User:DESiegel/RFC Draft/Naconkantari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC).


Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this administrator's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Naconkantari has been consistently and routinely deleting articles and other pages that do not fit any of the speedy deletion criteria, or where the reason for deletion is incorrectly stated in the Deletion log. When users have questioned particular deletions, Naconkantari has frequently either responded simply "take the matter to DRV" or has made no response at all. This has proved highly frustrating for several relatively inexperienced users, and Naconkantari's engagement (or lack of engagement) with such users constitutes a violation of Don't bite the newcomers. When questioned on deletions by experienced users, the lack of response has led to unneeded frustration and stress.

In some cases Naconkantari has undone specific deletions on request, but has continued to make other similar deletions, leaving other editors to find such pages in the deletion logs.

When deleting images, Naconkantari has failed to delete the links to those images in articles and other pages, leaving other editors to clean up the resulting red links.

Naconkantari has deleted a number of user pages based on their presence in a "temporary" category, without verifying that such pages are in fact intended to be temporary, or that some templates may place pages into such a category automatically and in some cases incorrectly. When questioned on this, he has defended it as correct procedure, stating that such pages should not be in such a category

In a large number of cases, Naconkantari has deleted image pages as having no fair use rationale when such a rationale was in fact clearly present, apparently depending entirely upon the presence of a template tag, and not verifying that the tag correctly described the existing situation. He has defended this as acceptable procedure, relying on the presence of the tag.

Naconkantari has made several very dubious blocks, and when questioned, has responded minimally or not at all, leaving other admins to deal with the situation.


[edit] Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.


Naconkantari should use increased care in taking admin actions. When speedy-deleting pages, he will carefully verify that the deletion reason actually applies to the page. He will be careful that his deletion and block log entries reflect the actual reasons for his actions. He will take responsibility for admin actions that he performs, not depending on tags or category memberships that may be incorrect. Should he accidentally perform a series of admin actions out of process, he should completely review all of the actions himself and correct them as needed. He will apply the speedy deletion criteria strictly, using {{prod}} or WP:AFD in cases where no speedy criterion actually applies, if he thinks a page has been deleted.

Naconkantari will not use automated scripts or tools to perform administrative actions (such as page deletion) at a rate too rapid for confirmation, nor will he use such tools without actually confirming that the actions involved are proper in each case.

When questioned about an admin action he has taken, Naconkantari will respond, engaging the questioner. He will try to be polite and when dealing with relatively new Wikipedians will try to be helpful, not biting them, but trying to explain why an action is taken, and what steps the newcomer might take to contribute to the project. He will remember that, as an admin, he is part of the face that Wikipedia shows to the world.

[edit] Description

Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it.

[edit] Powers misused

  • Deletion (log):
  1. Naconkantari deleted 3148 images at a rate of one every 1.8 seconds without reviewing them to determine if deletion was appropriate. He deleted hundreds of images which should not have been.
    {{dated dfu}}, the template used to mark images which may not meet our non-free content criteria, previously stated, "Please do not remove this template; an administrator will review the claim of fair use." Thousands of images were marked with this template because they lacked a fair use rationale. In many cases, users added fair use rationales, but they did not remove the template because it states that the rationale requires administrator review.
    At 19:16 on June 5, the template was edited to state "You may remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern." Users who had already added fair use rationales had no way of knowing of the change.
    Starting at 00:40 on June 6, 5 hours 36 minutes after the template was edited, and running until 2:15 June 6, Naconkantari deleted every single image which had a dated dfu template from May 31 and June 1, without reviewing them to determine if a fair use rationale had been added or even if the dated dfu tag was legitimate in the first place. He did not remove the links to images from their articles. A full list of images deleted can be found here.
    In 1 hour 35 minutes, Naconkantari deleted 3148 images. That's 33 deletions per minute. A deletion every 1.8 seconds. That, to me, is clear evidence of an unapproved deletion bot, and is an editing rate far in excess of what would ordinarily be allowed for a bot. WP:BOT states: "Bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit the project by faster editing may edit approximately once every four seconds."
    Hours later, Naconkantari's mass deletion was noticed. I posted on his talk page requesting that he review his deletions; he did not respond. See here for the discussion from WP:AN, where Naconkantari states There has been some confusion regarding the {{dated dfu}} template. I deleted the images based on the current version of the template which did not include the requirement to leave the template on the page after including a fair use rationale. I have been working with the uploaders on my talk page regarding any improper deletions, and in all cases the images have been speedily restored. I will continue to work with anyone that may have had their images deleted because of confusion with this template. I am also going through in a limited capacity to review any deletions that may have been improper, however, this may take some time, so please be patient. If anyone notices an image was deleted that included a valid fair-use rationale, please leave a note on my talk page..
    Over the next two days, when a user specifically requested that an image be undeleted, Naconkantari undeleted it. He did not undelete any images that were not specifically requested. The last image Naconkantari restored was at 20:54 on June 7, about a day and a half after his deletion spree. I posted again on his talk page, apparently after he had departed, asking if he intended to begin reviewing his deletions.
    Naconkantari did not edit Wikipedia or perform any administrative actions from 02:34, June 8 until 14:36, June 15. On June 13, User:Agathoclea pointed out that Naconkantari had not been editing and asked if someone could help with the backlog of undeletion requests on his talk page. I reviewed them and undeleted as appropriate. I posted a request for help in reviewing Naconkantari's deletions. Only User:Spike Wilbury responded, and he and I have been working through the above list of deleted images.
    On June 15, Naconkantari returned to Wikipedia, but has not helped to resolve the image deletion issue since then.
  2. Naconkantari deleted 3205 user pages at a rate of 12 per minute without verifying that they were old enough for deletion and without checking to see if they were sockpuppets first, in direct contradiction with the notes on Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages.
    Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages contains user pages which are tagged with certain "indefinite block" templates. User pages of indefinitely blocked users can be deleted if they have not been edited in over a month, unless the users were sockpuppets. The category specifically states that the user pages of sockpuppets should not be in the category, but if they are, they should not be deleted.
    From 19:22, April 7, 2007 until 23:38, April 7, 2007, then from 12:11, April 8, 2007 until 12:24, April 8, 2007, Naconkantari deleted 3205 user pages at a rate of 12 per minute. See here for a trimmed and numbered list. He did not check to see if they belonged to sock puppets and would thus, according to the category page, be inappropriate for deletion, nor did he check the dates to make sure that the pages he was deleting were older than one month. He was given a barnstar for this, then people began to point out the sockpuppet and page age issues and stating that the deletions should be reviewed. Naconkantari replied, "If you truly feel that you want to go through and review every one of my deletions, feel free to do so. I'd think that your time would be better spent elsewhere, though. The pages should be deleted and I will continue to do so after the matter is resolved on ANI. I'd just wish that people would assume good faith and see that my actions are improving the encyclopedia instead of demanding my head because a few pages out of thousands are miscategorized and deleted."
    Please see the ANI archive for this incident here.
  3. Naconkantari deletes articles using speedy criteria that do not apply or using fabricated speedy criteria. After sending questioning users to WP:DRV, the incorrect deletions are routinely overturned. These examples are only from the last 3-4 days:
    • Deletion of articles using speedy criteria that do not apply:
    1. Adrian Belew Trio
    2. John Stehr
    3. Plahay/Palahi
    4. The Lying Game
    5. GoLite
    6. X-sample
    7. Liam Hunt
    8. Kim Amidon
    9. Kelly Moore (non-fiction writer)
    10. Didar Singh Bains
    11. Abhash Kumar
    12. Ceph
    13. 23andMe
    14. Velvet D’Amour
    15. Nirmal ashram
    16. Oakley Lehman
    17. Joey Jett


    • Deletion of articles using fabricated speedy criteria:
    1. Four Reigns
    2. First Time (Fabolous_song)
    3. Playa Chica
    • Recent deletion reviews that indicate consensus against Naconkantari's judgments:
    1. Adrian Belew Trio
    2. Four_Reigns
    3. GoLite
    4. X-sample
    5. Kim Amidon
    6. Kelly Moore (non-fiction_writer)
    7. 23andMe
    8. Velvet D’Amour
  • Blocking (log):
  1. Naconkantari blocks IP addresses, without warning or with no vandalism since being warned:
    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
  2. Naconkantari blocks IP addresses which have only made a single edit to Wikipedia, without warning or with no vandalism since being warned:
    1. [4]
    2. [5]
    3. [6]
    4. [7]
    5. [8]
    6. [9]
    7. [10]
  3. Naconkantari blocks registered users indefinitely for less than three vandalism edits:
    1. [11]
  4. Naconkantari blocks registered users indefinitely, without warning or with no vandalism since being warned:
    1. [12]
  5. Naconkantari blocks registered users who have only made a single edit to Wikipedia, indefinitely, without warning:
    1. [13]
    2. [14]
    3. [15]
    4. [16]
    5. [17]
  1. Naconkantari blocks registered users who have made no contributions at all, without warning or discussion, on a highly debatable interpretation of username policy
    1. Block Log Reason given by NaconkantariDiscussion at AN

(I need to expand on this, but it's hard to just read through line after line of blocks)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

WP:DP says: "Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions.. WP:CSD says "These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead. and Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved or reduced to a stub; if so, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate. Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete.
  1. Deleting pages with logged reasons that do not match any of the speedy deletion criteria (such as "See WP:OR" violates the speedy deletion policy, and thus the deletion policy, at least when none of the criteria in fact apply. Admins are trusted to speedy delete pages only when they fall into the general categories specified in the speedy deletion policy. Other deletions should use slower and more consensus-driven methods.
  2. Deleting pages by citing one of the accepted speedy deletion criteria, when that criterion does not in fact apply, also violates the speedy deletion policy, and thus the deletion policy. Deleting as "nonsense" an article that does not fit the very narrow definition of Patent Nonsense, or deleting under criterion A7 an article that in fact contains an assertion of significance, is improper. There have been multiple debates over the extent of the speedy deletion criteria, and proposals to expand the range of either the "nonsense" criterion, or of A7, have been rejected on several occasions.
  1. {explain violation of blocking policy here}
  1. {explain violation of WP:BITE here}

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. An attempt by DESiegel to resolve the dispute. [18] [19] [20] [21]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)


[edit] Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.