Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Necromancing

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user 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: 02:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted.


 * (Necromancing | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

Description
The user has inappropriately uploaded copyright images, claiming them under fair use without source information for verification. When notified by at least two different users regarding the necessity of properly tagging images, he has not replied, but continues to upload files without following the proper procedures. (see: User Talk:Necromancing)

Also, the user spawned off various VFDs; about half of them needed to be corrected so that the procedure was followed correctly. (The user didn't post the VfDs on the appropriate page.) This was likely in response to the article he created, Allie Sin, being nominated for VfD. Given his attempted argument on the Votes for deletion/Naughty Nati, we can logically assume that he was attempting to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

The user is also guilty of removing the VfD notice from the Allie Sin page.

Granted, some of the VfDs were warranted, however the question lies: Did the ends justify the means and the intent of the user?

To date, the user has replied to none of the issues brought before him, therefore it must be assumed that the contributor is possibly anti-social.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * 1) Votes for deletion/Tawnee Stone
 * 2) * Necromancing's edit:
 * 3) Votes for deletion/Lucy Lee
 * 4) * Necromancing's edit:
 * 5) Votes for deletion/Kristi Myst
 * 6) * Necromancing's edit:
 * 7) Votes for deletion/Kitty Marie
 * 8) * Necromancing's edit:
 * 9) Votes for deletion/Kaitlyn Ashley
 * 10) * Necromancing's edit:
 * 11) Votes for deletion/Adriana Sage
 * 12) * Necromancing's edit:
 * 13) Votes for deletion/Naughty Nati
 * 14) * Necromancing's responses and impetus for disrupting Wikipedia via VfDs:
 * 15) * Necromancing's attempt to vote keep twice:, which was summarily stricken down by Scott Burley,


 * 1) Allie Sin
 * 2) * Necromancing removes vfd tag:, which was inserted by Blu Aardvark, and restored by Uncle G,
 * 3) * Necromancing adding frivolous pictures to Allie Sin page: ,
 * 4) * Necromancing's second removal of VfD tag: (29 July 2005)

Applicable policies

 * 1) Votes for Deletion
 * 2) Image copyright tags
 * 3) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 1) User:Mikkalai posts note regarding copyrights,  (12 July 2005)
 * 2) User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. posts note regarding image copyright tagging, regarding [[Image:Alliesin.jpg]] (image was later deleted)  (20 July 2005, 16:16)
 * 3) User:Gamaliel posts notices regarding Necromancing's images listed for deletion,  (20 July 2005, 20:09)
 * 4) User:Redwolf24 asks Necromancing to please tag his images,  (24 July 2005)
 * 5) User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. attempts to get user to recognize the use of the preview function and edit summary, given the multiple times Allie Sin has been edited: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Necromancing&oldid=19593931 (25 July 2005)

Note that the user has not responded to even one of the comments made on his talk page.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * 1) Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 02:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ashmodai 05:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view by McClenon
This is a poorly written and poorly Wikified RfC. It accuses Necromancing of two unrelated violations of policy. I will try to provide my opinions on the two issues separately.

First, I have not researched the image copyright issue in detail. It does appear on cursory examination that there is evidence of a problem. I would suggest that Necromancing should respond to requests to tag his images, and should be aware that if he fails to respond to these requests, he will be seen as a policy-ignoring editor.

Second, there are issues of VfD policy and a claim of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I am not interested in pornographic movies and do not claim to be an expert on them. However, I do not see a valid case that Necromancing has been disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He posted an article on a porn actress. A vote for deletion was posted as not notable. There is often reason to disagree as to whether a porn actress is notable. There was then discussion of which of two stage names she should be listed as. Necromancing then posted several Votes for Deletion on other porn actresses as not notable. This does not appear to me to be making a frivolous point, but rather saying that if his favorite porn actress, Allie Sin, aka Naughty Nati, is not notable, then the other ones also are not. Necromancing is accused of improper editing of Votes for Deletion, but the evidence is links rather than diffs.

I do see a case, that I have not researched in detail, about image tagging. The argument about frivolous VfDs is itself frivolous. The VfDs were reasonable. Robert McClenon 15:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Rainbowwarrior1977 18:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC) (see below)

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.

I totally agree with McClendon. Aside from the poorly framed issues (which in itself is a problem per RfC procedure), I think that this user's VfD's were legitimate. After all, if the precedent has been set that a minor porn actress such as Allie Sin is 'not notable,' it only follows that all other minor porn actresses should likewise be removed from Wikipedia. Moreover, the initiator of the RfC did not in any way try to explain how Necromancer's VfD's were inappropriate.

Therefore, on the issue of innapropriate VfD's, since the initiator presented no evidence against and now Necromancer has two valid arguments in favor, I think that he should be exonerated of the second allegation. Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

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