User talk:Moreschi

11 October 2008

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))

This page was deleted by Krimpet under the rationale that we don't need shrines to vandals. Normally I would agree, except this user has been confirmed to be the sockmaster behind the pagemove vandal Grawp. As Grawp, Jarlaxle's behavior hasn't just been mere vandalism, but rises to the level of denial of service attacks. Moreover, he is active on several other Wikimedia projects as Grawp ([1]), so this page is needed for inter-project coordination. Blueboy96 16:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• You should have discussed this with Krimpet before coming here with it. The instructions for listing a DRV state to do so. No comment on the deletion yet. lifebaka++ 18:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Which inter-project coordination, normally when these pages come up various check users chime in and say that they are of little or no value to them in tracking the socks etc. The typical content of these pages are some IP addresses often with no connection (and of no use to anyone but the aforementioned checkusers) and some modus operandi, which let's face it the Grawp vandalism isn't subtle won't everyone spot it when it occurs without a page describing it? Regardless if it's an interproject issue the it should be on Meta, not here. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete and move to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Grawp. *** Crotalus *** 19:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment see also Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Grawp --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn; WP:DENY is explicitly not a speedy deletion reason, as pointed out both on its own page and on WP:CSD itself. Stifle (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I see no evidence that the nominator has spoken with Krimpet about this deletion. I am sure that if one of the Checkusers or other administrators who are dealing with the Grawp disruption told Krimpet that he or she found this page administratively useful, there would be no objection to restoring it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Such a page could easily be useful. Jarlaxle/Grawp is possibly our worst vandal, and WP:DENY isn't official anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn improper deletion. "consensus seems to be against shrines" is not a speedy deletion criterion, and sppedy deletion shouldn't be used following a failed MfD, even if it was years ago. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, though I'm not sure I would say it was "improper". This vandal is apparently still active, therefore info concerning them should be available (like...oh...their infamous alter-ego). --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bankofscotlandireland.png

File:Bankofscotlandireland.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

For use in Halifax (Irish bank). Image was mistakenly removed from the article, due to a misunderstanding that the whole of Bank of Scotland (Ireland) had changed its name to Halifax, and not just the retail division. The corporate division of the bank, and the company's registered name, both remain unchanged. Kwekubo (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I can't seem to find where the image was removed. Do you have a diff anywhere? lifebaka++ 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Image:Bankofscotlandireland.png was removed as a logo from Halifax (Irish bank) 18:34, 2 December 2006 and deleted 19:08, 6 February 2007 under CSD I5. Image:Halifax.png as been used as the logo in the Halifax (Irish bank) for almost the past two years (since 2 December 2006). The logo used in the website halifax.ie matches the logo now appearing in the Halifax (Irish bank) article. Bank of Scotland (Ireland) is a redirected article. The purpose of your request is not clear. Would you please add to your request to restore the image. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason is that Halifax is one of the two trading names of Bank of Scotland (Ireland). It also trades under that name. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:AlanShearerBanner.jpg

File:AlanShearerBanner.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|Ifd)

The closer's assessment is subjective and problematic for the implications of consensus - "I cannot see a strong argument of how the reader's understanding is significantly increased by this image". How strong is the argument supposed to be? The actual consensus clearly shows by valid reason majority and specifity of argument with regard to the actual image and its use as opposed to vague principles, that the image does increase reader's understanding enough to satisfy the NFCC. How is anybody supposed to know what this measure of strength of argument is, if it isn't demonstrable by consensus? The image and its relevance are unique enough that no other ifd precedents are strongly applicable (not that any were even offered as a tool for comparison) so the demonstrated consensus in the actual debate becomes even more relevant. This IFD results was at the very least, "no consensus to delete". MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is this the same image that was speedied, came to DRV, was sent to IfD from DRV with the advice that it would probably be deleted there? The one of the guy on the banner? Protonk (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The one and the same. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • OK. Protonk (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• endorse deletion DRV is not DRV 2.  :) Look. I think we had a conversation like this in the IfD. The image is replaceable by text. I'm sorry, but that is true. That was the basic consensus at the DRV, which moved to relist only because the speedy was incorrect. That was the basic consensus at the IfD. It will be the basis consensus of this DRV. I really, really don't understand why this is listed here. The first DRV should have been clear that the image was very likely to be deleted. It went to IfD and the response was mixed but fully within the closing admin's discretion to close as delete. This image has received more attention (by 10-20 times over) than most at IfD. We can't say that too few people saw the discussion or that too few people participated. We also can't say that the deletion arguments were invalid. the discussion came down to "does this fail NFCC 1 and 8 or not" and the closing admin felt that consensus in both discussions pointed toward yes. We can't come here just because we don't agree with that decision. Protonk (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not quite right. On the claimed consensus across the two venues, I don't agree at all. We are both accepting all opinions were basicaly valid, so, after the orignal incorrect speedy deletion was sent to DRV, four people said list it at IFD but expressed no opinion on the image (DGG, Justin, Toon, Eluchil404) except that it deserved to be debated at IFD because that is where the people with expertise in image NFCC usually are. Also at the DRV, two voted delete without commenting again at IFD (Fat Purf, Anetode). Both you and Stifle voted delete there and again at IFD, while both Suntag and myself voted keep there and at IFD. Of the newcomers to the IFD, two voted delete (PhilKnight, Garion96), two voted keep (Crypticfirefly, Colonel Warden). By my maths, that makes 6 deletes, 4 keeps overall. Bumping that up to 7-4 by invoking the personal opinon of the closer is not on. 6-4 is arguably enough of an opposition to be a no consensus/default keep. When you consider the comments made about the appropriateness of IFD as a venue and that the subsequent IFD consensus when taken alone ended 4-4, then no, I am not inclined to believed that the case is made at all for a delete outcome. MickMacNee (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Have you considered the possibility that the closing admin didn't consider all participant's views as equally valid? Protonk (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Give me one good reason why he would do so. And don't say the idea of strength of argument, because that is exactly what is being asked to be reviewed here. MickMacNee (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Do you remember when I said in the IfD that you shouldn't hold out for an image like this getting kept because it was pretty clearly not above the bar for NFCC 1 and 8? This is the point I wanted to avoid by advising caution. People came to the IfD and said "the image of this banner can be replaced by text that says a banner was raised for him". This is a compelling argument. The banner itself had little besides text on it and his image. It wasn't a photograph that is impossible to describe in a few sentences. It was very simple. Since wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding fair use images tend to lean toward the result of "if it can be replaced by free content, replace it", this image was deleted. You proceeded to argue that "free content" wasn't policy and that the image wasn't replaceable by text. The first argument was (as I can see below) thrown out completely and the second was weighed and found wanting. You need to accept the possibility that although you feel the close was bad, others do not. That you might see the strength of argument on your side and that the closer felt otherwise. In borderline cases (i.e. unless it was an egregious close), it just isn't worth it to come to DRV. Given that this is effectively the THIRD deletion venue what are you going to do in the very likely event the deletion is upheld? My advice is to accept that the NFCC are a set of exclusive criteria and that "replaceable by text" is the killer app, so to speak. If we can remove your photo (which, by the way, can't be displayed in any version of wikipedia except the online version) and replace it with "this guy was on a banner that says thanks for 10 years", we have lost nothing and helped stay close to our mission, which is building a "free" encyclopedia (not just free as in beer). Protonk (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Well the fact is, you're wrong, because "this guy was on a banner that says thanks for 10 years" doesn't even begin to describe the uniqueness, significance and scale of the scene. But this would require some research into the actual situation, and not dogmatic adherence to a policy that clearly exists just for this sort of situation. I say one last time, this is no Simpsons screen shot. MickMacNee (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm glad you can accuse me of dogmatism and willful ignorance. Good luck with whatever forum you are going to drag this debate into next. Protonk (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse. A consensus has arisen after long consideration that the image should be deleted. MickMacNee's actions are disruptive forum shopping. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm calling it as I see it. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  To put it an alternative way, it was guaranteed that if the IFD was closed as a delete, MickMacNee would list it here. This is a place for pointing out how deletion process wasn't followed, not for trying to get a different result to the consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The closer didn't reflect the consensus. That seems an adequate DRV reason to me. MickMacNee (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse as it was my decision that I see as correct.(I do wish people though would read the instruction Before listing a review request at the top, before leaping into a DRV). There seems a lack of realisation that the NFC and NFCC requirements are exclusionary rather than the other way. They are intended to keep non-free images out UNLESS they meet a very strict set of requirements. People wanting non-free images must show how those requirements are met and, in this case, those arguing to keep the image have not shown how it is NOT replaced by text (NFCC#1) and how it IS significant to readers (NFCC#8). As for many other images it is a notable image....but this does not automatically mean that it meets NFCC#8 nor that it cannot be replaced by a free alternate. As for most discussion closures it was not, nor should be, a nose count but rather an assessment of the strength of argument as relevant to policy. Arguments that are clearly saying we should ignore policy are likewise ignored. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have personally never ever seen an admin reverse a closure through a simple talk page request, and I don't see any indication it would have been worth the time in this case either. For NFCC#1 I explained in detail how it is not replaced by text, these were never rebutted in any contextual manner, but merely dismissed with vague waves. In the face of such acts, what more strength of argument do you personally want to see if it is now down to your opinion alone? It certainly wasn't detailed at the time by the deleters, so I'm not sure any of them actually know what the required 'strength' is, if it not supposed to be consensus. Do you want me to conduct blind trials, reading the text to random people, get them to then draw the scene, and show you how nobody would ever draw the same thing? Do you instantly know the scale of the scene being described, having never even seen the stadium? The evidence of readers stating the text is insufficient is in black and white. For NFCC#8, I gave numerous reasons why it is clearly a significant image, again unchallenged in the debate. Again if you personally don't think so and need to be convinced, please give me some examples of an image that would be more significant to the bio subjects career, or in fact to any footballer? I will repeat, this is an unprecedented tribute. I made a very clear case of why this image was significant. Again, why are those arguments not strong enough? It cannot be replaced by a free image, it is a copyrighted banner, it can be no more be freely replaced than a logo can. I ask you right here, what more can be practically done to take this out of the realm of subjective opinion, because clearly, that is where this whole decision lies if the rule of 'convince me more' is being applied. You have given no indiciation at all of the measure you applied. It is no use anybody stating that this is not IFD II etc if they personally don't ever state what their expectation is, and require others to meet imaginary levels of satisfaction they either can't or won't specify. MickMacNee (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - Deletion guidelines for administrators requires that the balance the strength of the keep arguments against the strength of the delete arguments. The closer placed no standards or requirements on the delete arguments and improperly shifted the balance to a burden on the keep reasoning. In addition, the closer appears to have concluded that if you meet the text requirement of NFCC 8, that same text is enough to fail NFCC 1 ("is text in the article that describes the banner, to the point that image is redundant to the text."). The closer made no mention of the sourced critical commentary concerning the image that existed in the article - the objective basis for meeting NFCC 8 and NFCC 1 - and instead adopted the subjective test used by the keep reasoning ("I cannot see a strong argument of how the reader's understanding is significantly increased by this image."). Concensus is made by applying policy and guideline, not subjective, personal opinions as to whether a few editors like or do not like something. The closer improperly weighted the arguments and the close should be overturned. In my view (which is a little biased since I participated in the IMFD), the keep reasoning was stronger since it applied policy and guidelines and the delete reasoning relied on personal opinion and failed to comment on the sourced critical commentary concerning the image that existed in the article in its relation to Wikipedia:Nfc#Images#4 and NFCC 8. The close should be overturned to keep. -- Suntag ☼ 00:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • NFCC 8 is "used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", which has nothing whatsoever to do with critical commentary. Also, the image has to comply with all of the criteria, not most of them. PhilKnight (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Since there were not many contributers and opinions were evenly divided, there was clearly no consensus and the discussion should have been closed accordingly. Finding a supposed consensus to delete did not conform to the emphatic guideline of WP:DGFA: When in doubt, don't delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - this has bounced around the deletion process for long enough - the bottom line is the image doesn't comply with policy. PhilKnight (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)