Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Outing comment

RFC: Does it qualify as WP:OUTING to repeat personal information (specifically, a name) provided by an anonymous user that has not been redacted? If so, I would appreciate a clearer explanation of why this is the case. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I came across this“outing” comment made by User:IntrigueBlue. IntrugueBlue claims he based his outing comment on this post purported to be placed by the person who has been outed. Given the extensive vandalism that has been going on at the Sunshine Village article (much of it directed at the person who is the subject of this outing), I think it would be wise to follow the procedure explained at WP:OUTING, to make a request for Oversight to delete both of these edits from Wikipedia permanently – but I do not know how to do that. Fages (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have RevDeleted the supposed "self incrimination" and WP:Outing issue. I shall leave IntrigueBlue a gentle reminder not to believe unreferenced content on WP and a strong hint not to repeat it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The following edits concerning the WP:Outing issue may have been missed for the RevDeleted process:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6] (good faith removal which actually serves to archive the outing)

Fages (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Was it necessary to RevDel my edit, which redacted the discussion? I thought that deleting the edit immediately before mine would prevent the material I removed from being visible in the diff. January (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm not sure I understand how this was a contravention of WP:OUTING. From the linked description (emphasis mine):

Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing.

The IP user in question posted their own name in relation to an edit, which I then repeated elsewhere. Unless I am mistaken, the individual did not redact this self-disclosed information, so the last sentence in the quote above does not apply. It wasn't my intention to incite harassment, merely to make other editors aware that someone with a strong WP:COI was repeatedly editing the article. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, an ip posted under a name which they said was theirs - we have no evidence that it was; it may have been a Joe job. As such, saying an ip is who they claim they are can be considered trying to disclose an identity without knowing that the individual has released that information. I know that it is a tricky concept, so that is why I only advised you and strongly urged you to be more careful - privacy expectations is such that the usual response to a disclosure attempt is an official warning or even sanction. To sum up, we do not know for sure that the subject has edited Wikipedia and that noting they have by referring to an ip comment claiming to be that person is considered WP:Outing - and it should not happen again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What? The IP claimed to be the person. While that may be a lie, it is absolutely not [[WP:OUTING]|outing]] to repeat that claim. It may be wrong, but it has repeatedly been held that as soon as a person outs xyrself, it's no longer outing to repeat that claim. If I state here that I am John Travolta Madonna Joe McJoeyson , it doesn't matter whether or not that's true--any other editor is safely able to repeat that information ps, none of those are true. There is no violation of policy here. Furthermore, that RevDel was not appropriate: editors are allowed to self-identify. Now, if they did so without realizing the consequences, and later asked for the info to be retracted, it could be allowed, but I see people self-identify all the time and I've never once seen that self-identification removed (outside of minors giving too much info, but that's not the case here). I believe both LessHeard vanU and Fages need to explain more clearly why they've contravened policy here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, and ErrantX, since xe's the one who actually did the revdel. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I simply followed up on action already taken (i.e. one revision was removed and someone added that there was more), you'd have to ask LessHeard vanU. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Here you go, from WP:OUTING;"If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason." On the basis that you, nor me, cannot confirm that the ip is the person they say they are (as you note, you can call yourself anyone) it can be taken that they are attempting to connect a real person with an ip address - and by confirming it, without knowing it is true, you are involved in outing that individual. I would really appreciate it if you would AGF that what I am saying, although quite arcane, is correct, and that I have been exampling as much good faith as I would want you to extend that I am explaining and providing a rationale for my comments. You made a mistake; we all do, and it is hoped that we recognise and understand the situation and move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I AGF that you think I (well, actually Intrigueblue) made a mistake, but I actually think that you made the mistake. This was an editor posting personal information about himself. It may be a lie, but it was not posting personal information about another person. By your logic, I could never repeat anytime anyone self-identifies. For example, on your user page, you claim to be "Mark James Slater." By your logic, I "cannot confirm that you are the person you say you are" because "you can call yourself anyone." Thus, by repeating what you yourself have written, I am violating WP:OUTING. A lot of IPs sign with a name, because they don't know how or don't care to bother creating a Wikipedia identity. By both the implied logic and the explicit wording of WP:OUTING, I may refer to that person by that name (of course, accounting for the possibility of dynamic IPs). So, if you're confident in your interpretation, I would like to you to clarify under which circumstances referring to a person by a name that they have themselves revealed is acceptable, and when it is not. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

“Confirmation” presupposes additional knowledge. If I had somehow gathered the named individual's IP address from elsewhere and stated that indeed the statement was correct (or that it were incorrect), I would be providing confirmation and giving “feedback on the accuracy of the material”. I never made any such attempt to confirm or deny, only made the good-faith assumption that the anon user's statement was correct and repeated it elsewhere, as explicitly permitted in WP:OUTING (see bold text in blockquote above). As for your comments, AGF does not mean “assume that I am correct”; I don't attribute any malice to your perspective, merely a faulty interpretation of events and/or of policy. I hate to be stubborn, but your subsequent attempts to explain your reasoning seem to require a leap of logic that I'm not following.

Regardless, I would like to hear you justify using RevDel unbidden on a user. Can you redact John Travolta's comments above because you think he made a mistake in posting his “name”? Can you redact this post because I just “confirmed” that Qwyrxian is John Travolta? What if I stated on Talk:John Travolta (which I won't) that Travolta was editing the article under the name Qwryxian? Where does the distinction lie? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just use common sense and reasonable judgment, taking into account the nature of the claims, and the type of person named (in terms of their likelihood to inspire imposters). It's not helpful to concoct weird edge cases and wikilawyer over them. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's the standard, then in this case the RevDel was even more inappropriate, because, due to the edits the IP made and the deleted statements made on the talk page, it seems highly likely (i.e., common sense) that the person is who they claimed to be. Again, this is common practice for IPs, to "sign" in plain text. Again, by LessHeard's logic, if an IP writes something on a talk page, and signs it "Bob Bobber," and then in the reply I write, "Bob Bobber, I think you're wrong," then I am guilty of outing. If an IP or user self-identifies, then that automatically means WP:OUTING no longer applies, and the policy makes this explicitly clear. If a second party says "That IP is actually Bob Bobber," then that second party is outing, and if I repeat the second party, then I am also guilty of furthering the outing. It really seems very simple to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth bearing in mind that unlike an account, an IP's edits cannot all be assumed to have been made by the same person, so if someone editing as an IP self-identifies that should not be taken as an admission that all edits made by that IP were theirs. In this instance, it could be a shared IP address for a company (quite possible considering the variety of edits from this IP). January (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a valid point. It doesn't completely address the underlying issue, but I should perhaps have been clearer about the uncertainty of the matter in my original statement. As far as I can recall (the original has been RevDeleted), I said, “It seems that [name] has been editing Wikipedia using IP [1.2.3.4].” I didn't state categorically that IP = name, though I did neglect to indicate that IPs can of course be shared by multiple people. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) I think we are analyzing this under the wrong policy. It's not really outing. But it is a violation of WP:BLP since it is making the obviously negative claim that a certain living person has made COI edits, with no support whatsoever in reliable sources. As such, it is properly revdel'd (WP:GRAPEVINE, etc.). T. Canens (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems much more applicable. However, the individual in fact made a self-identifying post on their own biography. I did reply to that post, but provided no additional information there. I repeated that information on the article about the company owned by this individual, which to me is a reasonable conclusion of a COI. And indeed, the IP in question had made clearly COI edits to the article, so I think the warning to other editors had merit. Was it jumping to conclusions for me to say that A was editing C because A had IP B and IP B was editing C? Maybe it would have been more appropriate for me to say that IP B was making strongly POV (but not necessarily COI) edits to C and leave it at that.

However, if my actions were inappropriate, how is it different to dedicate an entire section and even an entire article to the same subject? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 10:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has a promotional tone, and at the time was semi-protected because of repeated attempts to remove the material in the diff provided. That makes it obvious that there was COI editing going on, there was no benefit to speculating exactly who was doing it. Re your second point, as T. Canens says it's an unsourced assertion about a specific living person, and is quite possibly incorrect (I'm convinced by the variety of edits that others have edited from that IP). January (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Because those articles are sourced to something much better than an isolated IP comment. T. Canens (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree outing is a poor description of what's going on here. If my user name is David Montoya and I say that's my real name in my user page, it isn't outing if people say I'm David Montoya. However per BLP, we do have to be careful when trying to link either an account or an IP to an identifable person outside of userspace even if that account or IP has made the claim they are that person. As someone has said, we also have to be mindful that not all IP edits may come from the same person. On the other hand the fact that someone claims to be the subject (or someone covered) in an article is often not completely irrelevent as it gives greater urgency to their comments so it's not uncommon in BLP issues that someone will mention something like 'an IP who says they are ...' bringing up the point while making it clear we can't be sure the person is telling the truth of who they are say they are. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That being the case, would there be any issue with me repeating the statement that an IP claiming to be the individual in question had been editing the page? That information has been redacted by LessHeard vanU, but on no legitimate grounds that I can see. If the claim is true, he is old enough to decide for himself what information he wants to provide and what he doesn't. Others shouldn't be making that decision for him. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 04:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a problem with saying "user claims to be Joe Blow", as long as you remember that he might actually be your Auntie Monica. If a user wants to take some kind of action based on them definitively being Joe Blow, they need to contact WP:OTRS, who can handle evidencing the claim offwiki.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Stupid question Is there a reason this RFC is at ANI instead of the talk page of the policy involved? Seems a waste of ANI space to have policy discussion here. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tarc

Could someone possessed of more patience than I can currently muster please impress upon Tarc (talk · contribs) that calling one's fellow Wikipedia editors "undersexed basement-dwellers", and suggesting that they "worship a sexualized image of a prepubescent girl", is less-than-ideal behavior? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's not necessarily wrong, but it's unfair for him to generalize that way. It's a cute cartoon character. But apparently some read far more into it than mere cuteness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment #1 was a bit heavy-handed upon reflection though it is from almost 2 weeks ago, you're a bit late in the game if you're gonna carp on that now. #2 is what it is; many people, mainly from one niche wiki-project, are screaming to the rafters that precious Wikipe-tan is not lolicon, when it, um, kinda is. This stuff is swill, leftover from a bygone era of the Wikipedia, and it should not be given an ounce of room in project-space. As some opined in a recent AfD on a related page (linked below), this is the sort of thing that drives away potential new editors, particularly women, which has been a concern voiced at the highest levels of the WMF of late.

At the very least, this An/I should bring Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (2nd nomination) to the attention of a wider audience, just as the last one didn't really see a groundswell of opposition til the pro-tan clique tried to railroad the nominator into silence in an earlier AN/I filing. Good job, Kirill. Tarc (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of possibly going over old ground, could you supply a diff or two where women stated they were leaving wikipedia because of this cartoon character? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What I was referring to was several respected (IMO) editors opining to that effect at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!, not a specific person saying "I am leaving because of this". Tarc (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they're making assumptions. Unless they are also providing diffs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)There are making what I believe to be reasonable assumptions, yes. I don't mean to be rude, but does this tangent have a point? I never claimed specifically that women are leaving or refusing to join the project because of the presence of this Wikipe-tan project-space page, I only noted that others called for deletion of a related -tan page based on presumption of such. It seems like you're setting me up for a fail because I have no diffs for something I didn't really say in the first place. Tarc (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm just trying to get my head around what the real issue is. Apparently there are variations on this kind of cartoon character which are X-rated. But does that automatically mean that any representation of an anime character is suspect? The key question: Is there reasonable evidence that the continuing presence of this cartoon figure could cause significant damage to wikipedia's reputation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Using images of a 9-10 yr old girl in various poses, sayings, and outfits just creeps me the fuck out, to be honest. And others, apparently, though I certainly don't claim that others share or approve of my colorful commentary above; that's my responsibility and mine alone. Are all the images of this thing overtly sexual? No. But IMO there's enough of a taint with past imagery...whether it was the blackface or the french maid outfits of the "Think of Wikiped-tan" image gallery, or the outright pornography that Jimbo deleted from Commons a ways back...that I think this stuff just needs to be buried in a deep, dark hole. Tarc (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Explict stuff can and should be gone. But the "normal" stuff is something most people either enjoy or couldn't care one way or the other about. Saying that we need to discard all of it because some of it was bad is classic throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and claims that "women might be driven off" sounds like a textbook case of WP:BEANS to me. Contrary to the popular stereotype, there actually are a lot of women who are fans of anime/manga. And we have a lot of more important things to do rather than debate over whether G-rated cartoon personalisations should be trashed because some idjit was stupid with R/X-rated versions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're seeing stuff in it that I'm not seeing. However, I'm not up on this "lolicon" stuff. Given that Jimbo is the visible face of wikipedia, has anyone asked him about this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's commented about it recently:

I think this article was misleading in saying that I "recognized" Wikipe-tan. My removal of the sexualized version from commons was in no way an endorsement of the standard versions. I don't like Wikipe-tan and never have. I recognize that some people do, and I'm not particularly agitated about it, but my name should not be invoked in a way that might lead some to believe that I approve. Thanks!--Jimbo Wales

As far as I can determine, while he's not a fan, he doesn't view the character as being particularly problematic either. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me like he would be just fine if it went away, but he doesn't feel the need to force the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mentions of specific examples, and I don't expect that anyone else has either. It's certainly possible that something of the sort does indeed take place, and it's a worthwhile topic for discussion; but there doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence either way.

Regardless of that, though, I don't think Tarc's comments about the editors who support the retention of this page are warranted, particularly given the scurrilous nature of the allegations he makes. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree; indeed, the diffs linked to in the first post are certainly WP:CIVIL infringements, and even seem (to me, anyway) to be violations of WP:NPA; a "people who state X are Y" statement is no different than "you state X and are therefore Y". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The diffs presented by Kirill appear to show at the very least distasteful comments by Tarc not in keeping with WP:AGF. While one is free to have an opinion on the matter, calling everyone with the opposite opinion what is alluded to above is not in keeping with the consensus-based discussion model. I would suggest Tarc keep his arguments focused on the content, and not other contributors. N419BH 05:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc should be admonished to avoid attacking those who present views different from his in forums such as AFD. There has been a long history of attacking, demeaning, and ridiculing other editors, both in his comments and his edit summaries, rather than simply discussing the issues in a civil manner as required by WP:NPA. Twice in the last couple of months he has characterized "Keep" !votes as "fraudulent" in AFD [7], [8] and has shrugged off requests on his talk page [9], [10] that he strike the incivil postings, just adding accusations of "making up things that don't exist" and then deleting the request (without archiving it). He then characterized a DRV request in an AFD which the closing admin and other characterized as difficult and complex as "To "whine" doesn't accurately reflect what this DRV is; the Brit's notion of a "whinge" just seems to capture the essence far better than us colonials can muster. This is whingeing, the classic case of filing a DRV not over admin wrongdoing or mistakes, but because one disagrees with the result. ". In that DRV, he attacked several opposing editors with comments such as "That is quite a lie there." Tarc, please do not try to win in every dispute by insulting and attacking other good-faith editors. Discuss the issues instead. When people bring a concern to your talk page, do not just disparage and delete. Edison (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what we call "piling on". My dear Edison, that has nothing to do with this; if you have a beef with something said at DRV then you should have taken the appropriate steps to lodge a complaint at the time, not hold it in reserve to pounce at a convenient moment. Honestly, that turns your complaint into more of a pointy action rather than a legitimate grievance. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as your pattern of attacking others in AFDs is being discussed at this forum, it is an appropriate and non "pointy" time to bring up the long history of such behavior, which is not limited to the one DRV as you claim, at which others noted your past habits of such behavior. Clearly you want any complaint limited to the one individual abuse without demonstrating a pattern. That way each personal attack, taken by itself, might be insufficient to justify a block or a restriction of some sort, than a larger pattern might require. This thread should not be an AFD or a DRV as such about any one article. Edison (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just to clear this up; there is no real concern in my mind over Wikipe-tan being a "sexualized image of a prepubescent girl". I'm not really a fan of the image, but the suggestion in that deletion thread seems to be that she verges onto the wrong side of child porn. Or that people who like such an image are in some way disturbed (or worse). My expert opinion on this is that there is no issue; Wikipe-tan is about as far from Child porn as you can get, and the people who enjoy such imagery are, psychologically speaking, nowhere near to pedophiles. If we are to get technical imagery like this is usually intended to evoke the tragic innocence of youth (personified by a girl or effeminate male) - tragic because you quickly lose such innocence. It's supposed to be beautiful rather than creepy, and the image some people obviously have of guys furiously masturbating to pseudo-CP is way off base ;) This is an unfortunate side effect of a society where the social crime of paedophilia is (rightly) treated with extreme disdain. My point being that concerns over sexualisation and "worshipping" of this image are unfortunate, not based in any form of factual reality. :) Although I entirely understand and sympathise with such thinking. Leaving Tarc a note about cooling off. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the images, however, are concerning. I have nommed one for deletion to test the waters over removing the worst offenders. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment if as Tarc says "images of a 9-10 yr old girl in various poses, sayings, and outfits just creeps me the fuck out, to be honest" then I strongly suggest he never looks at a family photo album. Exxolon (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  This strawman has been attempted in the MfD several times, and easily refuted. I am speaking about THIS image in THIS specific context, not of imagery of children in general. Please don't attack positions that I am not actually taking. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• At the end of this we still have the same issue; a vocal faction decrying attacks on their "unofficial mascot", a mascot that was until quite recently used in some merely suggestive imagery, and some outright pornographic. I'm sorry if said faction feels aggrieved, but understandably there's very little tolerance for what this image has been put to use for. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• At the end of this we still have the same issue: Tarc still dodging acknowledgment that his attacks on others, in multiple AfDs despite his own strawman, are unwarranted and violate the basic principles of Wikipedia.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Copypasta of someone else's words with your own twist at the end really isn't a productive, helpful, or rhetorically imaginative response. Regarding the comments, perhaps in the future I shall think of more creative and less directly caustic ways to express my disdain for those who are in favor of retaining suggestive imagery in project-space. At the end of the day, a WP:SPADE is still just that. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Just a comment on the original complaint. Which seems to have been successfully obfuscated in the ensuing conversation. Tarc is experienced enough and literate enough to not engage in personal attacks. Tarc started in the right direction when he called it heavy handed. Though he veered in the wrong direction IMHO when he qualified that admission, and then focused on the fact that it was two weeks old. But for those comments, I would have viewed this as much ado about little. But under the circumstances, I would simply caution him to cut it out. He can make his point while remaining civil, I'm sure, and I expect it would be more readily received were he to do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Indeed, I don't ever seem to recall Tarc assuming good faith or being diplomatic about anything. He may indeed do so on occasion, but what sticks in my mind is a series of posts (e.g., at DRV) that demonstrate overtly and overly partisan deletionist behavior. The fact that this is an outgrowth of that does not surprise me at all; the fact that Tarc has not yet been sanctioned for repeated incivility is more of a surprise to me. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The above two comments sound like RfC material rather than points relating to this "incident". The issue at hand is not whether or not the editor has a history of being rude, but if particular comments he made about a particular issue were a policy violation. I believe they were beyond civilized discourse and it would be good if he were admonished, but I doubt there is much else to do about them. Should some of you think this and other issues warrant a RFC/U then I suggest starting one. Piling on here is not right though, IMO. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • No, a quick ArbCom "temporary" (=indefinite) desysop will do. 85.204.164.26 (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Anyone familiar with Tarc will know that comments such as those leading off this discussion are not uncommon for him. He knows what's appropriate and what's not. Its been duly noted for anyone keeping track, and the ANI can be closed.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh my. Well, one "final" final note. People attempting to frame this as being connected to acrimonious past DRVs/AfDs that I may have been involved in are barking up the wrong tree. Being frustrated with cliques who scrabble for flimsy reasons to keep articles on 15mins of fame one-eventers is one thing. Wanting to rid project-space of sexual anime imagery that originates in some long-past "unofficial mascot" era and that a growing number of editors feel is not conducive to retaining female editors in the project, is worlds apart. Honestly, a deletionist-inclusionist squabble is kinda insignificant in comparison to what we're trying to pry out of Wikipedia: space here. Tarc (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Clearly we have different definitions of 'sexual'. The truly bad ones have got to go, agreed, but saying that all of them are "sexual" because some are/were is like saying the 24 Hours of Daytona is the same thing as the Indianapolis 500 since both involve cars going around a racetrack. (And there's also a scent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The only thing "sexual" about this image, for example, is that the cartoon character is presumed (though not provably) female. Anything beyond that is prejudicial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, it is a drawing, so whatever characteristics it has are somewhat subjective, but I think it is safe to assume that it is intended to represent a female since I don't detect any hint of a penis in this image and Wikipe-tan appears to have sprouted breasts in this one. Also, the creator of those Wikipe-tan images, User:Kasuga tends to draw pictures of young girls. such as this popular illustration of Lolicon. I'm told Kasuga has created many more like this which are available off-wiki (but not on DeviantArt, who made Kasuga remove some because of "underage nudity"). If you think the sex of Wikipe-tan is ambiguous, you may be thinking of Futanari. User:Niabot is the go-to guy for futanari and hentai pictures here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
      • You never know, where drawings are concerned. It just occurs to me that banning a G-rated drawing because the character has been used in PG-rated, R-rated, or X-rated drawings, makes about as much sense as banning all G-rated illustrations of female humans because some female humans have been depicted as PG_rated, R-rated, or X-rated. Maybe just dress all the females in burqas, and everything will be peachy keen dandy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Your argument is unsurprisingly ridiculous. We aren't talking about banning all cartoon images of young girls everywhere, we are talking about the use of a specific character on this site and why that makes some editors uncomfortable. You have said that there is nothing sexual in the images created by User:Kasuga. Knowing that this same person has had images removed from DeviantArt due to "underage nudity" should make you think about that position again. I'm not suggesting that you see anything sexual in the images, but perhaps you haven't spent a great deal of time wondering why some other editors find there to be sexual overtones in these images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Removing G-rated images by an artist whose other work is not G-rated on the grounds that his other work, even of the same character, is not G-rated, is equally ridiculous. If editors are made uncomfortable by the images, then it's simple: don't go to WP:Wikipe-tan. As for being unconforortable if she's used elsewhere - Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; we don't not feature images of spiders on the front page because arachnophobes might see them, for instance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Perhaps you misunderstood - we aren't talking about images of naked adults or adults in sexual situations, we are talking about images that were removed from another website because of "underage nudity". Since Wikipedia is, as you say, NOTCENSORED, I assume there would no objection if images containing "underage nudity" were posted here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
              • No, I understand perfectly - and those images, if ever posted here, should be purged with fire and the person who posted them reported to the authorities. However, those images have not been posted here (at least, I hope not!), the "questionable" ones have either been deleted or are on their way out. What's being discussed here - I thought - was whether or not the G-rated images of Wikipe-tan should be removed because there are/were illegal/immoral images of the character that were posted elsewhere, and because editors here might be "uncomfortable" with the character because of that. If I've misunderstood the entire discussion and that isn't being mooted, then I apologise for that, but from my reading of the various debates several people (including Tarc) seem to be arguing for exactly that on exactly that grounds. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
                • There are various reasons given for disliking Wikipe-tan, but I am not sure that most people who find Wikipe-tan "creepy" are even aware of the other images by User:Kasuga or the derivative Wikipe-tan images by others. I believe some people simply find the use of a cartoon female child inappropriate for a project largely maintained by adult males. To dismiss the connection between Kasuga's other works and Wikipe-tan, as you and Baseball Bugs have done, is akin to wondering why Fox News viewers were upset to discover that Matt Sanchez had performed in gay porn movies. While on one level there is no reason for connecting the two, on another level there is a fundamental disconnect with the community's values. I will leave this alone now, but I think it is clear that this issue isn't going to go away without a broader discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
              • Err commons has a wide range of images of various types of people who are not adults naked.©Geni 11:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
                • It sure does!! Lovingly collected, uploaded, and curated by dedicated volunteers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
          • (Yes, I'm a bit late with this, but hey.) Maybe a more specific analogy would be better. Should the fact that Jenna Jameson has appeared in hardcore pornography mean that we must remove all the G/PG-rated pictures of her from Wikipedia, regardless of their content or appropriateness to the article in which they're used? How about Christina Ricci--should the movie poster image be removed from Addams Family Values because she appears in that image, taken while underaged, and has since appeared in nude scenes in movies? Or Natalie Portman--should her images be removed from her page, because a paparazzi secretly took topless photographs of her that were later published in a magazine, despite her never volunteering to do so? (If I could think of an example of a woman who had nude/sexual photos of her secretly taken in what she believed to be a private place, without her knowledge, where they were later published, but I really can't think of one off the top of my head.) How about Princess Leia--should the images there be removed because people have drawn pornographic pictures of the character? Basically, what you're arguing is that there should be a standard, whereby a fictional character who doesn't exist in any living, breathing form automatically becomes pornography in all images, should a single pornographic--or even suggestive--image of said character exist. If you follow through on that standard, all the examples I've given here would also have to also have their images all become pornographic, because pornographic (or at least explicitly nude) images of them exist. Indeed, the standard would probably mean that it's more important to remove those images, due to WP:BLP concerns regarding Jameson, Ricci, Portman, and Carrie Fisher, than it is to remove the Wikipe-tan images. Or should a double standard be put into place, where real people wouldn't have to have their images removed, but cartoon characters would? And what about, say, Red from Red Hot Riding Hood or Jessica Rabbit, cartoon characters explicitly created to be highly sexualized adults? I've seen pornographic images of both--should Wikipedia be purged of all images of them for that reason?

In short, I say that doing this is not only going against both the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED and common sense, but opening a huge can of worms that we have no real need to get into. Let it drop. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to let it drop, but people keep misconstruing what I have said and coming up with ridiculous analogies. First off, I have not said that I think all Wikipe-tan images should be deleted (on any grounds). My reason for entering this discussion was to try and explain what I felt were some of the reasons that editors might be uncomfortable with the use of Wikipe-tan. Second, we are discussing cartoon images of a specific fictional character, not photographic images of real people, actors portraying fictional characters, or anything else. Third, I have neither said nor implied that I think any image should be deleted because someone, somewhere has made a pornographic image depicting the same person/character. Fourth, Wikipe-tan, unlike your examples, is a female child. This may seem obvious, but I believe it is fundamental to why some people may be uncomfortable with the character (and probably why some people are fond of the character). Fifth, Wikipe-tan is not an actor playing role or a person photographed by paparazzi. Wikipe-tan was created by User:Kasuga, an individual who also creates images containing "underage nudity" and sexual situations. While this makes Kasuga the ideal person to create the image used in Lolicon, they may not be the best person to create a mascot for Wikipedia. I cannot say that Kasuga intended there to be any sexual overtones to Wikipe-tan, but it is clear that some editors perceive one. If images are deleted on that basis, there is no reason to assume that all images of cartoon children will be deleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, then, what about, say, Shinobu Maehara? She was created by Ken Akamatsu, who also has made/still makes (depending on your source) pornographic doujinshi, and there's a great deal of hentai material out there starring her. If, hypothetically, there were a picture showing her in her swimwear at her canonical age of 13 that was on either en-Wiki or Commons, would that mean that image should be deleted on the grounds that it's sexual material? (It's a serious question... I just want to know where, hypothetically, the line should be drawn.) rdfox 76 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I haven't suggested here that Wikipe-tan images be deleted, so your question seems somewhat misdirected. I believe the correct wiki-response is WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, but I'll try to give you a real answer. The two situations are superficially analogous, but you seem to be ignoring the fact the Wikipe-tan isn't a character from a popular series but the creation of a Wikipedia user for use as a representation of Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of Akamatsu's work, but if the situation is as you describe, I would hope that editors were aware of that in discussions about adding, removing, or deleting such an image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Having been the target of some of Tarc's pungent comments, as well having received similarly pointed supportive comments from him in other discussions, I'd say his comments regularly go beyond what are generally seen as Wikipedia's civility boundaries. However, and more importantly, I've seen a clear double standard in applying civility boundaries to discussions involving sexual content, and note that far nastier comments than Tarc's have been tolerated even when directed at named editors (myself included). Civility standards shouldn't be used to bash one side in a long-running discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

it is unfortunately rather routine at Wikipedia to deal with content disputes by personal insult. Even if the insults do not bother the individual whom they are directed at, they poison the atmosphere, inhibit rational discussion, and discourage the less hardy sort of editors. Sometimes that's the purpose: what reasonable normal person would go into a discussion where they know there is an editor ready and eager to call his opponents morons? It's not complaining about extreme rudeness that is an attempt to influence content issues--it's the rudeness. I have been reluctant to even comment on matters involving this particular editor, for I know he considers that I do not act towards him with good faith. But this sort of thing must be stopped. It's hypocritical to complain that relatively innocuous possibly slightly sexualized images of the sort seen universally in the world harm the image of Wikipedia, when it's the continuing recourse to rudeness in discussing them --rudeness of a sort way beyond what is normally seem in public discussions in responsible publications--that does the real harm. I think the images harmless, but I would gladly ban them if we could also ban that sort of invective. If anyone with whom I have no prior negative involvement uses this sort of language and I should notice, I shall give a final warning and then block. I hope someone--preferably someone who supports the person;s underlying position-- will have similar courage here. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

user:Sf5xeplus, total lack of civility

Upon my joining a discussion in progress on an article talk page, I was greeted with this somewhat uncivil response. His civility degraded somewhat further to include this insulting tirade, which earned him a user warning for WP:NPA, with his response to that warning clearly indicates that he completely fails to understand the concept of NO PERSONAL ATTACKS in any way shape or form. Perhaps a reminder from someone in authority would alter his perspective? WuhWuzDat 01:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the parasite analogy. (I don't agree with it, though.) Perhaps you two could just stay away from each other? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sorry, but I fail to see any valid reason to limit the scope of my editing, when another editor is CLEARLY at fault. WuhWuzDat 02:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was also met with what seemed like a rather nasty attitude when I reverted a pagemove which spawned this discussion [11], and subsequently labelled a "troll" [12]. I back the request that an admin remind him to be nice. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think you are consensus trolls, nothing more. I've had plenty of good collaborations with other editors, but I have nothing but contempt for both of you. This is based on past experience. It will be interesting to see if you can improve the article in question - the current "consensus" appears to be to create a content fork by simple 'copy-paste' of the current article into two separate article with the vast majority of the material duplicated. Being proved wrong would be nice, but I think you have some sort of delusion that makes you think good articles are created by stonewalling with your palls at wikiproject:UK railways - they are not. Somebody has to write them - and that writer doesn't seem to be you.Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is gonna go well... HalfShadow 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

• You have had NO past experience with me, and therefor no reason to prejudge me as "crawling out from" somewhere.
• I'm not a member of wikiproject:UK railways, nor are any of the other editors in the discussion "my pals"
• In the discussion on question, consensus appears to have been reached, with a single exception, user:Sf5xeplus
• You seem to have claimed ownership of the article, both with your comments above, and this edit

I think you should REALLY step back and re read what you type, BEFORE you hit that SAVE PAGE button. WuhWuzDat 02:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few other examples of this users tact and sensitivity, from the same discussion page [13][14]. WuhWuzDat 03:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You may not remember me but I remember you and what you do. Hopefully at some point you will realise that it is you that is making me angry, and will realise what parts of what you do are unhelpful. Until then I will have to put it bluntly to you. Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, then enlighten everyone on this discussion please! Please provide diffs for our previous interactions, because I can find no evidence of either dispute or collaboration with your current user name! Are you a sockpuppet? A returning banned user? What was your previous user name? The only (remote) possibility I can come up with is an anonymous IP jumper from Bulgaria, who shared your blatant penchant for rudeness and holding grudges, as well as your combativeness, and your occasional of use of strange grammar and spelling. He fell off my radar roughly a year before your account was created. WuhWuzDat 23:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A quick glance through the edit history of the Talk page gives the appearance that Sf5xeplus may have ownership issues, and that doesn't even touch on what looks like not-so-subtle edit warring. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note Watch out, your links were templates and added the entire article for those two essays to this page. I think I fixed it up though?--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • D'oh! When good fingers go bad... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This goes beyond just civility, it started going bad on the talk page as soon as it was suggested to get outside views from WikiProjects. He has to realise this is a collaborative project and he doesn't get to dictate what articles get created, or split, or merged. Any further refusal to discuss matters or any incivility of the kind displayed in the last few days should result in a block. Fences&Windows 05:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have ownership issues - take a look at the edit history - no issues with collaborative editing with "Signalhead" "Biscuittin" and many other editors here and elsewhere, my problem is zero effort no content editors jumping on for a free ride. Any loss of civility is directly due to the past and present behaviour and activities of "Mattbuck" and "Wuzwuddat" - no smoke without fire , maybe WP:DUCK also applies here too. ? (or you can just ignore what I'm saying and assume that this is a random and unwarrented, and unprovoked attack) - I don't like freeloaders - it's painful and tiresome to carry them - geddit?Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a gentle reminder for you...Wikipedia is an all-volunteer effort. Articles are improved by editors showing up to write them, or fix them, or add things to them. No one's getting paid to do any of this, so there's no such thing as a "freeloader". And the "tough love" approach you seem to be taking isn't winning you any points. Just my 2p worth here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is possible to disagree with people without being rude and nasty. Sf5xeplus needs to learn how to do that, and right away too. I've never been trigger happy about "civility blocks" but there comes a point where they are merited. If you continue with the personal attacks and insults you will find out exactly where that point is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of record, the article in question has been on my watchlist since shortly after it was created. I had followed the discussions on moving the article, as well as the current discussion about splitting it, on a daily basis. If Sf5xeplus wants to prove that his "attacks" had some basis in past history, perhaps he should provide some evidence, preferably in the form of diffs. WuhWuzDat 23:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

While you are here maybe you can fix this

The title British Rail Class 70 (diesel) is a bad title - the machine did not exist before 2008, but British Rail ceased to exist a decade before - the machine has never been called "British Rail Class 70" - this is entirely an invention on wikipedia, due to a namaing convention made up by and enforced by wikiproject:ukrailways. I tried to move the page to a commonly used name (disambiguated, see Powerhaul) but was reverted [15], and when I tried to get a page deleted for a move that was reverted too [16]. You can easily verify that the only uses of the term "British Rail Class 70" is wikipedia and its mirrors using a web search. You can also verify that "Freightliner Class 70" "General electric powerhaul" "Freightliner powerhaul" and other combinations are in common use. What is the point of a consensus when it generates incorrect article titles? not very good consensus is it.Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Dogged adherence to naming conventions can be rather unhelpful. If that name is purely a wikipedia artifice and not used in the outside world, and if there's a clear, neutral alternative which is used in the outside world, then the way forward is obvious. bobrayner (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Everybody knows Wikipedia is written according to consensus. Now stop bitching and get on with the program: be civil, make backroom deals, and then you can write all the BS you want. After you have enough edits, barnstars, and wikifriends, you can start being a dick, nobody will be able to do much about it except bitch. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your kind responses. Quite an accurate summary of what should happen, and what happens in reality. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Scibaby/vandalism/personal attacks

130.94.91.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 207.67.144.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 130.94.91.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tired of cleaning up after this IP. User has been banned for sockpuppetry, personal attacks, harassment, vandalism. Coronerreport (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Scibaby issues. I do see that those IPs have made changes, some of which you discussed with them that did not seem like vandalism. However, two of them were months ago and have made valid edits 1 2 since. Although their maybe some vandalism, the IP maybe being used by other persons. Since this is an open case, I would suggest you refer it to WP:SPICLERK referencing the previous abuse. I am hestitant to block them since the edits are too far apart in time without knowing more on the case. Hopefully another admin will have more info on this. Who (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with scibaby, but those edits look completely and utterly unrelated to Scibaby to my eye. You will have to provide much better evidence than this if you want administrative action on the sockpuppetry front.. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, do you have an email address to send it to? Because the RW identity of this person is known. Btw, the proxy IPs fit exactly with prior sock IPs of User:Scibaby. Additional harassment, personal attacks and vandalism can be found at Guy Hoffman. In fact, you'll pretty much find any articles, Matt Gonzalez. Ralph Nader and the like, any articles related to "Wikipedia Idiots" author and her family, manipulated, vandalized or used for harassment by User:Scibaby and his cohort User:Griot, aka the recently blocked User:SCFilm29. Their activities have been reported to several anti-stalking agencies, such as Cyberangels, as well as specific enforcement agencies. Coronerreport (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Users can be emailed from WP. My email link is on the top of my userpage. However, I'm still skeptical that this is scibaby. To my knowledge, actors are well outside scibaby's area of interest. Furthermore there is no point to editing random articles as an IP, as the IP will never be autoconfirmed. In addition, the 130.94 range is not one he's ever edited from. It's on a different continent from the 130.56 range that he has been known to use. You may want to ask Raul654 (talk · contribs) who did the block on the IPs in the 207.67 range if he sees any similarity. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's him. Coronerreport (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Single topic disruptive editing

Hi. Talk:Bailiff#Merger proposal has become a very lengthy discussion mainly between myself and User:Rrius. The latter uses such blatant demagogical tricks that assuming good faith could no longer be called 'naive'. It is a clear case of disruptive editing, preventing the merger of a stub article by its unarguedly purely French name Huissier de justice to be merged into Bailiff, and such without suggesting an alternative solution. Apart from the talk page (and a call for assistance that I do not criticize), Rrius had also pushed a completely incomprehensible robot translation from the French Wikipedia into the English article that I wish to merge, surely to make merging impossible: He had then left the "article" in that extremely poor state (though he definitely has the necessary capacities to have cleaned it up), most obviously without intending to work at it. I'm afraid it will be necessary to read through the entire discussion while staying focused, Rrius is clever enough to fool an uncareful reader. I already had identified his method explicitly, but now he continued with the worst demagogy and an unmistakingly plain lie.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 08:20 (UTC) 08:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Why does it appear as though the initial merger proposal happened in 2007? Is that a WP bug or a problem with my computer?--*Kat* ^(meow?) 08:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in here that merits administrative action against Rrius. It looks more like a content dispute to me. Have you tried mediation? --*Kat* ^(meow?) 08:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Rrius is never disruptive. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Great: After my explicit request to read through the entire discussion carefully, *Kat* proves not to have read it even superficially: His question is explicitly explained on two occasions. Before nevertheless coming to a conclusion, *Kat* should understand 'WP:Disruptive editing', [e.g.:

• disrupting progress toward improving an article
• disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia
• edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article.
• edits remain limited to a small number of pages that very few people watch
• harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors [...] by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity
• disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing]

before stating what it looks like. Do you think I would have spent all the time searching for proper sources and examples, and formulating arguments, for anything other than discussing content, until it became clear what it boils down to? Kittybrewster presented a clear and authoritative judgement based on the finest analysis I've seen in years; a judge above all suspicion of prejudice (= preconceived opinion). May I then ask, why do you both bother to hang around here? Is this the best one may expect here?​▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 15:10-15:37 (UTC)

I've read the entire conversation. Summarizing for others here: you proposed a merger of an article in September 2007; one person responded, to oppose. Three months later, an uninvolved contributor closed the discussion as stale, without consensus to merge. This is all so far entirely proper. There is not and never has been a requirement to notify the proposer; we don't notify proposers of closures of AfDs. It is presumed that if you are interested, you will be watching the article. Over three years later, you protested the closure of the merge (with some misunderstanding of how long it had remained dormant, rectified) and renewed the conversation. There is absolutely no prohibition against editing articles during a merger proposal. This is permitted even during AfD. Evidently, the contributor disagrees with you that the articles Bailiff and Huissier de justice are the same concept; over two weeks ago, he attempted to improve the article with a translation from the French ([17]). Granted, it made a bit of a mess. Perhaps he relies on WP:IMPERFECT and hopes that other editors will fix the problems. There is no disruption evident in any of this. He disagrees with the merger. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl correctly ascerted what happened, and nothing about that forms my reason for asking assistance here. The 'bit' of a mess largely exceeded what Rrius is clearly capable to correct with ease. And apart from the misspelled 'jusitce' (caused by auto-replacing the auto-translations as 'bailiff') having stayed all over the article, also the fact that an occurence of 'huissier' had become auto-translated as 'usher' instead, illustrates that Rrius did not bother to even read the result: just quickly integrated the lead and gave it a ferm kick into the open field. Rrius is far too intelligent not too realize what will happen to it. It was then obviously an attempt to prevent merging intendedly in the way I explained on the talk page. Note in particular how the sole argument of the initial opposer in 2007 (who took the stub's unsourced claims just for granted), was simply taken over by Rrius who then continued hammering on that alone without presenting new arguments, without attempting to disprove mine, and especially completely disregarding the most undisputable ones of myself and of the person that supported my proposal. Those are wellknown demagogical techniques, of the kind that I assume extremely rarely to be persistently used unintentionally. Please do read a bit more about demagogy before risking to get caught by H. L. Mencken's definition. Moonriddengirl's analysis of the course of events and applicable rules does give me good hope here, now an analysis is required focused on coincidences, techniques, and intend (and likely result: knowing progress by discussing not to be possible, and any progress by outside support made impossible in an endless discussion that hides all proper argumentation by myself and by the rare support, my spending my time outside WP - that's the only reason to counter-act disruptive editing, and what really defines it).​▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 16:15-16:59 (UTC)

Apart from 'coincidences' illustrating demagogy (a method of manipulation), there are several more 'coincidences' that illustrate dishonourable manipulation by Rrius:

• After about 3 weeks of discussion, Rrius suddenly "improved" the 'huissier de justice' article by the badly translated insert that I recognize as a manoeuvre to prohibit merging, precisely when finally consensus was becoming clear by a supporter of the merger.
• After my (27 January 2011) demonstration (as extreme Dutch POV) of how dangerous it is to name an article by an arbitrarily chosen foreign language, Rrius immediately pushes antagonizing French bias, and not in an ironical way. And then after my pointing it out, Rrius answered: 'Whether you call it a "huissier de justice" or a "thingamabob" [...]' and later on 'the huissier its cousins' - referring to the Dutch-language '[gerechts]deurwaarder'.
• Repeatedly derogatory or condescending language, and false ascertions of my not understanding the subject.
• Repeatedly stating and insinuating that I should move away.

Such manipulation can hardly be regarded as a series of attempts to facilitate reaching a consensus or to improve WP in an allowed way.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 19:43 (UTC)

• Nothing you describe here would constitute extreme disruption. In the absence of evidence of clear disruption (as we see in extreme circumstances), this is not the appropriate forum. You quote from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing above; it includes a sequence of recommended steps at WP:DDE. Except when editors are reverting and inserting unsourced information, this forum is far down the list. Other fora, including mediation, should in most cases be attempted first. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution also advises that "The Administrators' Noticeboards are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors." This board is here to work with urgent and extreme cases, or cases where other methods have demonstrably been tried and failed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not report 'extreme disruption'. Some steps are included within the discussion, and I'm afraid that mediation will end up in even more loss of my time by a useless yes/no discussion in which Rrius will be claiming a 'content dispute': The latter is nearly always true on a talk page, but entirely beside the point as to what is being reported - which as *Kat* hereunder again clearly shows, is by some not quickly understood. At least, Moonriddengirl has valid points. It is not most urgent; and only extreme by the clever methods, not by the obviousness, of the disruption. Walking away from WP seems to be the only sensible thing to do - It can't be too difficult, I had done that before. One all too quickly encounters some Rriuses and not much is done about that fact.

I just had a technical edit conflict with Rrius (hereunder) but will comment here. Rrius still blatantly lies about 3 against 1. The facts: he merely took the point of the first opposer (deliberately because he was angry at the time and neither then, nor ever later on, wanted to spend the time for finding facts about the 'huissier de justice' outside what had been pointed at from the talk page; there was never any fresh input by Rrius. Only one other opposer showed up recently, openly for non-admissible WP reasons opposing. My proposal had found valid support before Rrius' "translation". That comes rather to 1 opposer against 2 supporters of the merger, if WP guidelines are slightly taken into account - or 3 against 2, if not at all. The obstinate demagogue continues to falsely claim my not understanding something, knowing that most readers will be following his contorted version of what I am supposed to have said, and then it is easy to get the impression Rrius intends. Neither Rrius nor I knew very much about the topic, which I admitted - though only in as far as what I admitted. Rrius' false assertions of my not understanding things I do know, makes him appear the expert. Also that is sheer demagogy.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 22:50 (UTC)

I deliberately omitted summary of events lest this forum also become an extension of that content dispute.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Kat*'s then "deliberately" asking what events had happened, must have been dishonest - less that is now the case. And nothing here has been about content. Even on the article's talk page, the disagreement was not quite about content. I wished to merge because there was not enough material to maintain the stub that had hardly anything (and nothing sourced) that was not already in 'Bailiff'. Because the name for an article about the modern 'huissier' type of bailiff, would need another name anyway, and 'bailiff' would more urgently need a separate article about the modern function in English speaking countries, leaving 'Bailiff' as the global overview it mainly still is. It only appears to be a content dispute because Rrius never wanted to discuss the naming, though he once suggested 'Bailiff (civil law)' for a hypothetical but not by him recognized situation.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 22:50 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few points:

1. This appears to me to be an abuse of procedure.
2. SomeHuman truly does not seem to understand the subject, so asserting that he seems not to is not false. If he really does understand, he is doing a really bad job of explaining himself.
3. "Repeatedly stating and insinuating that I should move away" sounds really bad, but doesn't accurately reflect reality. First, I have never insinuated anything. What I have said, repeatedly, is that exactly three editors have weighed in on the topic and, of them, only he thinks there should be a merger. With the proposal having sat on the talk page for three years, I have suggested over and over that SomeHuman should let it go. Unfortunately, SomeHuman takes this advice, which many if not most editors would have given in these circumstances, as somehow abusive.
4. There was absolutely nothing inappropriate about expanding an article with text from a sister project translated through an online translator. In fact, we have templates to deal with articles where just that is done, and it is something I have done with other articles from other languages before. One of my points early on in the content discussion was that the article, if left separate, it could be expanded; if merged, it never would be. I finally decided that instead of simply making the theoretical point that someone might improve the project, I should actually do the work. SomeHuman may find that to be some underhanded attempt to do something or other (it's not entirely clear to me what my nefarious motive was supposed to have been), but that's just too damned bad. I'm not going to avoid making improvements because one editor alone wants to do something that my edit wouldn't preclude in and of itself in any event. If SomeHuman thinks my expansion of the article precludes a merger, then to show I've disrupted anything other than his dream of a merger, he has to show that expanding the article is itself disruptive. I fear that will be difficult indeed. -Rrius (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing here, to concern adminstrators. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No, nothing where Rrius is concerned. But there does seem to be ownership and civility issues on the part of SomeHuman though. I'm also a little disturbed by the amount of time that passed between the initial merger proposal and this dispute. Three years don't pass in the blink of an eye. That SomeHuman decided to make an issue out of this after so long is odd to say the least.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 22:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You're the worst reader, still not understanding anything about the course of events, and extremely narrow-focusing on that while it has no relevance. That is usually a sign of being drunk or stoned. It would explain your further observations. And that is as civil towards you as your three contributions here can possibly allow.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 23:01 (UTC)

SH, calling other editors drunk or stoned violates civility rules; I would advise you strike out the insult before you find yourself the subject of an AN/I discussion. -Rrius (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, creating an entry here automatically includes the original poster as part of the discussion as well as the target of the OP's complaint. Regarding drunk-or-stoned, that would require a citation, which I doubt the OP can provide. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Claro, but I'm sure you know what I mean. -Rrius (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• The root problem of the dispute seems to be that no consensus can be identified because the interested parties comprises only two editors who have found themselves diametrically opposed and can find precious little common ground. This logjam might be broken lose by adding one more editor to the mix over on the relevant articles to see if progress can be made towards identifying a consensus. Spending time on the meat & potatoes in the talk pages of articlespace should be much preferable to the hours and hours spent trying to prosecute actions here in WP-space.

  I know neither of these two editors nor am I particularly familiar with the subject matter. I am an experienced wikipedian and always put the best interest of our readership first. If it would help solve this, I can weigh in on the relevant talk page(s) to work towards a consensus. Nothing would be binding as I would be just another regular editor (but entirely fresh to this matter). If this is agreeable to User:Rrius and User:SomeHuman, I would propose we close this thread as unresolved and only come back here if there are unresolved issues pertaining to failure to abide by Wikipedia’s rules of conduct. How say ye all?

  Just in case I forget to check back here, please contact me on my talk page if this is found to be an acceptable path forward by the two parties. Greg L (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Panagiotis Xenos-Kokoletsis

Panagiotis Xenos-Kokoletsis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a long-going struggle to accept that we have a Manual of Style, especially with WP:CREDENTIAL. A short look at revision histories such as this one and this one shows that they are more than determined to have the article look like they think is correct, ignoring both reverts telling them why it shouldn't and countless warnings on the talk page. Now I think they are probably acting in good faith but I think something has to be done about this... Regards SoWhy 16:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks clueless, esp. about formatting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I left him a note in Greek explaining the non-compliance to the MOS and advising him to comply. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. K. I don't want to have anyone discouraged from editing here but if such a message is required in Greek, maybe they can be persuaded to contribute to el-wiki instead? Please let us know if they reply in Greek. Regards SoWhy 19:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SoWhy. I think he is proficient in English; he has created a few articles after all. But I don't think he understands the gravity of WP:CON and the importance of complying with policies/guidelines. Hopefully a reminder in Greek will bring this home. I will let you know. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the matter is resolved. Further edits indicate compliance with WP:CREDENTIAL and no further edit-warring. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I fear that optimism was premature. Further edits such as this one show the same behavior again. :-/ Regards SoWhy 07:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I fear that a short block may be in order. I really don't know why this editor is so unresponsive. But it is becoming time-consuming and disruptive to keep up with him amidst all this edit-warring. Give him a final warning and follow with a block if need be. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we can give up on this guy. Just keeps going... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's gone beyond ridiculous. It's become similar to a Whac-A-Mole game. Only difference there is no redemption. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No replies to any of the suggestions/warnings, no change in editing pattern, no apparent effort to conform with the MOS. I like seeing someone creating needed articles, and his English is not that atrocious, but against such persistent IDNHT perhaps only a temporary block might help. Constantine ✍ 00:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Now IP-socking. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

IP sock has now been blocked which puts this formatting feast on hold for 24 hours. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User on his own biography edit warring, and then personal attacks

Hey there,

A user by the name of Ibbymusic (talk · contribs) seems to be having a dispute with an article that is about him (he claims he is the subject of the article Jimmy Ibbotson). He claims much of the information is incorrect and is engaging in edit wars with other users, bots, and myself to remove said information. This is the history for the article Jimmy Ibbotson. He seems to have the understanding that he owns the article because it is about him, and is dedicated to removing information of which he claims is false OR that "I personally do not want to be made public", even if the information is sourced.

I tried my best to explain to the user why his edits were being reverted by me and other users, but then he posted an attack on my user page. The user also posted a message on a Facebook page that appears to be calling to "wage a war" on Wikipedia, which also calls me out.

User has also been warned multiple times.

I'm not super familiar on situations like this, and I believe I have done all that is possible, so that's why I'm here.

Regards,

Uhai (talk · contribs) 20:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

At least some of the material the subject is removing appears to be borderline BLP violations. I've got a user in mind who's a stickler for BLP information. I'll see if I can get him to join this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As currently written and sourced, there's no sources to back up notability of the singer anyhow—it's all cited to Wikipedia and their own liner notes. If he doesn't want the info on Wikipedia, he wouldn't mind deleting the whole lot would he? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As per Bugs request - yes if he is of limited note then AFD is a good place to deal with the issue. We are requested to try to address subjects issues and imo we should cut them a bit of a break because it is upsetting to find false content about yourself published through wikipedia all over the www. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the article came from a user with the slightly disturbing name GrowingObsession (talk · contribs), who appears to be focused primarily The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, and posted the somewhat personal info that the article's subject objects to. The details about the kids are especially concerning, as there's no indication they are notable in their own right. I didn't check to see if they're adults yet, and if not, that would also be an issue. In any case, most of the article seems to be about his work with the band, so it's kind of redundant. As Rob indicates, nominating for deletion might be the right approach here. I note that GrowingObsession has not edited anything in almost 2 weeks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to redirect him back to his main band but he does look to be independently notable (I have only skimmed) - I also have not viewed the exact issues but if the subject is upset about false content or claims of false content - consider having a good look at his worries and issues, if in doubt, get it out - so to speak.Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll leave the article alone, but bots and other users are still going to probably revert his edits anyway. This still doesn't solve the personal attack against me, his edit warring, and then the Facebook post (if that's relevant). -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Try to see it from his point of view. How would you feel if you were him and had your children put into an encylopedia article? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring over an article about ones-self, is a breach of COI. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but BLP violations override most all other concerns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP violations should be corrected immediately. Subjects of minor Wikipedia BLP articles are often put in a difficult position, as they do not know wikiprocedures, and (for example) correcting errors without supplying an appropriate source (i.e. not themselves) leads them into conflict with editors who insist on procedure above common sense. If the children are not notable in any way, then there is no need for them to be noted. A little understanding can help, lest people go out and tell their friends that all Wikipedia editors are a bunch of jerks. We have enough trouble with Wikipedia editors doing that already. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a case for ownership too. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@Theresa Knott: I would be upset, but I wouldn't go around calling the people who are reverting my edits, and I quote, "arrogant", "piss ant"s, and then saying "Get a life, away from this wikipedia shit, and stop trying to take control over things, and people, when you so clearly DO NOT HAVE A CLUE." I revert vandalism and unconstructive edits, and I don't appreciate this type of flak for it. If a user persists that he is not trying to cause problems, then I would try to ask somewhere to get another opinion. I told the user that I would ask around to find out exactly what needs to happen, and to prevent him from getting blocked for his edit warring, suggested that he do not edit in the meantime, and then he posts a rant on my talk page (the one which contains the words above). Additionally, he posts a Facebook message calling me out so now I'm concerned that there will be even more vandalism, and that I may be a target (ie, my user page and talk page). For that response to be posted on my talk page when all I wanted to do was to see what could be done, I find that unacceptable. If after all this you truly find his response acceptable, only because he's upset about misinformation and personal information (that has apparently already been released elsewhere, hence it being on Wikipedia), then so be it. -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 21:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoever the editor is (identity not confirmed), he/she needs a time-out. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to confirm that the editor is in fact the article's subject? Keep in mind that, as far as we know, the subject himself did not write the article. The best solution might be the carpet-bombing approach: (1) block the article's author for BLP violation; (2) block the alleged subject of the article for incivility; and most importantly, (3) delete the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think option #3 was used a few years ago, when an editor demanded that his bio article be deleted (after alot of threatening). GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is everybody forgetting that the article lacks reliable sources, which means we can't verify any of the information - from either side - about this living person? I've been bold and removed any and everything that isn't sourced. GiantSnowman 22:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Good move. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work! The information is still available by looking at the previous versions, and if properly sourced, may be re-added. We should try to keep subjects of BLP articles happy - maybe they will become productive editors on articles that impact on their own life spheres. --Pete (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, good move.AerobicFox (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, so is the user innocent on the whole attacking me and Facebook thing then? Shouldn't someone at least issue a warning? It should be general knowledge and common sense that the behavior he exhibited is inappropriate, regardless of what's going on with the article. Also maybe someone should let him know what has happened with his article. -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 22:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It looks to me like you were the unfortunate scapegoat of his wrath (understandable wrath, if he is who he says he is, which appears to be possible), after first going to the article's author, who has disappeared. At the risk of putting ideas in his head, I note that he made nothing resembling a legal threat, and made no attempt to out you in real life, he merely quoted you from wikipedia, which of course is a public source. Maybe you or someone could post a comment on his user page saying that the BLP-violations and other unsourced info have been removed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself here. Whenever an editor posts obnoxiously on one's talkpage, the 'revert' button comes in handy. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this a frequent occurrence? Loud and disturbing noises might be a sign that something is wrong under the hood. It pays not to ignore these things too much. Tape over that blinking oil pressure lamp, keep driving, and you might find yourself off the road for a year. --Pete (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not overly tough on pushing block per WP:CIVIL, but that newbie editor was rude. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I made a comment about pots and kettles on your talk page a while back. Perhaps it was too subtle. Newbie editors should be accorded some slack. They don't know how things work here. Yet. --Pete (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose so. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing is so poor, the entire article should be deleted. The subject of the BLP was understandably upset about Wikipedia editors using poor sources to write about his life. That editors are calling for sanctions against the subject rather than examining their use of poor sources to justify an article we should not have, is the real problem. Viriditas (talk),

I've little sympathy for any subject of a Bio article, unless that subject shows up at my place & recommends beating me up. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Practicality can outweigh strict adherence to the letter of the rules. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: I'll let him know, if someone hasn't already. And I'm not sure what you mean by "quoting you from Wikipedia". He basically just accused me (of following Wikipedia's policies) using colorful language. To the person who implied that I didn't use common sense on this (Pete I think), I did. The sources that are now removed seemed acceptable to me (my mistake if they weren't), as I was using good faith and more aimed at preserving the status quo of the article because his edits were blatant and controversial, and did not make use of the edit summaries. In my opinion, he should have just taken the concerns over his article to a lawyer or publicist rather than handling it himself and confusing vandalism fighters such as myself, bots, and other users. If he's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article that has not yet been deleted, then he should have a lawyer who handles issues with false information and libel. That's just my two cents, though. Let me remind you again, before I get blamed any more, that I only reverted 2 of the edits on the article in question - the rest being by bots and other users. Before I go, I'll just let you know I have a very low tolerance for uncalled for disrespect over an issue that could have been handled with a simple and civil discussion, and this is the reason for my posts here (although I also thought that the edit warring need to stop and his concerns over the validity of the article needed to be acknowledged.) Thanks. -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Your bringing this issue up was important, as it needed some airing in order to let the admins determine how to handle it. Ironically, you seem to be saying that Ibby should have made a legal threat, which I assure you would have resulted in his immediate block and probably even more angry escalation. Keep in mind that BLP is a very important concern for the owners of wikipedia, as it's one thing on a very short list of matters that have potential to do real harm to both individuals and to wikipedia. Both you and the editor in question acted in good faith, as it looks currently, albeit with some emotion involved. There's still a notability issue about that article, and unfortunately the real "culprit", its original author, vanished after the 24th. Posting a comment on Ibby's page would be good for you to do, and if he continues to rant and rave, that will be another story. Deleting the article might be the best thing, as it would erase the possible BLP violations that are currently visible in the history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Uhai, Ibbymusic is a wiki newbie who has made less than 30 edits, and you suggest he should have got a lawyer to fix the article!!!!! Ohmigawd. If you read what Viriditas said five pars above this one it sure didn't register. Moriori (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Uhai has already posted some comments on Ibby's talk page, which seem fair and reasonable. Keep in mind Uhai is relatively new here also. It's better to ask here, or somewhere, than to get into a protracted edit war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying, if I was a person of relative fame (who has never edited Wikipedia before) and I saw incorrect or libelous information here, my logic would be to contact my lawyer or publicist so they could contact the Wikimedia Foundation, not necessarily with any threats, but with a request that the information be removed. I don't see the concept of "taking it into my own hands" working well with a biography on Wikipedia for someone of whom the article is about. And clearly it hasn't worked well, because I had to make this post here. And yes I am relatively new. I've been registered for four years but have in the past two months become considerably active, so please forgive me if I'm a little "rough around the edges". I enjoy countering vandalism, because that's what I'm good at. When someone posts on my talk page with a strange situation regarding my edits (in this case, a person questioning me about article of which he is the subject), that's when I get a little shaky. And don't take my comments regarding a lawyer too far, that's just my two cents. -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 23:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left a caution note for User:GrowingObsession about adding poorly referenced controversial information about living persons. Personally I don't see the reaction of User:Ibbymusic as especially surprising or especially problematic. GiantSnowman has done exactly what needed doing with the article, now we'll see whether Ibbymusic has any further comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What I find ironic in all this is that [18] comes under a "reviewer granted" message. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

76.206.29.76

76.206.29.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is continously deleting my comments from the Generation Y talk page, called me a moron and has left attacking comments on my talk page, which I had to delete. I initially responded to his/her comment about believing Generation Y is 1965-1979 and I informed him/her that we cannot incorporate original research or opinions on the page, and ever since then they have attacked, and keep deleting my comments, telling me to grow up. Educatedlady (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be removing his comments too [19] What gives? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I also note the IP user wasn't notified of this discussion. I have taken the liberty of posting the required notice. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I stated I removed comments where he/she was attacking me. What do you mean what gives? Educatedlady (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

The point Theresa was making, is that diff shows you removing a comment that didn't attack you, it was just a (badly phrased) comment on content and on the discussion. It described "the debate" as being "dumb", it didn't describe you personally as anything. As such, it can't be considered a personal attack and should not have been removed from the article talk page. If there's a problem with the comment - for example if it's misrepresenting sources or if the level of civility used is in question or it's part of a pattern of tendentious editing - then all the more reason it needs to stay there so that others can observe the issue without having to sort through talk page histories to work out what actually happened. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the point I am trying to make is I was attacked. The comment I deleted that wasn't an attacked was removed, but I put it back in good faith, I know you all can see that. Don't accuse me of something that that was purely an accident. Every comment I deleted by this person intentionally was an attack, pure and simple. Educatedlady (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Attack 75.11.156.74

Now IP 75.11.156.74 is attacking me via Generation X talk page. I checked both IP addresses and both are in Illinois so I am pretty sure they are the same person.

Educatedlady (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

He asked that you be banned and you deleted that comment. [20] Don't do that. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 06:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That was an accident and I put that comment back as you can see. As for the comment asking for me to be banned, that was an attack on me. He/she had no right to post such a statement on that talk page, which has NOTHING to do with the subject matter. Please do not tell me what to do. You are not my mother. Learn how to talk to people with respect instead of trying to treat them like trash. Educatedlady (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Copping an attitude with folks who are trying to help is not necessarily your best strategy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Who's "Copping" an attitude Baseball? How would YOU feel if someone is trying to speak to you like a child? "Don't do that" I am not 5 years old. So when you are here, take off the "mommy hat" and realize that you are dealing with adults. I don't see how that is helping me. Please explain Educatedlady (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

When an admin says, "Don't do that", that's usually good and useful advice. To put it a little more elegantly, it's usually not appropriate to delete other users' comments from an article talk page. If you already know that, then all's swell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, when attacked by an IP or a redlink or some other newbie, the best approach is the old saying, "Don't get mad, get even." Tell them to stop, and if they won't stop, then report them here or to WP:AIV or to WP:RFPP depending on the situation, and that will typically shut them down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you put the comment back, so I apologise for that. Note that it was not my intention to treat you like a child, sometimes I can be very direct, some people like it, others not so much. The difficulty we have is that you came here looking for the admins to back you up but it's difficult for us to do that when you have deleted all the evidence of bad behaviour, and may have actually provoked more bad behaviour by deleting comments. It just makes it very difficult for the admins to work out what is going on. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I just feel that we need to speak to each other with a little more "tact". I know I have been guilty of not doing such. I would have never come here seeking help, if I had done the same thing I was accusing the other user of. It wouldn't have made sense, because I know you guys can see who deleted, and edited what. I appreciate your assistance however in the warnings. Take care. Educatedlady (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting comment to be deleted

I am requesting a comment to be removed by an unregistered user on the Generation X talk page. The comment was an attack requesting that I be banned simply because I informed the user on the Generation Y talk page that he/she cannot incorporate opinions on the actual article . Educatedlady (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 07:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Generation_X&diff=next&oldid=417433719 Educatedlady (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the sort of attack that is best to shrug off and ignore, deletion or any other form of direct response to it is only feeding the fire, per WP:DENY. Plus it is only ever encouraged to remove particularly nasty attacks. I can imagine those discussion pages tend to get heated, so a deep breath and lots and lots of patience is the only real solution, unfortunately --Errant ^(chat!) 10:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I read the comment, no one with a clue will take it seriously.--SPhilbrickT 17:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that it has been collapsed and probably tells anyone reading much about the IP's attitude and behaviour. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Cross-wiki promotion

I could be of some interest to you that User:Lawren00 seems to have engaged in the promotion of François Asselineau and his "political party", both of which were deleted on fr-wiki for lack of notability deletion page. Most, if not all, of teh references of the current page here are spurious (in the sense that they provide little or no information about this person, at best a quick quotation). Therefore, this article and user may be warranting some attention. Best. Bokken | 木刀 13:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.  Frank  |  talk  13:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I know the page but since (1) as a sysop of fr-wiki, I was marginally involved in the deletion there and (2) I do not have enough experience on en-wiki to feel comfortable with such a request (and i know that notability guidelines are different), I do not wish to do what could appear as a WP:POINT request. Bokken | 木刀 13:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The community would decide that either way. People might try to claim WP:POINT but ultimately the issue is whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Deletion elsewhere and involvement on another wiki are not the point, unless you try to claim the reason for deletion here is that it was deleted elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  13:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Bokken appears simply to be giving the community a head up. It's not necessary to WP:BITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed (with IP). Bokken, there would be no issue if you wished to nominate the article for deletion, or indeed to edit it to remove material supported by dodgy references.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Also agree with IP - no need to WP:BITE.  Frank  |  talk  15:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, on this article sources are all from most popular French Newspapers Les_Échos_(France), Libération, Le Monde, Le Parisien and Le Figaro. I do not know how we can invocate awkward reason such as reliable sources for deleting the article.--Lawren00 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The question is not the reliability of the sources but the fact that they are barely talking about François Asselineau, meaning that his notabilty is questionable. Udufruduhu (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Reporters Without Borders

An IP hopping anon which was previously discussed regarding their edits to Reporters Without Borders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), is now edit warring over the insertion of personal attacks on the talk page. They repeatedly remove comments to them, while restoreing an earlier version their personal attacks. Ironically, their actions are what they are accusing others of doing. I'm suspecting that talk page protection and/or a range block may be needed if the IP refuses to recognize that their behavior is the root of the current problems. I'm bringing it here to discuss as I'm not a huge fan of protecting talk pages, and a range block appears wide enough to impact a large number of other editors.

Note: I have no involvement in either the article or the talk page, other than reverting the personal attacks on the talk page, blocking one of the IPs involved, and posting a notice about the disruption to the talk page. I have no interest in editing the article subject at this time, and will leave the content and content discussions to others. --- Barek (talk) - 14:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference link to prior discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive678#Reporters Without Borders and Press Freedom Index. --- Barek (talk) - 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked into the possibility of the rangeblock previously. There appears to be some collateral last time I checked. I looked into the possibility of smaller rangeblocks though. Based on recent edits, 123.231.82.0/24 and 123.231.85.0, looks blockable, and 123.231.114.0/23 is a somewhat. Will look at others Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 15:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite warnings, the IP continued edit warring over restoring a prior version that contained personal attacks, so I've semi-protected the talk-page for 31 hours. I invite comments on this action. If consensus is against the protection, please feel free to lift it without waiting for comment from me (as I will be going to bed soon). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny

I've reinstated this thread which has just been archived because no administrator has either taken action on it or determined no action should be taken. Can an administrator please respond. DeCausa (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Mindbunny - disruptive editing on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

I’ve been trying to reach agreement with User:Mindbunny on a content dispute in Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and have found Mindbunny to be confrontational, unwilling to discuss meaningfully, as well as issues of WP:OWN and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and generally disruptive editing, underpinned by a POV. In a sense, the content issue is not that significant, but I am concerned enough to bring it here because I believe this user has driven other editors away from this article in order to keep control of it e.g. please see this and especially this posted by another editor. Mindbunny forced this into the article (fairly clearly lacking in NPOV), by edit-warring here here here here here here here and here. An opposing editor posted these on Mindbunny’s talk page, gave up and has not edited the article since. The Mindbunny account has only been in existence since 1 December 2010. There is a strong suspicion that this user is a sock of User:Noloop who supposedly retired last November – another editor has begun an SPI on that (see here, the result is not yet known. Noloop largely created the article as it now is and was under scrutiny for disruptive behaviour (see also this revert of Noloop's Talk page) – that’s covered in the diffs in the SPI report. (Incidently, 5 editors in total have expressed the opnion that Mindbunny is a sock - see SPI diff plus this

On the specific issue of my current content dispute with Mindbunny, the summary is as follows. I introduced this edit at the beginning of Feb., which Mindbunny reverted. I couldn’t get Mindbunny to discuss this meaningfully and regretfully I got into an edit war. I admit I was at fault on this as well but it was out of frustration in Mindbunny’s lack of proper response. I reported it to AN/3RR (here. This was how far I got on the Talk page with the user at the time I reported it. Mindbunny was blocked and then unblocked in part because I was not sanctioned (the reviewing admin thought I was at fault as well.) After this Mindbunny posted a proper response to my edit on Talk, I responded by radically changing my edit here (with Talk comment) on 8 February. Actually it was a completely different edit albeit with te same underlying point. The article was edited by about 10 editors over the next two weeks including one editor who made some minor changes to the text I added and Mindbunny herself who edited other text in the section it was in on 21st February. None (including Mindbunny) removed the text or commented adversely on it. To me (and maybe I’m wrong on this) this indicates consensus acceptance of the text. Then on 22 February (the day after the SPI on Mindbunny began, to which I posted a comment on the 21st) Mindbunny removed the text. After two reverts, and an exchange on the Talk page I proposed that we get a WP:Thirdopinion here, but there has been no response despite asking a second time. I believe that the reason for Mindbunny’s latest reverts is (a) because I supported the SPI (the timing indicates that) and (b) it is contrary to Mindbunny’s strong POV on this subject. The original edit and this edit are completely different texts but with a similar underlying point. This point is valid and would provide the article with some balancing NPOV – it would appear that Mindbunny objects to that. Mindbunny's edits (as with Noloop) are generally along the lines of being overtly hostile to the Saudi treatment of women. Just to be clear, I have absolutely no sympathy with the Saudi position, but there is a question of maintaining NPOV credibility. I've informed Mindbunny of this post. DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, on February 7, the user was not blocked (or, rather, the blocking admin quickly reversed their block), because at that point in time (February 7), they had not been given {{uw-3rr}} or some other warning making them aware of that policy. Since that time, Mindbunny's edits have contained very little other than edit warring and some fundamental misunderstandings of policy (eg "undo violation of BRD by Decausa" - what does that even mean?). I support something being done here. --B (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that Mindbunny has adopted a similar approach on Lara Logan - see this. DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Entertaining to see so much edit-warring by those complaining of edit warring. The link above is a threat by Eriklectic to start edit-warring, complete with a time and date: "I will be reverting the Lara Logan edits by 10am EST tomorrow". This, on a page that has been protected for much of the last week. B, who "supports something being done here" has chosen to do it by reverting my revert on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. His comments on the Talk page? Nonexistent. His edit summary? Nothing to do with content. That's a great way to diminish edit warring! As for Decausa, the actual sequence was that he plopped an enormous list down into the article, saying he had found it in Saudi Arabia and needed a place to stick it. [[21]]. I undid it with an edit summary, and he immediately reverted my revert, complained that my reasons weren't "proper," and accused me of edit-warring. Smart! Due to confusion caused by sloppy "recent change patrollers", I was blocked twice. Both blocks were undone by the blocking admin on his own initiative. Decausa's description is erroneous in many other ways. This is wrong: " Mindbunny forced this into the article (fairly clearly lacking in NPOV), by edit-warring...." I didn't add that; I undid its removal. There is more nonsense in his account, but it's not worth belaboring. My only other comment is that I will edit war to keep out the details of someone's sexual assault in a BLP that she didn't authorize and that is sourced anonymously. There is no public right to know that Lara Logan was or was not raped that can be bequeathed by anyone by Lara Logan. To date, she hasn't chosen to make that information public and we should respect that.Mindbunny (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying "I will edit war...", for any reason, is not the way to win friends and influence people. There are lots of things that lots of people would rather not have the public know that are reported and verifiable through reliable sources. Should they be removed from articles just because the person the article is about has neither confirmed or denied them despite the fact that reliable sources state them as fact? Also, a BLP that she didn't authorize - are you referring to the release of the information (which, if the source of the information is anonymous, how do we know they aren't speaking on her direct behalf?), or are you suggesting that the subjects of BLPs must give their consent to their Wikipedia articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about a recent sexual assault. So, yes, she must give her consent before the details of exactly how she was or wasn't sexually assaulted are declared "encyclopedic" by a bunch of assholes with Wikipedia accounts. Mindbunny (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny, what makes you the enforcer? Why are you deciding for the community rather than letting the community decide for itself?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I for one, am the enforcer on the issue, as the previous blocking admin (note: I'm not even sure what the whole edit war is about, so I can't be biased on the issue). And that statement was entirely inappropriate. Yeah, I kind of goofed up that block history; the first block was only not deserved because the user wasn't given a proper warning - although later talk on the user's page now gives the impression this may not be the user's only account. The second block was definitely deserved, but I was feeling lenient.

Mindbunny, please stop hitting the revert button and being rude, now, or you'll see yourself blocked again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly why would I be blocked for "hitting the revert button", rather than, oh say, those who are hitting the edit button without consensus? As for civility....If you think you're entitled to know whether somebody was raped, you're an asshole. If you think that detail is encyclopedic when it is reported anonymously, you're truly uncivil. The idea that admins care more about the word "asshole" than compliance with something truly respectful, civil, and humane in the description of a sexual assault is offensive and disgusting. And, exactly why is all this crap being directed at me? Somebody just announced an intent to edit war beginning precisely at 10 AM tomorrow. A reader of this page just went over to Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and reverted my revert--to prevent edit warring. So now you're threatening to block me for editing other pages because I said "asshole" on AN/I? That makes no sense. Mindbunny (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the reasoning, referring to other editors by that term is uncivil and borders on WP:NPA territory. It has nothing to do with the article or its content, it has to do with how you choose to present your case. (And on the subject of the article and its content, does it strike anybody else as odd that the, presumably positive, statement that the assault was NOT rape is what's being demanded to be removed?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Suppose I told you that I had been sexually assaulted. Would you ask me "Well, were you raped"? If you heard from someone who heard from someone who probably knew the truth, would you run around announcing that I hadn't been raped, and put it on the Internet? I sure hope not, and if you did do those things, you would be an #*$%. Privacy is privacy. You don't ask such things, and you don't tell them. If they're not volunteered, you live without knowing. It's for the victim to specify, or not. And, the BLP guidelines pretty much say that. Mindbunny (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. There doesn't seem to be any getting through that he/she is not in charge and we have to work with others.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. Despite clear, eminently civil requests from the community, Mindbunny appears intent on being uncivil, and of the mind that that is the only way (s)he will be able to make her point. We don't need that. Even if the substance of MB's issue is one (s)he is correct on. Would also suggest a CU, as this appears a likely second problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Account is stale for CU purposes, but the behavioral evidence is very strong. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. I wasn't exactly sure what should happen when I made the original post above, but with the User's responses (which is, by the way, typical of the way the User always behaves and edits) it's difficult to see that he/she will ever learn to behave in a reasonable way. This is particularly so, given the disruptive track record of the user's previous probable account, User:Noloop, who "retired" with the words "I am just fed up with Wikipedia: the cultural bias, the abusive administrators, and a "dispute resolution" process that ultimately has no method other than the popularity contest". DeCausa (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey -- Noloop may have a legitimate basis for some of his complaints. Or not. But whether or not MB is the same editor, MB's performance here in this string is sufficient for a block. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support block User has shown complete inability to assume good faith and thus assumes everyone else is wrong. Incivility and tendentious editing issues as well, on top of violating WP:CLEANSTART. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A block would solve everything. Do it! The best way to teach editors to assume good faith is to block them. The best way to teach them not to edit war is to revert their reverts. Do I assume everybody else is wrong? It seems to me I've spent hours giving reasons and researching Wikipedia policies. I must be hallucinating. Block me! Hallucinating editors can't help but be disruptive. A block would solve that. Do it. Mindbunny (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. In this case, it would help adjust clue level. The way you have been editing is not agreeable with the community. That's why this post is here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the last post, I'm beginning to doubt if this user is ever going to get it, whatever the sanction. (Btw, Noloop was blocked four times before retiring, twice for edit-warring and twice for disruptive editing. At the last block in July 2010 the blocking admin.'s log summary was "apparently didn't get the message last time".) DeCausa (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The community is disorganized and careless. In a case like this, one can hardly blame it: this is a petty personal dispute. I think there has been a single comment from an editor not previously involved (Epeefleche). What is presented here to the community is a tip of an iceberg, a tip slanted and defined by the complainer. Your antagonistic entry into the discussion I started at the Village Pump [22] was a good example. I tried to turn a negative into a positive. You didn't do your research, assumed I was an asshole, and talked to me accordingly (to your credit, you corrected your mistake later, after I did your research for you). Magog blocked me twice--and undid his own blocks both times--because he didn't pay attention to detail. The recent change patrollers reverted me 3 times without even bothering to look at the Talk page--again, a failure to really care about the facts. I've tried to research some of the issues I've seen on this board that caught my attention. I always give up because it is hard and not that important. It takes a long time to sort out the history of a dispute. Nobody cares that much, nobody will bother. What is written here is not written by "the community." It is written by a few complainers with a prior history of conflict with me, and with a track record of distorting the facts. Mindbunny (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Pay attention to detail" and "really care about the facts": it wasn't me that entered your Village Pump discussion. Don't you ever wonder why different editors from different articles all have the same reaction to you? DeCausa (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict. The "you" in my comment refers to Bearean. Mindbunny (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you had previous conflicts with Bushranger and B? You've had a conflict with B since s/he left the post above but was there one prior? How was my response at the Pump antagonistic? I cited WP:BOOMERANG because you were guilty of calling Tide Rolls polite warning "vandalism" when you were there to accuse others of misusing the term. I didn't assume you were an asshole...I couldn't make up my mind whether you were a klutzy, complaining noob or someone's sockpuppet. I asked for diffs of what you said because I overlooked them (a mistake but not for lack of looking). I helped you by linking to the diffs once you pointed them out.

Ever since that time, I have been watching you. You really edit in just 2 articles primarily...and unfortunately the edit-warring and disruptive patterns are in both. You've proven above that you are willing to edit war regardless of policies or consensus and I'll add that I've seen you wikilawyering (that is most of what you do) to the point of being disruptive. Those two articles have ping-ponged back & forth in my watchlist with you arguing way too hard for you to have been anything other than someone's sock. Newbs don't jump into BLP arguments and initiate ANI threads or ask for automated tools to be created which penalize RC patrollers and vandal-fighters. I have yet to see you really compromise anywhere or admit that maybe the problem is yours. Sit back and look at the number of folks telling you to consider your actions...stop accusing everyone of being assholes and that everything is broken because things don't go your way. We're trying to clue you in.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I argue and wikilawyer, and also refuse to respond and edit without discussion. Both are true. It makes perfect sense. I edit war against consensus, although there is no consensus and I'm not trying to change any article. That makes perfect sense too. I edit war regardless of polices, except for when I cite policies such as BLP and BRD, at which point I am being disruptive. That's fair. Thank you for teaching me. Mindbunny (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask the question again: don't you ever wonder why different editors from different articles all have the same reaction to you? Don't you think there might be a clue in so many saying pretty much the same thing about you but from different incidents? Or do you just think everyone else has got it wrong? DeCausa (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

They don't. The only editor here who has actually edited with me is you. You could go round up some other editors from Lara Logan, while ignoring those who agree with me. Given your prior interactions with me, I believe that's exactly what you'd do. You are dishonest. You say I tried to add things I didn't try to add, that I didn't explain my objections when I did, that I'm promoting an anti-Saudi POV when I'm not. You cherry-pick links and diffs to present a slanted view, and that slanted view affects the first impressions of others. Also affecting first impressions is my Talk page. It is plastered with erroneous warnings from recent change patrollers--not once, or twice, but three times. All invalid, but nonetheless giving a certain impression to visitors. (Amazingly, the patrollers all claim it's not their responsibility to take 60 seconds to look at the Talk page to see if what they're reverting really is vandalism. Like I said, the community is disorganized and careless.) My Talk page is plastered with block notices that never would have happened if not for the false positives by recent change patrollers. Both blocks were undone by the blocking admin, but nonetheless it give visitors a certain impression. Erikeltic showed up and bared his fangs and outright threatened to edit war with me at 10 AM sharp the following day. Typically, you linked to this as evidence of my disruptiveness. You are dishonest. I'm not going to comment here again. Mindbunny (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. I'm the mastermind behind a conspiracy against you. I can see you've decided to improve first impressions of yourself on your Talk page.DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny is reverting cited material from the London Times declaring it "has no consensus". This is making good on the promise of edit-warring. Please block...enough is enough.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the material reverted there was sourced to AOL news, not directly to the Times. And it looks like AOL news said that The Daily Mail said that the Times said that... and ultimately the Times appears to have been quoting an unidentified source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support block From checking this and looking at this editors manner of responses it's time to issue the block. The reverting is continuing at the page which is not good. The uncivil manner of talking along with being totally disruptive I think the time has come to allow the block so that real work can be done at the articles. I also think that this editor should be made to put their other account name on this account since cleanstart has been breached. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Could an administrator now make a decision on this please. DeCausa (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, now this this account is just an edit-warring SPA. DeCausa (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

BLOCK NEEDED Yep, just coming here to make the same point. You were quicker. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Support blocking for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT & WP:AFG. V7-sport (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Associated thread

See below for a broken continuance.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrator action or decision now please

This thread has now been open a week with no action taken (or decision made, if the view is that no action need be taken). A sixth user has now added his/her support for blocking (with an seventh supporting "something be done"). No one one (besides Mindbunny) has posted to disagree. Mindbunny has now made this revert on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. The user being reverted (I suspect the reg user and IP are the same person) has made a number of positive improvements, added sourced material and taken out dubious POV-style material (including some of the tabloid-style box quotes so much-loved by Noloop/Mindbunny and criticized by the article's FA review), but along with that there are some problematic changes. It needs going through to establish what should be kept and what should not from the edit. Instead Mindbunny reverted everything with the comment "undo mass deletions of referenced material".

Mindbunny has reverted all substantive edits to the article since the Mindbunny account was created...every single one (except my modest one which prompted this thread). This covers everything from POV-pushing IPs to perfectly reasonable edits by long-established editors (like this one). I went back as far as October to see if I could find where Noloop/Mindunny allowed someone else to make a substantive edit - and gave up there. This is quite clearly a case of WP:OWN. Noloop wrote most of the article, and was able to do so "in peace" because it was a backwater with little editing traffic. Individual editors then come along and try to make changes and are then reverted on the basis of "no consensus". This article doesn't collect enough editing traffic to establish a group view to challenge Mindbunny's control. But even if it did, I suspect Minbunny would continue the same way as with Lara Logan. No one else will be able to contribute to this article until this issue is resolved.

Please can we have a decision on this one way or the other. DeCausa (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, right now all I see is people who disagree with Mindbunny on Lara Logan wanting her(?) blocked. That doesn't sound too nice of you. NW (Talk) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If the other editors to the pages can establish a consensus, it will highlight where the issue lies. Just a hint. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, this thread isn't about the dispute at the Lara Logan article. Elen of the Roads, it's about a long-term behavior issue at Women's rights in Saudi Arabia not a dispute on a specific issue (or not mainly anyway). Can you please clarify. DeCausa (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is about a long term behaviour issue, then start a WP:RFC/U. This board is for problems requiring immediate action. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, admins must definitely block the clueless editor who wants juicy details of an assault kept out Wikipedia; WP:NOTCENSORED. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And again, this thread is about behavior at Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. DeCausa (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny, you brought up the other issue at 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Tijfo098 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Because of similar behavior. But the case for action is about behavior on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Your sarcastic comment implies that because Mindbunny is doing good work on Lara Logan the user shouldn't be blocked. But Mindbunny could be doing spectacularly good work on Lara Logan but it still doesn't excuse behavior on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. DeCausa (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, let's rush into a decision on a particularly controversial topic - that'll help! GiantSnowman 16:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, ArbCom seems to be lacking cases recently, so maybe some wheel warring will give them something to chew on? Tijfo098 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia isn't a topic issue it's behavioural. Is Women's rights in Saudi Arabia "particularly controversial". I wouldn't have thought it is "particularly", though it is sensitive in Saudi Arabia, obviously. The threads been open over a week AND GOT ARCHIVED!. So I'm not sure how there's been any "rushing in ". Could you clarify? DeCausa (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2011 (UsTC)

I was talking about blocking a user; the discussion is still ongoing, so you demanding Admin intervention NOW - rather than letting the discussion run it's course - is what I meant by "rush." Admins aren't stupid, they can recognise a disruptive editor(s), and know how (and when!) to take appropriate action. Chill. GiantSnowman 16:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to your (now deleted) reply - no, I'm talking simply about the discussion at ANI, which is still ongoing... GiantSnowman 17:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Got it - which is why I deleted the post. DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason this is getting archived is that there is currently no administrative action that can be taken. If administrators don't act, it is because there is no prompt action appropriate at the time. Four editors arguing to block a fifth do not make a consensus for admin action. One part looks like a content dispute, the other requires an RFC/U. Please act accordingly Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I re-posted this wasn't because no administrator had taken action. It was because no administrator had responded at all i.e. even to say no action would be taken. That was after 8 days. Thank you for now providing a response. Your posting seems (unless I'm reading too much into it) as though I shouldn't have asked for an administrator response. But surely it can't be right to let a thread go into archive without an administrator saying what the "administrator view" is? DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that happens a lot here (archival without action or even comment). But you even have an WP:ArbCom member (Elen) writing her opinion above. You just don't seem to like what she says. NW is also an admin (and ArbCom clerk, I think). Tijfo098 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As for the Women's rights in Saudi Arabia article, the best way forward is to write a sandbox version with the additions you think are necessary for WP:NPOV and ask others' input in a WP:RfC. I only see you (DeCausa) and Mindbunny arguing in that long thread. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV isn't particularly the issue. You've misunderstood the situation. Look back over the article history and try to find the last time any substantive edit on any part of the article by any editor got through without being reverted by Mindbunny/Noloop. Look what happened to Leicester17's, Deftera's and BlessSins' edits for instance. It's not a content dispute with me because my one and only edit got in and has now stayed (the only one to get in and that's because of this thread which stalled Mindbunny a little). I have no plans to edit that article at the moment and I don't even have a great desire to see much change in it. So as I say it's nothing to do with a content dispute with me. But no one else has been able to edit the article because of Noloop/Mindbunny's behavior and I don't think that's a good thing for the article or Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yours is a WP:NPOV dispute, particularly one of WP:UNDUE. I'd actually be more concerned with the (non-)discussion regarding the reverts/edits at Talk:Women's rights in Saudi Arabia#Regarding 18 Jan. 2011 edits, as they concern recent law changes and actual practice thereof (as reported by the UN and some human rights groups) which seems more significant than inclusion/exclusion one of a kind examples. Leicester17 is one of those editors who seldom edits, and on Wikipedia whoever has most time on their hands wins, unless blocked/banned. WP:Activists (who should be more appropriately called propagandists) often win a as result of this simple dynamic, especially in obscure matters. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What's my WP:NPOV dispute? I don't believe there is a major NPOV problem on that article. It's got some presentational NPOV criticism from the FA review, and I agree with that. But it could easily be fixed (if Mindbunny behaved like a normal editor) - they're more like overenthusiastic naive/immature mistakes than "evil" POV-pushing. But I'm not going to loose any sleep over that and it's not why I started this thread. I agree the Leicester17 edit reversions were bad and is a more important concern. But that's my main point. It doesn't really matter who the editor is or what the edit is, Noloop/Mindbunny hasn't let anybody touch "his/her work". DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember if any of the people calling for my block, at any time in the last month, have gotten the basic facts right. All, or nearly all, of the material Leicester added to the article is still in the article. I don't think I removed any of it, certainly not al of it. Here is the diff [23], and as you can plainly see, it is still there. I object to it because it is redundant. The first sentence of the very next paragraph clarifies the situation regarding the law (codified law in Saudi culture is less of a force than custom). Contrary to what Decausa keeps insisting, to the point of resurrecting this thread from the grave, I didn't revert it even though I object to it. The other main issue is the Mona Eltawhay quote "What kind of God punishes a woman for rape?" The objections to this are invariably that an editor disagrees with the source's analysis. The editor insists "She wasn't punished for rape!" Disagreeing with a source isn't a reason to remove material.

Can somebody please re-bury this corpse? Mindbunny (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits by User:Bokiluis that are constantly peacocked, unsourced, and POV.

Resolved

Concerning User:Bokiluis (talkpage: User talk:Bokiluis) - Everything involving Diana Ross is peacocked, unsourced, and POV. His edits are reversed by other users on several pages, but it's getting tiring to clean up his mess. Asked him to stop, and be constructive, but that, obviously (as can be seen here), didn't help. Some of his edits: The Boss, Ross, Swept Away.. well, just take any pick from his contributions list. Is there anything that can be done? Regards, Robster1983 (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on... Anyone? Please? Robster1983 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin here. Have you tried opening an RFC yet? Admins usually don't get involved with content problems unless all avenues have been persued to no avail. --Quinn ^CLOUDY 19:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thnx for replying. Imma try that one. Robster1983 (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No prob. I just removed a peacock-y phrase "much acclaimed" from The Boss song article regarding Whitney Houston's live shows where she covered the song. Not sure if the editor in question added that or not. It's outside of my normal interests, but I have a certain affinity for Ms. Ross's music, and will come take a look-see at improving some of the articles you mentioned :) --Quinn ^CLOUDY 19:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case I will not persue any further action, for now. At this moment I am doing some damage control in the articles (can't fix everything, for much was unsourced to begin with). I will also follow him. If needed, I could warn him again a second time, and if needed, a third time), after which I have more ground to stand on when asking for a block. Again, thnx for helping out Quinn! It is very much appreciated! :) Robster1983 (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Procedural question for admins: In a case like this, can I (a non admin) mark the thread as resolved, or is that a no-no? --Quinn ^CLOUDY 19:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can put up the template - and anyone can ignore it, and make a post. Quite a few sections get archived with no template; it is only a courtesy notice for anyone quickly reviewing which topics are live. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! --Quinn ^CLOUDY 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

attention torward WP:RFPP

Resolved

 – back logged eliminated

We have stuff thats been sitting there for 6 hours The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 19:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Formula 1

There is/are IP vandals who are making vandal edits to the race articles - mainly changing the results to older races, then logging off and changing IP. I've examined some of the pages and found at least the following IPs involved...

• User talk:186.108.252.250
• User talk:190.139.54.243
• User talk:190.231.27.192
• User talk:190.231.251.39
• User talk:190.231.25.45
• User talk:190.138.6.211
• User talk:190.139.52.45
• User talk:190.138.0.51
• User talk:190.231.27.192
• User talk:190.231.251.77
• User talk:190.231.20.207
• User talk:190.139.52.70
• User talk:190.138.11.197
• User talk:190.138.6.92
• User talk:190.139.248.159
• User talk:190.139.242.58
  

I think that the spread to too wide for a rangeblock - maybe someone can comment? Can anyone make any other suggestions to help. My feeling is that since these are all old race results then maybe semi protect them? (there are rather a lot of them, quite a few for each year, but I wouldn't mind that) - there really should not be any need for much change to these pages.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You want the attention of a CheckUser, who can check whether there are sufficient good faith editors from that Buenos Aires range to preclude a block. Just because it may be a large range may not mean there is a lot of potential collateral damage to the English language WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, we'll see if one will come -  Checkuser needed::  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Very much appreciate the assistance with this! I'm not sure that pre-emptive semi-protection is the best way ahead, though. An FA race article looks like this, while many of the articles look like this. Personally I see no need for the majority of the race articles to be written up in full detail, but there will always be enough reliable sources to support that treatment if someone wants to do the work, and I don't know that I'd like to try and decide in advance which races were suitable for the more detailed writeup. 4u1e (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the ranges 190.138.0.0/20, 190.139.52.0/22, 190.139.240.0/20, 190.231.16.0/20 and 190.231.251.0/24 for two weeks (anon. only). Prolog (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attack

The pages Banker's Academy and Linda Eagle have recieved several edits from User:Discoisforlovers, which I believe is a personal attack. The only edits that this new username has made to wikipedia have been to Banker's Academy and Linda Eagle pages and have only consisted of adding false notable information that was not notable or reliable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Discoisforlovers. The individual then marked the page for speedy deletion. What can I do to prevent against this page being deleted and avoid any further attacks from this username? I appreciate your assistance! Thank you. --Prowriter16 (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you placed a {{hangon}} tag on the page; that'll stop the speedy-deletion process in most cases. A reviewing admin will see what's going on there and take care of that problem. As for the rest...I'm not seeing a personal attack on any level, myself. It looks more to me like misguided but well-meaning attempts at updating article information. A bit of mentoring might be in order, IMO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A personal attack because you WP:OWN those artices? Fences&Windows 22:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And a few others, it seems. Do I hear a boomerang in the wind? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Depuffed Eagle's article a bit. Needs cites, and I am not positive of notability really. Collect (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone besides me get an icky feeling about an account name like Prowriter16? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Great point, Steven. And BB -- yes, you have to love those boomerang AN/Is.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, good call. That article is a big pile of ProWriting. Needs more eyes, that advert tag is quite appropriate. Dayewalker (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the OP: User:Discoisforlovers has made precisely three edits; two editorial and one well-deserved template. Not the slightest trace of a personal attack. I note that Disco has not been notified of this discussion - I will do so now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Main Page F-Up

The main page is completely screwed up. Can someone fix it please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 00:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing a problem here. Can you describe the issue, or is it resolved for you too now? --- Barek (talk) - 00:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Give us a screencap at least. HalfShadow 00:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks normal to me as well. Both in IE, FF, and Chrome. --*Kat* ^(meow?) 00:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because it was fixed. Trust me; it looked very, very bad, messed up the entire left column. There was an extra pipe in the image on TFA, and somehow it wasn't visible on the TFA/March 8, 2011 page. -- tariqabjotu 00:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Glad it was caught and fixed.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 00:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to; here's what it looked like. -- tariqabjotu 00:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. Here is the fix on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 8, 2011 which looked OK before the fix and here is the effect the fix had on Main Page which did not look OK before. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Strange files vandalism

Dariuxzs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dariuxzs has been going though files and I cant tell if its claim of copyright problems or straight vandalism. The individual has been going through and uploading the No free Image.. have one?" image across multiple images.

• File:Sarah RB 6.JPG
• File:Sarah In Motion Tour1.JPG
• File:SarahG Star.JPG
• File:ASAP XV.jpg
• File:Sarah In Motion Tour1.JPG

I am unsure what to do here I almost tagged speedy delete as "test." Since this either Vandalism that needs admin tools or copyright claims... I am dropping it here. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs)

I've blocked them. Any admin can unblock if they receive some sort of explanation and an assurance that it won't happen again. I'm not sure it's vandalism, but it's certainly disruptive, whether or not it's intended to be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

They also made a nonsensical page move, which I've reverted along with all the weirdness with the files. What a mess. Compromised account, maybe? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

IDK, maybe. Up until last night this was a single purpose account going all the way back to 2008. (The purpose was to edit/enhance the Jonalyn Viray article.) --*Kat* ^(meow?) 05:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The user also made personal attacks at this page, spewing Tagalog profanities at Oningoning in regards to the latter's edits to Jonalyn Viray. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:BogdaNz

This user has recently made several unconstructive and unexplained edits to World War II-related articles: diff, diff, diff for example.

He has already been warned for such actions about one month ago. I'll let you judge of it. Thank You.

BogdaNz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Maimai009 11:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I see nothing disruptive in any of those three diffs. Would you care to explain why those edits are disruptive. I note that there has been no discussion with BogdaNz on his talk page over his editing. Is this a content dispute between the pair of you? The additions in the first diff were all of countries and territories that were occupied by Germany in WWII, therefore becoming de facto a part of Nazi Germany. Discussion of the issues on the relevant talk pages would seem to be appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo et al

We had an interesting arbitration request come in this morning, here. The case is not in the proper format, and doesn't appear to be a case at all, so I imagine one of our arbcom clerks will be mopping it up presently. But I went to check on the article anyway, and found much the same complaint on the article's talk page. See Talk:Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo#Continued_slander_of_Palazzolo_by_Don_Calo_et_al in particular, where Fircks (talk · contribs) accuses other editors of slander, and indicates that lawyers have gotten involved. It's not a clear legal threat, but does it still trigger NLT? There is an RFC open on the article's talk page, and perhaps some longer-term issues in play on this very problematic BLP. Normally I wouldn't bother to mention a content dispute, but the arbcom request (such as it was) coupled with the potential legal threat (from 19 Feb, granted) highlighted the fact that there may be some behavioral issues that require administrator scrutiny. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this user has been trying for several years to add disclaimers or intersperse a point-by-point rebuttal into the article. Tarc (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't have point-for-point rebuttals. Some googling also indicates there's a bit of an online campaign going on to improve Mr Palazzolo's public image, so we may be getting some residue astroturfing. We probably can't have too many threats of legal action floating around either. The article as of now doesn't look in terrible shape, but it definitely seems worth keeping an eye on. Moreschi (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee suspected of evading topic ban

I suspect that [[::User:BKLisenbee|BKLisenbee]] (talk · contribs) is editing Brian Jones Presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka via 68.173.25.146 (talk); see diff. If so, this is in violation of the topic ban that User:FayssalF put in place (July 2008). Most recent occurrence was about a month ago; see ANI archive. FayssalF does not seem to be actively involved with English Wikipedia at this time, and BKLisenbee does not show any intention of abiding with the topic ban. I've notified the IP user as well as BKLisenbee, and I will leave another note at User:FayssalF/JK (which has additional background concerning this matter). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)