the parts which seem most non-negotiable from each faction. I'll freely admit that I don't always judge those elements rightly, however. Please, let me know where I'm misinterpreting. Thanks! GJC 09:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me say that you have a nice sense of humour. This is the reason why I didn't use <humour> tags in my previous reply to you. I knew they were not needed and that you would get the humourous spirit of my posting. Seriously now, however, I agree with your approach. I recognise that we may, sometimes, have a massive problem and that it has to be dealt with. Sometimes however this massive problem is created by a deletionist mindset and overstrict interpretation of the FUR policies. Many of my recently deleted images were deleted on an interpretation of the FUR policy section, (I'm not going to bother to look at the exact section number), which states that the image is superfluous if words can adequately describe the image content. I mean this rule, if interpreted strictly, can void all existing FUR images. I don't currently know of any defence against this formidable requirement. So the question arises how massive do we want to make the problem. If we insist on very strict interpretations of FUR why don't we just delete automatically all FUR images without any human participation instead of going through what really amounts to kangaroo-style deletion trials of images where the outcome is all but certain. Many of my images would have survived if the keep !votes were properly respected. But they were summarily deleted anyway. If we use kangaroo methods like this why bother !voting in any future deletion processes? I feel very discouraged. As far as your limit of 20, why not? As long as additional time is given along with some help to fix the FUR rationales, 20 is as good as any number. And, as always, no carpet-related dumping of messages, please! Just like you mentioned. (Although I would personally prefer the gentler approach of the "Fix your FUR rationales please or else, messages. I used to get them in the past and I always responded very promptly to them). Take care GJC and thanks for this opportunity to clarify a few things. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the behavior issues?

[edit]
  • We also need to address Wiikipedia policy as to an editor's behavior towards others. It seems to me as if for some unknown reason the focus here has been to making changes to the policy in regard to the mass deletion of images, which is great, but we have not discussed the real main issues for which Damiens was blocked twice. In this threat Users Jehochman and Rlevse have been unjustly criticized for blocking an editor who is rude, uncivil and disrespectful against other editors which is against Wikipedia etiquette of being polite and civil. The situation worsens when it is followed by a pattern of Wiki-hounding. The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. Editors who have committed a lesser degree of incivility have been blocked from Wikipedia without anyone coming to thier defense, then why is it different for someone who, even though is good at a certain area, does the same thing? Policy against incivility and hounding should be made stronger and no one, I mean no one should be above policy regardless of their popularity with any given group. Antonio Martin (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem there is that the community is genuinely divided on how to handle good faith editors who are uncivil, especially when that is under pressure over actions which people see as being for the good of the project (such as policing image copyright). I agree that we need to have a better idea of how to handle this, but it's not likely to reach a consensus here any more than it did over any block of Giano. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of whether the issue as a whole has consensus, I'd not be pleased to see it grow stale and Damiens not have to answer for what he did and continue on harassing other editors. If anyone else has seen anything resembling remorse or an intention to not use image policy as an excuse to beat up another editor, I'd like to see a diff. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I, for one, would like to see diffs supporting the accusation of harassment. Nominating images that do not meet our licensing requirements (and, indeed, copyright law in some number of cases) doesn't qualify as harassment. The "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife" mentality isn't helpful. If Damiens.rf has been uncivil, let's address that issue separately. I don't think it is right to provide a list of perceived violations and then as each is defended, move to the next, saying "well he should still be blocked". My own opinion is that the only blockable one that had diffs that even supported the accusation was nominating a bunch of images. I disagree with the assessment, but at least the diffs do show the pattern. Yes - there are multiple nominations of image uploads from individual editors. Unfortunately, since the nominated images largely don't meet policy, I can't justify blocking for it. If the desire is to block for a long-term pattern of incivility, WP:RFC/U and/or WP:ARBCOM are the proper venues. The reason this is growing "stale" is that either the wrong venue was chosen, or there is insufficient merit in the accusations to warrant an indef block. Should Damiens.rf tone it down? Yes. That's not the issue here, though.  Frank  |  talk  15:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And, let me add...being blocked for a week is certainly answering for "what he did", especially when followed by another block shortly after that block expired. The thought that Damiens.rf hasn't been admonished is not really supportable.  Frank  |  talk  15:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is it that we have here, a double standard? Rules of civility and against hounding apply to some editors and not against others? The rules must apply to everyone and enforced without prejudice regardless of the editors valued expertise, with no exceptions and no favoritism towards anyone.

User:Jehochman made the mistake of accusing User:Damiens of racist in his block and everyone has been over his case because of it. I made the mistake of using my “rollback” button on two of his edits and right away I was rightfully reprimanded [13], we and others have made “mistakes” and it is fine that we are reprimanded because we are not above others, however where were the same people when Damiens acted in an uncivil manner towards others? Where were those people who reprimanded User:Jehochman and myself? The last that I checked his talk page, I did not notice that anyone here had reprimanded him for his incivility, not even with a simple warning.

No one should have special privileges and be allowed to break the rules regardless of their status here. Administrators who monitor the behavior of other editors, should and must reprimand and warn those who are uncivil and disrespectful against others instead of turning their faces the other way. Those continue to act in the same fashion, as if warnings nor rules apply to them, must be blocked just like anyone else would have been. The rules must apply to everyone. There must be some way of monitoring this type of action and if not, we must come up with some type of monitoring system otherwise we will continue to lose valued editors and that, my friends, is something that we do not need. Antonio Martin (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same comment I just added to my previous one: being blocked for a week doesn't look like a "special privilege" to me.  Frank  |  talk  15:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can archive this

[edit]

I think this discussion has become stale. Damiens.rf is currently engaging constructively in the Puerto Rican image problems area and as far as I know there are no problems of any type such as those discussed on this page. I am pleased that Damiens.rf has shown that he can cooperate peacefully with other users. I also appreciate that he took the time to explain his points clearly and, although we do not agree on many points, he has shown a commendable willingness for dialog. During this dialog it was also discovered that some of these problems are systemic and in my opinion Damiens.rf is not solely responsible for them. For example the issue of limits on robot-assisted nominations should be further examined by the wider community. I think that we should seriously examine these problems as they are a manifestation of the wider problem of man-machine interface and interaction and they could potentially affect the health and well-being of the human volunteers here. For sure Damiens.rf cannot be held responsible for these systemic deficiencies. Some of his recent actions are just a symptom of the more general problem. It is up to us, as a community to resolve these man-machine conflicts. Because of all of these points I think that any further sanctions are not required. On a lighter note I propose that before archiving we change the name of the page as Damiens.rf's name has been misspelled as "Damiens.rfc". Last time I checked this page is not related in any way to an RFC on Damiens.rf. Finally I thank all the participants for a very civil, informative and interesting debate. It was a pleasure to participate. Take care all. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.K is alluding to the sort of slow-motion files for deletiondiscussion thing now running at Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Images with problems. [As an aside, and perhaps this is a trivial point, why is it called Wikipedia:Files for deletion? I know we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but the various sorts of outcome at FFD seem to make it rather more like Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. And discussion is what we want, right? Just a thought.] This, so far, is working quite well. All involved would, of course, warmly welcome more hands and eyes to help out. We'd be most especially grateful for help from people in the Washington D.C. and Annapolis areas who could visit archives in person to help finding free replacements when we have a problem with something where we reckon there should be an image hiding somewhere among the huge off-line stocks the various archives possess. And if there's anyone in or around San Juan, P.R., who might be able to visit the P.R. archives. or the Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña, from time to time, this too would be a big help.
And before I stop, I'd particularly like to applaud Tony for his willingness to move on in this way. I also appreciate Damiens.rf being willing to try something different here. My thanks too to everyone else who has been, or will be, involved. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are well taken Angus. I also agree with your comments regarding Damiens.rf and I wish to express my relief for seeing Tony back. I take this opportunity to warmly welcome him back in action. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Damiens.rfc_block_review&oldid=1142658379"