::::But his statement that user Screwball23 is "my friend" and that I thought Collect's block called for because of that isn't supportable. I interacted with Screwball23 six or seven months ago, I've made only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_McMahon_U.S._Senate_campaign%2C_2010&action=historysubmit&diff=387189418&oldid=387128815 this edit] to [http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=Ohiostandard&user2=Screwball23 any article he's edited], and I haven't communicated with him since.
::::But his statement that user Screwball23 is "my friend" and that I thought Collect's block called for because of that isn't supportable. I interacted with Screwball23 six or seven months ago, I've made only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_McMahon_U.S._Senate_campaign%2C_2010&action=historysubmit&diff=387189418&oldid=387128815 this edit] to [http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=Ohiostandard&user2=Screwball23 any article he's edited], and I haven't communicated with him since.
::::Any editor can form his own opinion as to the basis for Collect's block, though, by examining the blocking admin's comments in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&diff=388523190&oldid=388516841 second diff] he provided above. If Collect wants to address my involvement in that process any further, or better still, wants to try to work out a more collegial relationship, he's welcome to initiate a discussion on my talk page. I'd also suggest that it would be more productive to stick closer to the particular issue at hand: that of resolving the battleground and ownership issues that are currently in evidence here. – <font face="Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<font color="teal">'''OhioStandard'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</font> 04:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
::::Any editor can form his own opinion as to the basis for Collect's block, though, by examining the blocking admin's comments in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&diff=388523190&oldid=388516841 second diff] he provided above. If Collect wants to address my involvement in that process any further, or better still, wants to try to work out a more collegial relationship, he's welcome to initiate a discussion on my talk page. I'd also suggest that it would be more productive to stick closer to the particular issue at hand: that of resolving the battleground and ownership issues that are currently in evidence here. – <font face="Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<font color="teal">'''OhioStandard'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</font> 04:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
::::I think it'll probably be more productive if I refrain from responding to any further accusations from Collect, if I can reasonably do so. I'd appreciate it, though, if an administrator would take a look at a recent development ([[Talk:Journal_of_Global_Drug_Policy_and_Practice#CMAJ_quotation|link/]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Journal_of_Global_Drug_Policy_and_Practice&oldid=423373157#CMAJ_quotation permalink)] at another article. I normally enjoy editing here, but this kind of behavior is really beginning to impact that pretty seriously. Thanks, – <font face="Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<font color="teal">'''OhioStandard'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</font> 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
This is a Wikipedia user page, not an encyclopedia article.
If you find this page anywhere except Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Beware that that page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs is not affiliated with any mirror site. The original page is located here.
I am a network admin, living in the Los Angeles area.
User:Warriorboy85
This user has been on Wikipedia for 15 years, 7 months and 22 days.
has a long history of violating BLP with his contentious edits. He has a page full of warnings about edit warring and BLP violations, and he was blocked at one point for making legal threats. He retracted the legal threats, but he continues to edit with non-reliable sources, making BLP violations. Note: I don't have any dog in this hunt, I know nothing about the problems he's dealing with, all I know is the long history of edit warring and his recent BLP violations with accusations of criminal activity and non-reliable sources to support his contentions. Corvus cornixtalk05:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a complicated something going on over corporate fraud and alleged corporate fraud and various companies or shell companies. Robert Rooks, a man convicted by the SEC of fraud, is at the center of some of it, as explained in a recently updated article on United_Assurance_Company_Ltd.. I don't think WarriorBoy has been doing anything intentionally of late, except not understanding our WP:PRIMARY policy. That's coming along though, and I think the user just needs some instruction about how we operate with sources, especially in controversial areas. I'm not involved here, but have been mediating of sorts between editors who are very well informed on facts but speaking past eachother. Eyes appreciated but I don't seen anything actionable for admins right now. Ocaasic08:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Maybe I'm missing something really obvious...it's happened before...but it looks to me like WarriorBoy85 is actually working on correcting potential BLP violations, seeking secondary sources for referencing, and otherwise working to improve the article. The trouble I see in the article Talk page seems to be arising from 173.75.81.106 (talk·contribs). Feel free to trout me if I'm misinterpreting things. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an accusation to state that someone was criminally charged, then direct the reader to Lexis Nexis to look up the specifics. Criminal charges, if they exist, are a matter of public record. If a television reporter states a person has been accused of a crime, and refers to a filing of charges by a district attorney, does anyone yell that the reporter is making the accusation? No. Now, if WarriorBoy85 had stated Brooks had committed a crime, but not provided any sort of support for that statement, you'd have a basis for saying he was accusing Brooks of a crime. In this case (and I haven't yet looked at Lexis Nexis to see whether there's actually anything there or not), he's just relaying his information. I'd prefer if WarriorBoy85 had provided direct citations to the court proceedings, instead of just saying "look it up", especially since (last I knew) Lexis Nexis was a for-pay reference system. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please demonstrate that WarriorBoy85 is accusing someone of something. What this non-admin sees is WarriorBoy85 working on improving an article, and while he hasn't created an actual citation to support his reference (which I'd really like to see him do as a matter of resolving this), I have no reason to doubt his good faith. Do you have positive, demonstrable evidence to the contrary, something that proves bad-faith editing or blatant BLP violations? If so, please post it here so the admins can review it. I have off-wiki tasks to attend to, so I'm not going to be back to see this discussion for quite some time, but I'm fairly certain there will be interested parties stepping in. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't think there's any dispute about Rooks being convicted. In fact, both WarriorBoy and the ips seem to agree on that. However, there is disagreement over the role of Kimball Richard (or Kimball Dean Richard) that apparently goes back to a 2009 thread (partly here: [3]). Disputed family names and disputed company names and it didn't exactly come to an answer. I think all editors are now at least 'acting' in good faith, and we just need to stick to sources on the talk page for now. Ocaasic00:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I can do is shake my head and wonder why I bother. BLP is BLP, all accusations require reliable sources, which are not forthcoming. Do whatever you want, I'm through with this, but I'll expect equal lack of action the next time a BLP violation is claimed. Corvus cornixtalk01:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This ANI is hilarious. WB85 obviously has a COI that has been problematic. It has been a mess trying to figure out is going on (I have been watching and am still completely confused). The diffs take some thought. I am inclined to let him keep on going since if he did it this long he deserves the credit. Nice work on duping the community, Warriorboy.Cptnono (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I'm still not seeing any evidence of bad faith editing, apart from not citing a source. And since the article is about a corporation, not an individual, I'm not even sure how WP:BLP applies. I ask again, is there actual evidence that he's accusing anyone, as opposed to reporting on accusations made by others? If not, the entire ANI report here would seem to be nothing more than a bad case of "consensus didn't go my way and I'm going to make someone hurt for it." That's not how Wikipedia works. (Congress, maybe. But not Wikpedia.)
What part of {a person's name} was criminally charged in Nevada 8 or 9 years ago, and those records are available is a sourced non-violation of BLP? Corvus cornixtalk04:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read this entire ANI, the article in question, and WB's Talk page and contribution history, as well as several of the links from the latter two. There are two issues that stand out: WB85's WP:PRIMARY issues, as pointed out by Ocaasi, and a content dispute between you and WB85, as pointed out by the remainder of the exchange. Your incredulity and unwillingness to see anyone else's points don't change those two simple, stubborn, irreducible facts. Were I an admin (which, as should be clear by now, I am not), I'd be directing both of you to the dispute resolution process, with a further admonishment to WB85 to review WP:PRIMARY and include citations/references to support changes to articles. Since I'm not an admin, and since you don't seem to be interested in my input, I'm walking away from this topic, effective now. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into the details here but some of this discussion concerns me. We definitely shouldn't be telling people to go look up court records, particularly not in a BLP. If no one else has published details the these charges then they don't belong in the article. P.S. I briefly read [4] and it concerns me even more that in what seems like an incredibly complex case stuff may have been added or at least proposed to be added based on an editor's analysis of multiple court recordsNil Einne (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insertion of an image from a banned user advertising their work depicting child sexual abuse
The illustration in question advertises "Kogaru Diaries", a graphical online roleplaying game that the user has created, and which depicts child sexual abuse (see [5], [6], [7], [8]). Several editors, including myself, Kraftlos (talk·contribs), Michaeldsuarez (talk·contribs) and Knowledgekid87 (talk·contribs) ([9]), have expressed concern on the article talk page and/or in Commons that the work the image advertises seems to be in violation of [10] and [11]. I had removed the image this morning after the concerns voiced in Commons. Melodia's edit summary in restoring the image was "Stop trolling, please".
Advertising a work by a banned user in Wikipedia that is themed around pedophilia and child sexual abuse is not what Wikipedia should be about. Admin intervention is requested; I would like to see Melodia warned for irresponsible editing that could result in harm to this project. --JN46614:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That same argument has been made on the article talk page and at the content noticeboard; other editors disagree. Using a fan service version of Wikipe-tan to illustrate the article is a poor choice, for several reasons; it is self-referential (that image is not a prominent image in the world outside Wikipedia); it links a Wikipedia mascot to fan service, as though fan service were what Wikipedia is about; and the fact that all the images used in the article depicted scantily-clad girls is sexist—in the real word, fan service also includes similar depictions of male characters, and we should strive for something like gender parity in illustrating such articles --JN46615:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Looking over the user's Talk page, they seem to be a very positive contributor to Wikipedia. Manga is something I have next to no experience with, so I'm not really sure whether that image makes sense in that context or not. But IMO discussion would be a better route than one-way warnings or sanctions. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an attorney, but based on what I know of such laws from my photography work, the two images in the OP's diff are in a gray area. All the "naughty bits" are covered, even if scantily, so taken by the letter of the law, there's nothing overtly sexual about it, and manga characters are notoriously ambiguous in age. It would be up to the observer to decide whether either of them "appeals to prurient interest", as the statutes say. With my admittedly limited exposure (no pun intended) to uploading and using images in articles, I'm guessing this might be something OTRS needs to look at and make a decision on. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Manga and anime has so many sub-genres (which are notable) that WP should have an article about them...and probably should have pictures illustrating them, even if they are "in bad taste" for lack of a better description. WP is not censored. But promoting a specific game or artist should be avoided. On a side note, I would point out to others unfamiliar with Wikipe-tan (the anime girl with the WP puzzle pieces in her hair) that she has a rather dedicated following of supporters, and there's this kind of faux-consensus over numerous discussions that support using her (and her many depiction) in a bunch of semi-related articles. (If this discussion gains any momentum, expect a pile-on of editors, and, most likely, a diversionary sub-header somewhere in the future discussion thread that completely changes the subject.) Quinn☂THUNDER15:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn1 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Agreed. To which I would add that in this case we were promoting the non-notable work of an artist who is banned here and on other sites. --JN46617:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are really two concerns here, each of which is valid grounds for removal: (1) It promotes a non-notable piece of art (2) The piece of art in question is by a user who was banned here by ArbCom, is banned on Commons, and isbanned from DeviantArt. It's a work of explicit pedophilia. I don't really understand why it should be controversial to remove it from the fan service article. --JN46617:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I agree with your pedophilia concerns, I think others would not agree, and that point runs the risk of throwing the discussion off track. (Not that I don't think it's important, but is a broader issue with anime/Wikipe-tan/etc. that IMO the Arb's need to make a ruling on one way or another).Quinn☂THUNDER17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, my argument is not that the image in question is sexually explicit, but that it is taken from a work, and advertises a work, by name, that has explicit pedophile themes, like panty cams and spanking of prepubescent girls: [12][13][14][15] Kogaru Diaries simply is not an example of fan service; it is a non-notable pedophile role-playing game. As such, it is not a suitable illustration for fan service. The fact that the artist is even banned from DeviantArt makes promotion in Wikipedia all the more inappropriate. --JN46618:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing the picture on the grounds that it is from (or on behalf of) a banned user. If nothing else, at least crop the photo to eliminate the promotional name. Quinn☂THUNDER17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yes, if you look at the talk page and the image's deletion discussion, there is enough imo to justify it being kept. With respect to Michaeldsuarez, he basically came in after seeing 1 person (other than the nom) say to remove it and did no inspite numerous legitimate arguments both there and on the image's deletion discussion that its not. While he is entitled to his opinion on whether the image is pedophilia, there is a large consensus who does not agree it is.
Whether a member was banned or not should have no affect on what the community decides as a whole; we do not go and removed non-vandalistic/non-spam/non-overtly biased text from banned members just because they were banned. If the contribution of a banned member is seen a positive, we judge the content, not the person who posted it there.
As for the FPP, considering its being brought to here and there is a large body who believes the image is fine and moreso appropriate, I believe it is warranted to have an FPP till the issue is resolved.
I would also say that there has been a longstanding campaign to remove all the free images of wikipe-tan and images like the one I restored on multiple places that imo looks like forum shopping (a thought that is shared by others).陣内Jinnai18:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Also, User: Knowledgekid87's comment is mispreresented here. He specifically said he was fine as there was no policy against it. User:Kraftos said to remove it, but mostly because of it being an advert; since its licensed under CC, the advert portion can be cropped. That indeed has been the reason for most of the removals; rather than trying for the middle ground of cropping people want to simply outright remove the image even though cropping would satisfy their stated concerns, unless they are using it as an excuse (i hope not, but considering the recent history of page and the image its hard to unquestioningly apply AFG.陣内Jinnai18:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His concern is not with it being pedophilia, but advertising a banned site. If that's the big concern, I'll go ahead and crop the image and upload a new one.陣内Jinnai18:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know about the campaign to remove Wikipe-tan images. I wrote a satire of it: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Wikipe-tan&diff=1998274378&oldid=1998256939. I'm actually for Wikipe-tan images, and I never asked anyone to remove a Wikipe-tan image anywhere. Nevertheless, I'm against using TGcomix's images (they're unrelated to Wikipe-tan) on Wikipedia. I didn't "move in." Jayen466's comment concerned the Wikipe-tan image, not the Kogaru Diaries image. Concerning the "numerous legitimate arguments," none of them mentioned the "Kogaru Diaries" until I entered the picture. I injected an entirely new idea into the discussion. In addition, I want you to take a look at this, this, this, this, and these. Your image of pedophilia is extremely narrow and would be disastrous in a Public Relations department. Wikipedia shouldn't use any piece of art from TGcomix's / Midnight68's "Kogarus Diaries. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that comment. We shouldn't touch that work with a barge pole; it is not a suitable source of media for this or other Wikimedia projects. --JN46618:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of the picture (I've already been reverted once); in addition to the concerns raised above, I fail to see what it adds to the article; there is already an example. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a version that does not contain the advertising. As many of the "remove" votes elsewhere were based on the advert, those should not be counted as supporting removal of this version.陣内Jinnai18:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the text from the image doesn't change the fact that it's from the "Kogaru Diaries". Can't we just draw a entirely new image with an adult instead? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well. I had thought at the conclusion of last month's raging Wikipe-tan debates that the more pervy/creepy images were going to be removed from project-space. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was my understanding as well, but as with most of these child exploitation images/Wikipe-tan related discussions, it fizzles out with nobody sure what to do about anything, each side claiming consensus, and nothing changes. It's going to take Arbcom or Jimmy or somebody from Wiki-Legal to set some sort of parameters about using these pictures. I mean, perhaps an image like this would be acceptable in an article about child exploitation in manga, but there needs to be some sort of guidelines. Quinn☂THUNDER19:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the removal of anything related to this "Kogaru Diaries" thing, as it's not "fan service", it's anime/manga pedophile porn - I'm amazed that we actually have people here passionately arguing to keep this image. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC) (Support removal of Wikipe-tan image too - it's not a genuine "fan service" character. As a non-official Wikipedia icon, it's use is debatable, but I think it has no valid place in article space at all -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Remove. Pedophilia: the girl is too young for an encyclopedia to be encouraging the reader to leer at her. An image of an adult would be best. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removing it is the best approach. We have one definitely free image which highlights the subject (it is not the best image, but meh). Fan service is not particularly related to images of underage girls so I don't see any particular need to use an image of one to demonstrate the topic. An acceptable second image, to me, would be one that demonstrates non-sexualised fan service. --Errant(chat!)19:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(NB: I've just fully protected the page until this can be sorted out and the opinions of a wide number of editors can be garnered. Happy for someone else to unprotect when this discussion is resolved. Actually is taking place both here and article talk page) Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've almost always taken a position of almost absolute non-censorship beyond the legal requirements. Bu tin illustrating articles on a genre or fictional concept, we normally use images from works that the reader is likely to recognize--basically, from the most highly notable works that show the range of the genre or concept. If the work and the artist are truly non-notable, that is excellent reason for not using them, regardless of their nature, if there are equally good or better images from notable works--preferably whatever is in the genre considered to be iconic. I cannot imagine there is likely to be any difficulty in finding some. This is the sort of article where a range of illustrations are necessary to illustrate the concept. However, is the work and the artist truly non-notable, or are we biased towards considering them non-notable because the work is objectionable? From the discussion, it seems they are quite familiar to people here. (If we did have to do an article on an artist who is highly notable for works of borderline legality, I suppose we would do it by picking one of the least objectionable for an illustration even if not characteristic of the range, and stating in words the characteristics of the others.). DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the basic principles DGG expounds here. Illustrations of fan service should be iconic, notable examples. As for potential bias, being known among Wikipedians—because of past on-site controversy, in-project use etc.—and being notable in the wider world our readers inhabit are two quite different things. That applies to Wikipe-tan as an illustration of fan service as much as it does to Kogaru Diaries. FWIW, I looked this morning and found no evidence of RS coverage of Kogaru Diaries or its creator. --JN46621:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing both images from the article - I hate to be the one who drags Wikipetan into this, but since we are discussing images used in the article, how can Wikipetan, a fictional character not part of a manga or anime series, be used to illustrate something that happens in manag and anime? An image of Wikipetan in a bikini was recently deleted at Commons, but here is another image of Wikipetan in a bikini being used in another article. I think perhaps it is time to draw a clearer line between use of Wikipetan in project space and use of WIkipetan in article space. . Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So personal dislike of a character has become the new threshold for non-inclusion in Wikipedia. Wow. Talk about biased.陣内Jinnai23:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. That was meant for MuZemike, however, I'll note DC has a history of being against every Wikipe-tan image so while it was an accident, given his(?) history I would have to assume his reson for removal of the images is WP:IDONTLIKEIT for Wikipe-tan.
You do not appear to understand NFCC. For example, we use File:Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg in several articles, even though it is from 1968 and copyrighted. Fair use is based on the fact that it is a notable representative of the article topics it is used for. The same goes for fan service. Find a notable, iconic example that is cited by multiple sources, and use of it in Wikipedia becomes fair. --JN46623:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jinnai, there is no reason for you to assume my reasons - I gave them. And if you are going to start making accusations against people who hold a different view than you do, I am asking you to provide diffs. I have in no way advocated violating NFCC by asking for the removal of the images, so please do not try to put words in my(?) mouth. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jinnai, I really don't think you'll do your case any good by trying to turn this into a personal criticism of other editors, and by making up their reasons for them - you really should leave people to state their own reasons themselves -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" An image of Wikipetan in a bikini was recently deleted at Commons, but here is another image of Wikipetan in a bikini being used in another article." < That image has since been restored so I do not know how that can hold any water here. Also fan service is not just confined to anime and manga works as was stated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per Delicious carbuncle. This is not censorship, as some contend, as it is exercising editorial discretion. As far as I am concerned, there is no context to include images of Wikipetan in an actual Wikipedia article, even of this sort. Given that she is currently a contentious figure on en.wiki and that the community cannot agree as to whether or not she represents Wikipedia as its mascot (official or unofficial), we shouldn't be forcing it one way especially in the mainspace. –MuZemike22:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the caption box however it mentions: A bathing suit is typical "fan service". There is no single mention of wikipe-tan in that sentence, in fact if you remove the puzzle pieces from the image you have a fan service image and yes it can be done because wikipe-tan is a free use picture and as such benefits this article with an image. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty clear, it needs to be removed unless there are some reliable sources linking it to (or showing a relationship with) Fan Service. Not even a question. RxS (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removing Wikipetan image To echo the opinion I expressed on the article talk page, where this is also being discussed, I think the Wikipetan fan service image is very illustrative of the concept, particularly for anyone who is already familiar with Wikipetan. That said, if someone had an alternative image that it could be replaced with that would not have copyright problems, I wouldn't object, but all of the images should not be removed. Also, since the primary issue raised here has been addressed, shouldn't the Wikipetan discussion continue at the talk page where it was started? Monty84502:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removing Wikipetan image Image is of fair use and is thus not easily replaced, this image has a deletion request over at the commons and currently has a down the line Keep consensus there. How many more places and consensus hearings does this need to go through? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removing Wikipetan imageWar | Battle | Strife | Strike |Clash. Yeah let continue the long extended Wikipe-tan global conflict :) Currently this is the most suitable free image available at Commons to illustrate the article. If you can demonstrate that this image is unsuitable then no image at Commons is suitable. On a such basis we will be allowed to use non free to illustrate the article and there are "certainly" relevant non free images that even can fend off accusation of Original Research --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing both. Pedophilia appears to be part of mainstream Japanese culture, but it's illegal in most of the world, and especially in the US, where our servers are. Keeping the picture that is currently not in the article removed is therefore a non-brainer. The Wikipe-tan bikini picture is more of a borderline case, but the character is without a doubt depicted as under 18, and the context in which the picture appears removes any doubts that the sexualisation is intentional. HansAdler14:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think that is a gross misrepresentation of Japanese culture - and, on a personal note, I encourage you to visit the country and learn about it before making such unfair comments! Secondly; this is a depiction of underage girls, but it is not pedophilia. This is a relatively important distinction. I think it is important only to factor in the depiction/association as a factor. We have legitimate depiction of underage girls in minimal clothing in other articles (besides, you've probably watched American Beauty, a great film and definitely closer to the divide than many of these images). Ultimately there is not anything legally wrong with them. I think that the issue of it being a depiction of underage girls does factor into a removal argument, it is not sufficient to be the only valid reasoning --Errant(chat!)19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was using the term pedophilia in its more general sense, which includes preference by significantly older people for not fully developed adolescents. Although I didn't say it clearly, the girl looks to me as if she must be at most 14, possibly younger. However, I am a European and since I know Japanese women generally look a lot younger to me than they are it seems conceivable that Japanese girls also look a lot younger. Sorry if I offended you. I have now googled for "pedophilia in Japan" and found that it's probably not so much a misrepresentation as it is a stereotype which, as most stereotypes, does appear to be rooted in a real, measurable difference that is, however, dominated by internal variance.
I cannot respond as to whether what you call "legitimate depiction of underage girls in minimal clothing in other articles" is actually legitimate or not. I simply don't know what you are talking about. (The same holds for the film American Beauty. I know that there is a film of that name, but I don't even know what it is about. It sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me.) HansAdler20:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: This board is only for discussing incidents, which need administrative intervention. This dispute is, however, purely editorial. Administrators have no authority to resolve content disputes or to order removal of images based on opinions of editors expressed on this page. So this "vote" is meaningless. Ruslik_Zero19:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and a consensus on one of Wikipedia's most busy pages is not meaningless. (2) Staying well clear of illegal content is not a purely editorial decision. HansAdler19:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I feel like this chat has gotton out of control here, it was orginally for one image but the wikipe-tan image discussion has since become mixed up with this discussion, there is already another discussion going on at Talk:Fan service. The image in question is up for deletion over at the commons with more recent commons in favor of deletion due to it's nature (If it is deleted problem solved there) the wikipe-tan image is also over for deletion at the commons but has a solid keep consensus going for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone should be accused of pro-paedophilia advocacy by simply because they support the inclusion of the original image. Having said that, it is worth noting that the originator of those images has been blocked by ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two colliding discussions one over "Kogaru Diaries" that should be removed for various reasons and not just the one creating the discussion here and the other on a "Wikipe-tan" image both present on the Fan Service article. As far as i can tell "Kogaru Diaries" is removed and will remain so, "Wikipe-tan" is likely to be removed and replaced. Meanwhile another discussion to remove "Kogaru Diaries from Commons is under way and discussions for the removal of several "Wikipe-tan" images from Commons ended with Kept or very likely ending this way to much the chagrin of some editors here. I guess that Commons isn't English wiki. --KrebMarkt (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are several aspects to bear in mind for Wikipe-tan.
Wikipe-tan started out as a mascot for the Manga WikiProject. It seems appropriate as such, conforms to manga style, and Commons should host it to support those projects that wish to use it.
Then there is the use of Wikipe-tan in mainspace. That is always inappropriate, unless reliable source coverage of the article subject references Wikipe-tan.
Then there is the fact that a few Wikipe-tan images are in danger of crossing the line towards overt pedophilia and crass sexism. Examples are File:Wikipe-tan-in-seaside-cropped.png, with the waterline at the little girl's crotch, or File:Jumping_Wikipe-tan.png, which some editors feel is overtly sexist. Finding an editor blocked in Commons for their pedophilia advocacy in the edit history of some of these Wikipe-tan files doesn't help. As a representation of Wikimedia projects, these images are a turn-off to many editors, alienating in particular female editors, of whom we have far too few as it is: Gendergap listCommons deletion discussionGendergap listGendergap list etc. Lots of editors rightly question whether such images are an appropriate representation of the Wikimedia vision of a gender-neutral educational project.
Personally, I would wish for more restraint in creating Wikipe-tan representations that fall in either of these categories, and more restraint in promoting Wikipe-tan images as a generic mascot for the project, especially those that are a real turn-off to many people who would otherwise be valuable contributors. --JN46613:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing on how wikipe-tan drives women off is scapegoating, I have seen comments by women on wikipedia on how they cite other reasons, that and discussion after discussion about how women dont edit wikipedia have been going on with no solution in sight. Will getting rid of wikipe-tan get more women to edit? No Do most women know who wikipe-tan even is? Most likely No, so to say it drives off women is more of an opinion than fact (Yes you did provide examples I can just as easily provide comments that say the opposite here). As for images that runs into WP:OI you are not going to sit there and tell me that an image of wikipe-tan in cat ears and a tail does not fall under the term Catgirl, free use images are very hard if not impossible to find in some cases so we as editors have to rely on free use images. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipe-tan bikini outfit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
OrangeMike self-reverted his edit of the fully protected page, so there is no longer a question about administrative action. The issue of whether to include Wikipe-tan in the article is already an active topic of discussion at Talk:Fan service and should be continued there. Dragons flight (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article was editprotected [21] has gone in and inspite clear consensus both here, on the deletion discussion at at WP:Anime removed the image. Since its editprotected, and there is consensus to have that image in there, I would like an admin to restore that image; the dispute that caused the edit protection was not about that image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnai (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 April 2011
Te best approach here is to talk directly to OrangeMike; he shouldn't be removing the image because the article is under full protection (regardless of the merits of the removal or replacment). It could well have been a mistake, I am sure he will self-revert if you point it out :) --Errant(chat!)22:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support removal of the image. It's in no way, shape or form an image that is notable in the wider world as an example of fan service. --JN46622:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it might possibly not have been appropriate to have removed it while under full protection, this image has no place in this article - Wikipe-tan is not a notable "Fan service" character (or a notable character of any description, in fact) and should not be anywhere in article space -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reverting for procedural reasons, but that image is an obvious WP:COATRACK violation, as it is totally and utterly irrelevant to the subject of the article where it is used. --Orange Mike | Talk23:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would beg to differ. She has been noted by numerous news organizations as associated with the Wikimedia Project (specifically Wikipedia). Of course those reports aren't accurate since she's a fan mascot, but they still attest that those claiming she's "unknown in the wider world" are just basing things on their own opinion rather than fact.
She may have been noted by published sources as associated with Wikimedia, but has she been noted by such sources as an example of fan service? Because the article is about fan service, not Wikimedia. --JN46623:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. What I'm saying is that if we want an example of X, we should use a real example of X, not something made to look like X just for Wikipedia - we should use a genuine example of a noted fan service -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The creator has said on his deviantart page that is a depiction of fan service. Surely you're not claiming the artist doesn't know when he creates something, especially something intended for use on an article page as an example, that he doesn't know what he's talking about?陣内Jinnai23:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so can I make an image of a duck on DeviantArt, say it's an elephant and use it in List of mammals with big ears? OK, that's a bit sarcastic, but the point is that there are real genuine examples out there that are not deliberately made as an illustration of the style, which our NFC policy allows us to use - do you really not think that would be better? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a comparison because it doesn't illustrate the text. So yeah, that sarcastic remark isn't even close to what we have here and you know it. We're not trying to use this image to describe an anti-hero. We're using it to describe fan service, something that if you read the text, the image does.陣内Jinnai23:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in and of itself it doesn't. But it doesn't try to introduce new and unpublished ideas. It depicts something the article text (which is backed by RSes) says, girls in swimsuits.陣内Jinnai00:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new and unpublished idea, which is alien to published anime and manga works, is Wikipe-tan, the girl with puzzle pieces glued to her head. Please find a real-life, iconic example of fan service in manga or anime, upload it with a fair use rationale. You can use the Warhol example I posted above as a licensing model. Perhaps document sources referring to it as such an example for added security. Then add it to the article, and the project and its readers will be served. --JN46600:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you wanted to say "possibly' - there was no pressing need for the image to be removed, there was no consensus, and the article is fully protected. It was, I'm sure, just an error, but it wasn't an appropriate one. - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vote.svg
File:Vote.svg has just been deleted from Commons. There are an awful lot of links to that file, at the English Wikipedia and elsewhere. Can this be fixed before the delinker bot starts to damage all those pages? I suggest File:A coloured voting box.svg as a temporary replacement. The image has (had?) permanent full protection, so I think the fix needs an admin. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That file was a derivative work of a file lacking permission (File:Voting box clipart.gif), which was not deleted by myself, as you can see in the log. The copyright status of the original image was not verifiable. I was concerned about the significant usage of this file and the original that it was derived from, and posted the concern on the copyright questions page, but as I said, the source image was deleted by another administrator. We can't really ignore licensing issues just because an image is widely used. The image was marked as missing permission since December 22, 2010, so I can't fault the other administrator either. Adrignola (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why I hate Commons. It never would have occurred to them to create at least something to replace the deleted image temporarily, or even tell the rest of us about this. No, they just delete and damn the other projects that are forced to work with Commons. A good idea co-opted by mindless bureaucrats and wannabe lawyers, at this point I'm for requiring deletion discussions on commons to transclude to the proper place in each local project, as we never find out that they're about to pull the rug out from under us until our asses are on the floor wondering what happened. Sven ManguardWha?19:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it's this sort of action that causes users, myself included, to feel that it is much better to just host images on-wiki and not deal with Commons. To date, all the images I have ever uploaded (which are very few, I admit) have been on-wiki. SilverserenC19:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100% with Silver seren here. Yes, Commons is independent etc etc etc but it's there to support the other Wikimedia projects, and at the very least should be notifying the major Wikipedias somewhere when they take a unilateral action that they know will cause massive disruption. – iridescent19:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use files have to be hosted locally anyway. For other files, if they were deleted at Commons due to copyright issues, there's no reason to think they wouldn't be deleted here as well given time. Uploading locally would just be trying to take advantage of less oversight on images here. If you upload to Commons you will be notified of deletion discussion on your images or when an image you upload has an issue, such as no license/source/permission and get an email for the talk page change if you so desire. Adrignola (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true; the copyright rules on Commons are much more onerous than they are on wikipedia. I agree with Silver seren, Commons has become too much hassle to bother with. MalleusFatuorum20:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're not "much more onerous", at least for user-produced content (which should never be fair use). And if one is doing it right it doesn't matter whether things get uploaded here or to Commons as properly-licensed content can make its way to Commons by itself. Very few pieces of falling sky in my umbrella tonight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk20:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, that's not true. Commons demands that an image is out of copyright in its country of origin. wikipedia demands that it's out of copyright according to Florida law. Big difference. MalleusFatuorum22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, my main issue is that they do an incredibly shitty job at caring about the impact they have on the other projects that are, at this point, pretty much forced to deal with commons. They make no effort to communicate with other projects, they don't factor cross-WMF impact into their discussions, and when you confront them, they almost universally say that it's "not their problem". You know what? That's a damn inappropriate way to behave and speaks very poorly about their character as people. Until Commons decides as an organization to work with the rest of the family, they're going to continue to be that second cousin everyone hates but still invites to family gatherings because they have to. Should commons delete inappropriate content? Yes they should. But if a file is being used by another project, they have an obligation to tell that project the day the file goes up for deletion. Finding out that a file used on hundreds of pages got deleted on commons only when the file disappears breeds the kind of hatred or distrust of commons that you're seeing here. Sven ManguardWha?20:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with that sentiment. I was responding to the point that Commons has unnecessary licensing requirements. Well, so do we: it's sort of what free content is about. Commons is particularly anal about it, but so long as there is a good enough feedback loop that shouldn't be a problem for us. The problem is the feedback loop, not the licensing requirements. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk22:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing and responding to the point about on-wiki uploading, yes, stuff that is deleted on Commons will also likely end up being deleted here on-wiki as well. However, the primary difference is that, in deleting it here, we'll make sure to follow the proper procedure and delink things beforehand so that the deletion doesn't end up disrupting hundreds of articles. Commons, on the other hand, doesn't notify the various Wikipedias when they are going to delete something and, when it is pointed out to them, say that it is not their problem. Well, if it's not going to be their problem, then i'm going to make sure that they have absolutely no say in the images I upload, as I will be uploading them on-wiki and they won't be able to do a thing about it. SilverserenC22:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delinking would have been disruptive (had a negative impact) on us here anyway as the icon in question was still needed. What was needed was appropriate feedback which would allow for a replacement to be provided before deletion. As for a CommonsTicker replacement, someone on Commons said that dewiki already has one: can't theirs be cloned? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk07:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps those who cast aspersions on the hard-working editors at Commons might want to walk a mile in their shoes before hurling unwarranted insults? PowersT17:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, actually. I don't think there is any need to be nasty about this. On the other hand a polite request along the lines of "hey, there is a problem here, can we work to fix it" would go a long way. Adrignola, I might be convinced to add re-creating the Bot to my to-do list (which is a bit long.... but this seems a pretty important issue). Would you be willing to clue me into Commons processes relevant to creating such a bot? --Errant(chat!)20:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. There's no need to insult other people trying to improve either commons or wikipedia. Or is this another exception to acting civil/assuming good faith? If I'd seen these types of responses in 2006, I'd have run away from wikipedia and never looked back. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really vandalism? It seems to me to be a reference to some YouTube material which the editor in question thinks is funny. I don't, but given the diverse nature of humour, who are we to argue? HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The user's only edit other then what they did to their talk page was pretty clearly vandalism. So it looks like what they did to their own talk page was probably intended to be as well. It may still fall into the wide latitude you get with your user space, but it seems to be pushing that boundary if it hasn't outright exceeded it. Monty84501:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do have policies such as WP:NOTWEBSPACE, which is sometimes cited in the removal of such text. But a note on the editor's talk page with an explanation is probably more fruitful than an ANI thread, and will either spark more outright vandalism or clarify things for that editor. It's worth a shot, Erpert. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting long-term WP:HOUNDING and long-term abuse by User:Timbouctou (forgive the length of the post, am trying to describe a long-lasting problem in a few words). After his recent arrival on Talk:Croats, the user posted one provocation after another, and in spite of being met by neutrality or even good faith on my part, succeded in completely disrupting any creative discussion and inflaming a conflict. After my having consented to the user's desired article changes, the provocations continued, finally causing a personal conflict. Seeing as how the issue was settled (in accordance with his wishes), I asked User:Timbouctou to please avoid me (seeing as how he obviously hates my guts). A mistake, apparently, since in the immediate aftermath of that request the user followed me to all other discussions I am or was involved in recently, opposed anything I proposed, and continued to insult and provoke. The user continues to follow me around, and I would like to see if something can possibly be done about this.
A more detailed description supported by diffs follows:
I cannot stress enough that the discussion on Talk:Croats was decently friendly and amicable up to the point User:Timbouctou arrived and posted the listed comments, and that my responses to User:Timbouctou (available for review Talk:Croats#Josip Broz Tito) were that of a person not quite understanding why he is being attacked and slandered by some user out of the clear blue sky.
The user's very first recent post there (Talk:Croats#Josip Broz Tito) has a very belligerent and abrasive tone, among otehr things I am being described as "blabbering something" [22]. I had not spoken a word to the guy for months beforehand, and we never really had any previous conflicts.
I was frankly very much surprised at such an attitude. This must be taken in the context of a discussion that was very civil up to that point, with absolutely no bad blood. An excerpt from the user's second post:
"I love it how he [DIREKTOR] thinks he is the only one who understands wiki policies and I just love it how he loves to be bold, but denies the same right to everyone else. Sure DIREKTOR - the thing you made is a work of genius, all praise to you - but it will be taken down unless you can prove that this article needs images in the infobox at all. Regards. (P.S. - The only reason the whole discussion started last November was over the fact that there were too few women in the picture - and after everything was said and done and after DIREKTOR decided to make this topic his little bitch what we have is one woman out of twelve images - and Savka is not even the woman we voted for - the consensus agreed on Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, Janica Kostelić and/or Blanka Vlašić. Well done DIREKTOR, you truly are a beacon of democracy around here.)"
In his third post [23], again completely unprovoked I cannot stress that enough, the user calls me 1) "arrogant", he says I'm 2) "blabbering", 3) a "hypocrite", 4) "stubborn", describes a discussion I started as 5) "idiotic", adding "I said it, sue me"
Fourth post: the user simply abandoned discussion and started edit-warring after the article had been peaceful for almost a month. He "declared" that he was starting an edit war with "Until you learn to participate in discussions your edits will be reverted without warning." [24]
This is followed by "Lol, your arrogance never ceases to amaze me" [26]. At the time I was still mostly surprised by all this hostility, I responded:
"Look you hate me or whatever, and I'm sory for that, but I'm not "arrogant". Did I not tell you just back there that the very reason I introduced this format is its flexibility? If you want to add/remove someone in particular to the infobox it can now actually be done more easily. Do you have any actual changes to propose? Lets discuss. Or do you just "hate me" and want to be insulting and start edit wars?"
etc.
I eventually agreed to all his proposed infobox image changes, and implemented them myself in a gesture of good will. I did not, however, add one image (out of 16) because its licensing was fair use, and I said so on the talkpage. He promptly accused me of "playing dumb", and stated the he "expects to see it included". I kinda lost it after that and told him to please leave me alone after habing his way with this Talk:Croats affair. Almost INSTANTLY I see his posts on the two other talkpages I am involved at, followed by a third shortly after. Insulting me all the way, and opposing even without any reasonable argument. (I will only post a few examples since the report is already pretty huge.)
Talk:Yugoslav Front. "naive editors like Fainites who seem to have an endless capacity for putting up with your bullshit." [27]
Talk:Serbs of Croatia, where he arrived and decided to "oppose" my edits on the grounds that listing secondary university publications is "WP:OR" :), is among other things home to "you're a troll", and "You're a paranoid individual with a greatly over-exaggerated sense of one's own importance. There are far more better terms for your activities on Wikipedia than 'edits'." [28]
Talk:Ante Pavelić. Here an infobox issue had actually been concluded quite amicably a while ago. Seeing this, User:Timbouctou posted a new thread opposing my position in the recently-concluded discussion, taking the opportunity to insult my mental health: "your psychiatrist should know." [29]
The situation is a tad more complex then presented here and is already being discussed at User talk:Fainites, an administrator who has been involved with the problem over the past few days. I'd appreciate it if whoever is in charge of responding to these reports waited a day or two before deciding on sanctions, should any occur. I might add that I have no intention of debating this with User:DIREKTOR here and if anyone in charge is interested, a lenghty post describing the situation can be found here. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not try to confuse the issue. The complexity lies in the issues discussed, not in your conduct. The obvious hounding and personal attacks are very straightforward matter indeed. As for Fainites, the admin you apparently consider "naive", I posted this here so as to spare him any further trouble with this nonsense. I have informed him of this, hopefully the man will take a break from all this Balkans nonsense. --DIREKTOR(TALK)05:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are not being truthful. These were all two-sided exchanges and you have been reprimanded by an admin several times for it in the past few days. You have been explicitly warned to stop being aggressive on your own talk page here and before that here. Timbouctou (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am being truthful. These were two-sided exchanges but the overt insults and WP:HOUNDING were overwhelmingly on one side. The same side that worked very hard to provoke the conflict. I admit I myself lost my temper after almost a week of continuous abuse, and I say so above, but there is in essence no comparison. Not least because you are the one who, out of the clear blue, started goading me to the best of your abilities, and then followed me around to pick a fight out of malice. The editor who warned us both was not aware of the above, or of your previous abhorrant behavior which brought about the aggressive atmosphere in the first place, the initial exchange having occured in a seperate talkpage section. You also curiously turned a lot more civil with an admin around (though that phase did not last very long, apparently). --DIREKTOR(TALK)05:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The complain here by direktor is something that the word ridicolous just wouldn´t be enough. I will like all admins to read Timouctou´s comment on User_talk:Fainites#Block.3F which describes it all, and btw in a light manner. I fully subscribe Timbouctou´s words on that comment and much more could be added. We have a disruptive editor (direktor) that constantly creates battlegrounds all over Yugoslav related articles. He may have wrongly convinced in the past some admins that he was actually victim, but after 2 years of experience, many editors from many different nationalities have all gathered because they have been fed up of constant disruption and uncivility of this user. This was just the last exemple in which I have been involved that ended also with direktor being forgiven for clear disruption, beside all evidence and a total consensus from all other editors. Now, direktor, you just can´t say that this time I´m saying this because of the mediation, because you gave it up, so it has nothing to do with it anymore, but rather to expose your toal manipulation of this report against an excellent, one of the most productive, cooperative and NPOV editors ever found of Yugoslav area of wiki. I basically have all the best words for Timbouctou, and all the worste against you, and I´m not saying this because of our divergencies, because I had also divergences with Timbouctou, but those with him are allways constructive, while any action of yours on wiki, well I wouldn´t be exagerating to say that is allways destructive. An editor that constantly wants to make a point, consides every discussion and life and death battle and that didn´t contributed in any constructive way should really think about his actions first. I propose a topic ban for direktor and I really beleave most established editors on the area will agree. FkpCascais (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Direktor: Whatever. All I ask is that the discussions in question are considered in their entirety. You are pulling stuff out of context - and btw no - we were not BOTH warned, only YOU were. Post a diff from my talk page if you can find one, please. As for your "hopefully the man will take a break from all this Balkans nonsense" comment - I bet you'd love that wouldn't you. Timbouctou (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As some editors here know, User:FkpCascias is something of an "arch-nemesis" of mine, that also likes to do drop out of the clear blue sky, completely uninvolved, to oppose me because I'm me :). I have posted a report because of the overt insults and abuse I have had to endure for weeks now, and the fact that User:Timbouctou has been stalking me all over Wikipedia. I'm reasonably sure the responding admin will addres the topic of the thread, in spite of efforts by the "We Hate DIREKTOR" Club. If any of the users have a complaint regarding my beavior, they know full well they can post a seperate thread about their concerns. --DIREKTOR(TALK)05:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you menaged to create an anti-you club composed of most editors of many different nationalities and opinions that actually solve their issues in a normal and civil way and that are fed up of your years long constant battlefield on a already sensitive area. We are actually a group of editors that peacefully edit and discuss articles and we are only not more productive because of unbelivebly tolerated constant disruption of yours. FkpCascais (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have been out of it when this kicked off. The kids are all ill. In short - I have been adminning around the Balkans pages for a while, trying to avoid getting involved in content and trying to bring - without much success, some order to the process. Whilst on occasion it has been possible to achieve a degree of consensus and some progress - for example the Yugoslav Front infobox belligerents section and the 16 pictures of famous Croats, these scarcely figure against the background of disruptive, party political editing and personal emnity. It is striking that on occasions, for example the translation of Yugoslav Front, even when consensus is begrudgingly reached, nobody bothers to make the actual changes to the article. Frequently when I stop a bad-tempered argument, everybody goes off and starts a punch up somewhere else. Another example is the Croats infobox pictures. No sooner had agreement been reached than an almost identical argument continued on the Serbs of Croatia article. It is painfully apparent that serious editors are probably avoiding the whole mess like the plague. On the first attempt to rename Yugoslav Front, there was a lot of valid, serious input. The second and third attempts have just consisted of the usual personalised rants. I have not posted any diffs here because really one needs to read the talkpages involved.
In short, after several weeks of involvment, and after analysing the ARBCom decision on Balkans articles, I have come to the conclusion that DIREKTOR should be topic banned for a period of time for disruption. It is all but impossible for any other editor to edit or express a view contrary to his without DIREKTOR aggressively personalising the issue and laying down the law. If a serious, source base challenge is raised, such as it Aloysius Stepinac, he simply leaves the discussion. I have tried reasoning with him on the subject on his talkpage. here and here. I do not know if he just doesn't get it or if he is pretending to be naive. His apology was not followed by any change in behaviour. I appreciate that this whole area is infected by nationalist and IP POV pushing. I have in general avoided taking a bureaucratic line on strongly expressed views, accusations of POV (inevitable in this topic) and reverts against nationalist editing. The field is full of wind up merchants. However, many of the articles are in a parlous state. The mediation on Mihailovic has dragged on for a year with no sign of resolution.
I am not proposing to indef topic ban DIREKTOR. He is knowledgable in the field and can be a useful editor though with a tendancy to select those sources that support his POV and aggressivley reject others. (For example promoting the use of Sabrina Ramet on one article when she was opposed for being a political scientist rather than a historian, then opposing her for the exact same reason on another). However, currently he acts as if he owns the whole topic and no-one else is allowed to edit without his approval.
Timbouctou has certainly been rude but it is quite wrong to suggest this was initiated by him with DIREKTOR only responding under provocation. I warned him also because his last argument with DIREKTOR become unacceptably abusive on both sides. The occasional spat is not the problem and can be easily resolved with warnings and short blocks when they get out of hand. The problem in my view is the overall pattern of aggressive WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT by DIREKTOR. Timbouctou has appeared on a number of Balkans pages recently. DIREKTOR appears on most of them. So do FkpCascais and Wustenfuchs and some others. It's all one big argument on the same theme carried on over numerous linked topics.
There are others who are frequently unproductive, contribute litttle other than argument and poke people with sticks. I was not proposing any immediate blocks of anyone else now though.
Firstly, I cannot help but wonder why the User:Fainites has posted my topic ban on a thread dealing with the conduct of another editor? Secondly, I am thoroughly apalled that User:Fainites has drawn such "penetrating" conclusions about my behavior based on a few talkpage debates in one of the worst conflict-ridden areas of Wikipedia. To be blunt, I am a long-standing editor with four and-a-half years on Wiki (and around double his own edit-count), who daily has to deal with disruption as described above. User:Fainites, you don't know me, and imo you are not really equipped to draw such (offensive) conclusions regarding my involvement on this project. You should probably extend your Balkans topic-ban to the vast majority of Balkans editors under these "criteria".
I shall, of course, contest this with ARBCOM. I have, I deem, sufficiently demonstrated the fact that the first posts by User:Timbouctou are incredibly aggressive and riddled with a plethora of personal attacks and abuse (as opposed to my own), and as such point to my having been provoked, and not easily provoked at that. His simoultaneous activities on other talkpages constitute the very definition of WP:HOUNDING. Am I to be topic-banned, with this kind of behavior just glossed-over by our venerable admin?
I have essentially posted this report to recieve a response by the community, not User:Fainites, whom I deem has become prone to taking sides (as can imho be noted by any objective observer on this thread). Should I assume this decision is supported by default with the rest of you guys here? --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite within the remit of any respondent at an Admin Noticeboard, and indeed any admin when reviewing a matter, to take a view of the entire issue and not just that part which has been brought to to the Board by an editor. It is also permissible for an admin to make a judgement upon their review and act upon it, under notice to the board. This is what has happened here.
Are you suggesting either that Fainities has abused his powers as an admin, or has so severely misunderstood the situation (in its entirety), as to put in question his ability to hold the post of sysop? If not (and Fainities has a fairly good reputation), then you should request review of the incidents at another place of dispute resolution, and also request review of the restriction placed upon yourself. A further word, also, would be to temper your descriptive terms of your impression of that admins actions.
To the last point; unless there is evidence to the contrary; yup.
I am quite familiar with the issues surrounding your editing of these topic, DIREKTOR, and the litany of abuse you suffer from editors with certain viewpoints. The fact you are often abused, and the system attempted to be gamed against you, does not preclude you from having to act in an appropriate manner at all times. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all right, where exactly did I breach WP:NPA I wonder? I am very careful about policy. My tone was not perfectly civil, yes, but that is hardy surprising considering the attacks. I would like to see any overt personal isults of the rank of User:Timbouctou's "bullshiter", "idiot" and the like (remember, I'm the one being essentially blocked for one month, while he's about to get off scott-free).
But, to get back on-topic, this thread is about User:Timbouctou's behavior, which is still not addressed in any way. User:Fainites seems convinced this thread will be "ignored" now ..? [30] --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly don't condone the uncivil comments of Factlover1 I do understand their frustation. It was some way in to the thread before Factlover1 was pointed to OTRS, which is what they really needed, and when shown that, the response was civil. I understand that the vast majority of copyright breaches really do not have permission, but that is no excuse for lazy replies, especially at EAR which is supposed to be helping user's with this sort of thing. Factlover1 has been warned, they have the information they need, the thread is now closed, hopefully they will take note of the warnings and not repeat. SpinningSpark09:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a line beyond which even the very frustrated may not cross, I would have thought that it would be a 650 word screed directed specifically at one other editor including such choice phrases as "group-think proto-nazi nerds" and "take your hypothetical light-saber and ram it out of sight" [31]. This oration was given after the editor was informed of the OTRS process; the editor was frustrated that zie was directed there, claiming that only people bloated with flatulence would care about copyright. [32] --Danger (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other than a warning on their talk page, which I have now given to the editor, what administrative action where you looking for? SpinningSpark22:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Had the user not directed that attack at me, but at another editor, I would have blocked them myself. I meant for my warning to be a final one. They had already been warned specifically for aggressive behavior by Jonathanwallace on their talk page [33] and by Orange Mike on EAR [34]. (NB: the notice that I posted on the editor's talk page did link to this subsection specifically. It just also provided a link to AN/I as a whole.) Danger (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The user also directed a few less severe attacks at me several times at Talk:Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler. They wrote: I now understand that Eisfbnore don't want people to see for themselves the real wording of Hamsun's obituary[35], Stop quibbling over four lines … Your limiting of what people can see for themselves in this case, contrary to what you claim, amounts to censorship. Stubbornly repeating that your censorship is not censoring, fails on its own unreasonableness … Don't get carried away in your personal preferences[36] and You're "Gaming the system" … Your stubborn denial of censoring … your demonstrated stubbornness against factual info on Wikipedia.[37]. Factlover1 aka 85.165.24.213 also wrote the following at wikiquote: Eisfbnore reveals his eagerness to censor Hamsun … This guy doesn't like facts … It's getting ridiculous not to conclude that the censorship by Eisfbnore it not a non-NPOV (Neutral Point-Of-View) violation based on negative bias towards Hamsun as an historical person[38] --Eisfbnoretalk23:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not want my comments to be taken in any way as restraining any other admin from blocking or taking any other action they feel appropriate in this case. SpinningSpark08:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure if the user has taken note of the warnings they have received. In this reply, Factlover1 stated that they had just replied to "unfactual personal attacks" by other editors …(!) Additionally, they directed another attack at me: "This issue is still about one person, Eisfbnore, vandalizing the entry Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler". Eisfbnoretalk17:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, rcvd, to other comments above. "Eisfbnore" is using selective quoting here to misrepresent my statements. The original issue is still to keep factual content at the Wikipedia-entry "Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler", which "Eisfbnore" continues to delete. Pls look it up. Discussion of this users comments aside, the focus should still be on the quality of the entry "Hamsun's obituary...". It appears that "Eisfbnore" is now using a complaint on tone to push aside attention to factual content at the "Hamsun's obituary..."- entry. Hope this improves the tone to refocus attention on the factual content on the "Hamsun's..."-entry. Factlover1 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User Rklawton "A dirty, rotten, low-life, disruptive trick"
Hi, all. I'm having a difficult time communicating with admin user Rklawton in a thread (link/permalink) at the talk page for our article on Prescott Bush, grandfather to George W. Bush. The conflict started after he and another user deleted the only mention in the article of the matter of Geronimo's bones, a single "see also" link to our article on the Native American Chief.
I'm not asking for help with the content dispute, which has to do with whether allegations should be included in the article that Prescott Bush dug up bones from a graveyard when he was stationed at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in 1918, and then presented those to his pals in Yale's Skull and Bones society as being those of Geronimo, who was buried at Fort Sill in 1909.
By saying there was "consensus not to add that kind of crap" he appears to have meant anything critical of Prescott Bush, even if that criticism does happen to have been reported by every major news outlet in the United States, and been discussed at some length in at least three books. An investigation of this article's history gives me the strong impression that Rklawton, in concert with one other editor primarily, has been essentially standing guard over this article, intimidating other editors who seek to add any critical information.
( Editors who want to examine that assertion further should review this section of our article, which has been a special point of focus, and especially should compare the weight given there to the 2004 article from The Guardian − not quoted from at all, and dismissed as the work of a "conspiracy theorist" − to the weight given to this nearly illegible primary source and this 2003 statement from the Anti-Defamation League, quoted essentially in its entirety to dismiss the allegations in the later 2004 Guardian article as "an internet rumor". )
I next posted additional policy links and discussion to the talk page, and Rklawton responded with this post:
"a well considered and thoughtful reply"
Let me be more clear - this bullshit was removed previously from the article. Trying to re-add it via "see also" was a dirty, rotten, low-life, and yes - disruptive - trick. So the disruption was adding it - not removing it. If you want to add it back - discuss it here first. If you'd like to spend your time critiquing my editing, feel free, but Wikilawyering won't win you any points. In fact, Wikilawyering often backfires for reasons that should be obvious and don't bear repeating.
The "see also" link that Rklawton was objecting to here had been in the article, subject to some recent edit warring, for at least a year. He and another user deleted it on April 7th (UTC), I restored it, once, posting at length to the talk page about the policy basis for doing so, and he again deleted it, three hours later. I did agree on the talk page, btw, that a "see also" link wasn't the right place for this content, and stated my intention there, prior to Rklawton's comment above, to add it to the body of the article, something I haven't done yet.
I'm sorry to have to bring this here, but it seems pretty clear that Rklawton won't tolerate any critical information being fairly represented in this article if he can possibly help it, and that he's perfectly willing to try to bully other editors to prevent that from happening. I know he's an admin, but he's still obliged to conform to our policies disallowing personal attacks, battleground behavior, and article ownership, and I'd appreciate it if the community would take whatever steps are necessary to try to make him understand that. Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've no opinion about the content dispute, but obtaining the input of more uninvolved editors, such as via an RfC, might help. I agree, though, that the comment by Rklawton was strongly incivil and uncollegial, especially from an editor who as an administrator is expected to adhere to higher standards of conduct, and is in my opinion grounds for a block (though I am aware that many editors think that civility blocks are seldom useful). Sandstein 13:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The real and only issue at hand is whether or not we should included sourced but debunked and absurd rumors in a biographical article. However, in a classic case of bad faith editing, an editor wanted to blow up an initial mild rebuke to obfuscate the real issue - that an editor is trying to push unfounded, debunked, and ridiculous rumors into a biographical article. My response was tongue-in-cheek (note the edit summary), and ended up serving to illustrate only that the editor is obviously oversensitive and should be roundly ignored. As for Geronimo, that particular matter had already been covered and resolved a couple of years ago, but rather than bring up new citations or rationale, he or she drags up the same old citations - bah! Even if this AN/I turns out "against" me - there will be material affect, so the editor wasting everyone's time here. I suspect he or she is hoping to gain some "sympathy" votes. It's a classic case of gaming the system - a process in which at least one editor involved appears to be a pro. For some *really* interesting examples of Wikilawyering ad absurdum, check out the article's talk page where an editor cites an unrelated arb com comment to justify his ridiculous notion that removing any neutral text from an article is automatically disruptive. And frankly bullying people and Wikilawyering are far more disruptive than referring to a rumor as bullshit and an editor's attempt to reinsert it into an article via the "see also" section as "sneaky". Rklawton (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it "a dirty, rotten, low-life, and yes - disruptive - trick" is a bit more than just "sneaky". It's really not the kind of comment that has a chance of being taken as "tongue in cheek" either - the edit summary certainly didn't say that to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The personal attacks continue, I see. It seems unlikely that Rklawton plans to stop that, or to moderate his ownership behavior over the article, either. Re the content assertions he makes above, that this "was resolved" in this 2006 thread, that these are "unfounded, debunked and ridiculous rumors", and that I've "dragged up the same old citations," I'd only ask that editors look at the archived 2006 thread, at the high-quality sources I've cited at the talk page, and that they please note that of the nine reliable sources I introduced there, the first seven were from 2009 or later. – OhioStandard (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the rumour has been debunked by everyone - even the attorney for the heirs did not say he thought there was a scintilla of truth to the tale. Clearly the tale has a place in Skull and Bones but is of essentially zero relevance to Prescott Bush at all. By the way, the tale has Bush being one of six or seven doing the digging of an (at the time) thoroughly unmarked grave which the Army officials did not even know the location of, and restoring it to an undisturbed state. By the way, the lawsuit was dismissed - not only against federal oppicials on sovereignty grouns, but also against Yale and Skull and Bones. It seems one must have some basis for a lawsuit. Collect (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what's going on here as I'm new to this page. There seems to be a preexisting conflict between editors that they insist on conflating with this editing dispute. The content issue in question is one that is widely discussed in many biographies, newspaper articles, and other RS sources. Whether or not the story is true or the lawsuit was successful is immaterial. It would be nice if some outside party could separate the editing dispute from the conflict dispute, because I don't think anything will get resolved if it keeps firing up this personality dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel, I've never interacted with Rklawton before that I can recall, although Collect has been pretty unhappy with me since I took part in a discussion last year that ended in his being blocked. With respect to the actual article, you can see from its revision history that my previous involvement has been limited to two instances: In one edit I objected to the discrediting of an article in The Guardian as the work of a "conspiracy theorist", and on another occasion I removed copyvio text and then improved the subsequently-added cite/ref for the fact it had documented.
I'm not surprised to see Collect here, though: He's the other user who has, in my opinion, been standing guard over this article with Rklawton to remove or discredit any critical content. Between the two of them, for example, they've restored the characterization of The Guardian's article, by journalist Duncan Campbell, How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler's Rise to Power, as "An article relying on conspiracy theorist John Buchanan's work" at least seven times since February of last year.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45] Since I first noticed this, I've thought it rather curious behavior on Collect's part, at least, given his perennial claims at articles for conservative politicians that BLP policy prohibits the addition of this or that critical content.
I've never studied the matter, although it's my guess that there might be more to the Nazi finance issue than is present in our article currently. But you're perfectly right, of course, that it's not our role to determine whether the reports in this instance or any other are true, but merely to summarize the allegations made in reliable sources that are relevant to the subject, especially when they're so broadly reported.
I'd like to strongly reiterate, though, I'm not requesting assistance here with the content dispute. Rather, I've asked for assistance only because the personal attacks, battleground conduct, and (most problematically) article ownership behavior seem nearly certain to continue without intervention, and just as certain to prevent any collaborative resolution of the content dispute until they are addressed and resolved. – OhioStandard (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, make a slur on another editor. People who just look at your claim that somehow I was blocked for improper behaviour will not note that the block was viewed as unsupportable and improper. But then again, yoiu would not note this when making asides about others. The material is covered in the relevant article. Which is sufficient for rumours. [46] shows OhioStandard soliciting the block. King of Hearts trusted your version of the edit history, blocking me for a single edit long before the block. [47] and one editor (who is now an arbitrator) said two edits in over two days did not seem like "edit war." But then again, your sole aim was to get me blocked because your friend Screwball23 (who has a long block history) was blocked for actual edit war. Now can you let all this drop? Your attempt to raise a non-existent charge of edit war here is a gorss violation of polity. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs one and two remove material attributed to sources which arguably are unreliable, while the third diff removes a copyright violation. Do you propose that editors seeking to include material supported by many clearly reliable sources in articles must therefore refrain from challenging the quality of any reference more authoritative than someone's blog, or are required to let cut and paste copyright violations stand? Chester Markel (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who's interested is welcome to examine the edits that Collect objects to above under a microscope if it'll make Collect happy. I'm sorry to hear, though, that my mention of the occasion that seems to have motivated his antipathy sounded like "a slur" to him; I didn't mean it that way, and I didn't intend to insult him by referring to it.
But his statement that user Screwball23 is "my friend" and that I thought Collect's block called for because of that isn't supportable. I interacted with Screwball23 six or seven months ago, I've made only this edit to any article he's edited, and I haven't communicated with him since.
Any editor can form his own opinion as to the basis for Collect's block, though, by examining the blocking admin's comments in the second diff he provided above. If Collect wants to address my involvement in that process any further, or better still, wants to try to work out a more collegial relationship, he's welcome to initiate a discussion on my talk page. I'd also suggest that it would be more productive to stick closer to the particular issue at hand: that of resolving the battleground and ownership issues that are currently in evidence here. – OhioStandard (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'll probably be more productive if I refrain from responding to any further accusations from Collect, if I can reasonably do so. I'd appreciate it, though, if an administrator would take a look at a recent development (link/permalink) at another article. I normally enjoy editing here, but this kind of behavior is really beginning to impact that pretty seriously. Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get permission to start reediting 1967 NFL Championship Game again. An editor reverted my edits 2x but has not responded to my 2 requests. I asked on the help line and a third party tried to contact the editor. A quick look at the history of the article shows well over a hundred good faith edits by me. The editor in question is HJ Mitchell. I do not know how to do make sure he gets notified of this, but I will try. {{HJ Mitchell|Ani-notice}} Thanks in advance. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
66. I expect HJ Mitchell (who is usually fairly responsive) simply missed your post, with a bit of luck he will respond in more detail now this has notified him of the issue :) For what it is worth, the reason he is reverting you is almost certainly down to the language you're using; we call it weasel wording, which simply means words that "talk up" something. For example "destined" and "immortalized" are not appropriate words to use. Wikipedia policy suggests writing articles in a "neutral and off-hand tone". --Errant(chat!)18:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't have rollback myself, but having just looked at Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When to use rollback, I can't see how rollback should have been used in this circumstance. Perhaps the IP was being excessively verbose or writing in a style unsuited to an encyclopaedia, but I still think it is wrong to call that vandalism. Jenks24 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, he didn't use rollback, he used Igloo ("Revert" doesn't necessarily mean "rollback") - though I'm not sure whether Igloo uses rollback to revert? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that, but according to WP:IGLOO, the igloo script does use rollback, which is why igloo should not have been used in this circumstance, according to my reading of the policies. That being said, I'm sure it was just a mistake by HJ Mitchell and if he apologised to the IP, I think we could all move on :) Jenks24 (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By what I've understood, the reason rollback shouldn't be used expect in uncontroversial cases is the lack of edit summary and minor edit flag, not the technical implementation. I'd assume this applies for other mechanisms of reverting as well - if it's not uncontroversial, the revert must not be marked as minor and a summary should be provided. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback should be used only under very narrow circumstances, i.e. that the reason for the rollback is obvious just by looking at what was rolled back, which is not the case here. Edit summaries should be used for anything other than pure vandalism, which this is not. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The excessive hype is just becomes I'm an inexperienced editor. Every citation in that article, about 90, is from me. The newbie help files clearly stipulate that editors are sometimes passionate about what they write. It just takes time to reign that in, IMHO. A quick look at the history of the article shows me decimating it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait maybe I did. I was kind of doing wikify stuff when I first started editing because I was afraid of adding edits to a real article. I think I was clicking on random article from the main page and then wikifying stuff. I do not know how many articles I might have screwed up but they were all start class articles I think. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was a different sort of coincidence I was wondering about, but OK. The city you're in, the articles you've edited, and a few aspects of your writing style all coincide with a recently banned problematic editor. On the other hand, as that editor pointed out themselves, quite a lot of people live in that particular city (and I guess quite a lot of people have an interest in American football). So no need to worry. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I am sorry for using the term real article. I meant FA, GA, A, or B class articles. If that particular article is of great importance to you, then I apologize.
However, my disastrous edits are not my fault. Those Project Wikify people should have said that you should be an experienced editor before contributing to the project.
Not sure which IP you will be on to read this :) so adding a comment here... please do consider making an account, you seem like exactly the sort of person who would be a decent editor here, such things should always be encouraged (we simply can never have enough polite useful contributors) and so this is me encouraging you to "come onboard" :) Anyway; HJ Mitchell was wrong to use that sort of rollback on you, which is intended for vandalism. HJ is a decent guy though so I am sure it is a simple mistake or one-off misjudgement. I entirely understand your explanation behind the reason for the language used, I'm pretty sure I started my Wiki career by describing something as "glorious" :) As well as the "weasel words" link given previously another useful piece of policy is WP:NPOV which discusses how we try to approach topics with neutrality. That can be damned hard sometimes (and I defy any contributor to deny that they have fallen afoul of it at some point). Wikipedia policy can sometimes be a headache to pick up (drop me a note if you have specific problems), but you seem pretty clueful already (what with the reference to GA/FA etc.). I've marked this section "resolved" because I think the issues have been cleared up :) --Errant(chat!)22:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, let me be perfectly clear. The reason I was reverted was because someone did not do due diligence.
Everyone says I need to get a name, but having no name means I get no tools that can hurt people.
The edit reverts will cost me 3 hours at least and I was hoping on getting this article up and in the ballgame so I can remove the peacock stuff from the Vince Lombardi article.
I have over 200 entries to the ice bowl article.
The next person has 19.
I have over 80 citations to the ice bowl article.
Someone looks to have sneaked in 1, REPEAT 1, citation and that citation will never last.
I have to be honest, the stuff that has transpired here hurts me because I thought the admin folks would spend AT LEAST 30 seconds on the history of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.5.48 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to get the ostentatious, flowery, espn-like, stuff out of the Vince Lombardi article. I have complained, like a broken record, on the discussion page on the Vince Lombardi article. But no one helps me there. No one gives me advice. The Green Bay Packer Portal is inactive on Wikipedia. I am not a GB packer fan, or American football, fan for that man.
Who at Wikipedia will consider the defamation of Palazzolo by Wikipedia?
I want Wikipedia to consider the defamation of Palazzolo, but the thread keeps getting removed.
See below, my messages to editors before.
Lost Palazzolo noticeboard thread
On the 3rd April I posted my story regarding Palazzolo on the noticeboard at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vito_Palazzolo_and_Wikipedia.27s_unwitting_defamation_of_a_living_man
but it seems to have disappeared. I was sharpening my pencil and drafting my version of the serious complaint we have regarding the defamation of Palazzolo, and it is no longer there. What shall I do? I have a long and very serious case to present to Wikipedia. Should I open up another complaint? Thanks - Alexander Fircks Fircks (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It's disappearing because you are changing archived content. Archives are not meant to be edited (and hardly anyone will read what you've added, anyways). Suggest you go to WP:BLPN to present your issues. --NeilNtalk to me19:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I believe Fircks is occasionally editing as an IP (perhaps through ignorance rather than bad faith). See here on the Palazzolo Talk page and here on the archive. He is getting no traction at BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorance on my part, I'm afraid, isn't helping my cause at wikipedia. I log in and so have an account, though might sometimes forget. I will contact the Foundation directly with this cause because I believe it is more than an individual editor can deal with, being so complex, and there are too many different pages involved including my mistaken edits of archives. Thanks for the help and keep up the good work. Should I simply email the Foundation?
User:Greg_L is editing other user's comments on an RFC
Resolved
Greg L accepts that it is not permissible to refactor other editors' comments, and has promised not to do so in future. No further action needed unless the promise is broken. Mjroots (talk)
Furthermore, he is threatening me with checkuser [56] in violation of the Check user policy which forbids a "threat against another editor in a content dispute." He thinks that anyone that disagrees with him must be a sockpuppet. He has been outright hostile and disruptive to anyone that disagrees with him.--RaptorHunter (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bunch of hyperbole and misrepresentation. I’m not substantively changing anyone’s !vote. Minor typestyle changes like this one and this one on RfCs when someone makes a !vote that has formatting unlike the others and which makes their meaning unclear is done all the time and any reasonable editor knows that. I alerted Arthur Rubin to what I did so he has an opportunity to look at it and revert if he feels I changed it for the worse.
I didn’t “threaten” RaptorHunter with a CU, I asked him to declare that he is not User:Thunderbird2 and he coyly declined to so declare. I’ve asked User:Gwen Gale to perform a CU on RaptorHunter. He confuses disagreeing with his views as being “hostile.” Greg L (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and in the meantime, I've added to this user's impressive block log. I've blocked for 24h, but the block may be lifted if GregL shows that he understands that he must not refactor other editors comments and pledges not to repeat the offence. Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, Gwen Gale has no ability to perform a CU even if you managed to persuade her to. That particular function is limited to a very few people, and unless there's a lot more to this than meets the eye I can't see anything to warrant it. – iridescent19:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. Gwen would have to go to someone higher up for the CU. The reason I asked her is she dealt with Thunderbird2 before (whom RaptorHunter seems to be) and would understand the basis for the request. If she declined to pursue the CU, then I would accede to her unstated reasoning to do so. Greg L (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that. And there won’t be another repeat of that which Mjroots would have to deal with decisively and “robustly.” After seeing that my first attempt to clarify meaning (changing actual wording, as you say, because I feared the bolded word looked to speed readers like he thought the RfC itself was “deceptive”) and was reverted by RaptorHunter, I agreed with his reasoning that I had been too bold and limited myself to changes I felt were very minor clean up of style (here and here) that was solidly within WP:REFACTOR. Had Mjroots waited (literally) 60 seconds before blocking me, he would have seen me say “OK” to Prodego. Perhaps a little interrogatory before banishment to purgatory? I’m out of here. Thanks for undoing the block, Mjroots; that was quick. Greg L (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No you continued to revert, even after I told you to stop. I ended up having to fix the comments 3 times. [57][58][59] This wasn't easy to do. It gets complicated sorting out your editing of other people's comments from your legit additions. This constant edit warring and combative behavior is wasting everyone's time. I suggest you focus on adding to Wikipedia instead of reverting it.--RaptorHunter (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, please, this forum isn't for carrying on personal arguments or content disputes. It's for incidents that need admin action, and there clearly isn't any further admin action needed here. Greg L has accepted that it was a mistake to make those edits and has committed to not doing it again, and I see no reason at all to think it was anything other than a good faith mistake. So can we let it go now and get back to doing something constructive please? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technical problem: looping redirect
I found Tibetan macaque redirecting to itself, making the article inaccessible, and tried to solve it by moving the redirect page to Thibetan macaque. I thought this might uncover the real article, but it hasn't worked. Please could you unscramble this? --Stfg (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This new account has already been blocked for 31 hours for "disruptive editing". I have been trying to submit a username report, as the namre (ie, Wiki vandalism") clearly indicates an intention to continue such behaviour. But my report is constantly being reverted by a bot, as the account is currently blocked. Please can someone advise how I can submit this report.RolandR (talk)21:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted a report using Twinkle. I'm not sure why you had a problem - are you autoconfirmed? You didn't sign your comment with four tildes ~~~~, which lets editors see who you are. Striking comment - user is autoconfirmed. --NellieBly (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's what the bot does - it's on the assumption that the user was reported in order to be blocked, so once blocked it removes it. I'd suggest having a word with the blocking admin, User:LessHeard vanU, and express your concern that an indef block is needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is a Prince of the Windisch-Graetz family, and has been editing for more than a year, but his edits are only about himself and his family, usually containing large blocks of German or Italian text or detailed tables of ancestry going back four generations. This version of his user page gives the flavour. His article about himself, Mariano Hugo of Windisch-Graetz was pruned by others, restored by him to this state, and has been heavily pruned and edited again. (Notability seems to me doubtful, but that is a separate question). He has also attempted to introduce articles about his mother (five times under different titles, four in Italian), his wife, his son and his great-grandfather, this last taking the tables of ancestry back a further three generations to show a Tsar of Russia and a King of Prussia among his great-to-the-fifth grandfathers.
His talk page shows a string of advice and warnings, but absolutely no response. On 1 April, Fram (talk) warned him that he would be blocked if he continued to post promotional articles about his family, but on 8 April he posted Princess Maria Luisa Serra di Gerace yet again.
I suspect that he does not speak English - this last English version of the article previously posted in Italian was a Google translation of the Italian text. He has also been active on :de (where his own article has been deleted), :it, :fr, :sl, :sv and :cs, similarly attempting to introduce articles about himself and his relations, and genealogical tables. On none of these has he responded to any comments or advice, or engaged in any discussion.
The complete absence of any response or dialogue suggest that he is not here to help build an encyclopedia, but only to promote himself and his family, and to use Wikipedia as a web-host for genealogical information.
Well, regarding lack of English, his user page says "He qualified in 1975 as economist and political science at the University of Buckingham UK". Although that sentence is not written as though he's fluent in English, presumably he must have been to get the degree! DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er the IP didn't cite a non existent source. They didn't cite any source, probably because as I said in the EC below they weren't trying to slip something in but made an error (bearing in mind they made a number of subsequent changes, none of them showing any signs of being bad). Nil Einne (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Actually it gave both years. And this was introduced [60] I guess by accident, I presume the IP was re-writing and remembered the date wrong (since it received its royal charter in 1983). Whether this error in our article contributed to the er confusion on the part of M.Hugo Windisch-Graetz of when or where he got his degree, I can't say... Nil Einne (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
clean talk page environment
Background
See talk discussion. IMHO basically maybe the discussion on a controversial topic covered by a {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} got a little overheat, both sides appear to be more calm now, so maybe no action is needed. Though there is a disagreement among editors on WP:NPA and WP:TALK interpretation.
If you continue to break the rules I will report you though. Personal insults are not allowed here.I suggest you read the rules.I am done with you now.
This has ended as I will not be replying to this person again in connection with this dispute.I do not believe it is right for someone to brand someone else a racist for stating what some Thai people do, actually it is against the rules of this board to personally insult other members.I have already told the other member that.Owain the 1st (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will you not be making anymore blatantly racist statements because that was really the outcome I was hoping for ? I take the alternative view that it's right to tell people who make blatantly racist statements on Wikipedia talk pages to not do it again. Perhaps I should have done that on your talk page rather than the article talk page but really what seems more important is that you not do it again. Since you haven't agreed to that because apparently you still believe that saying "sounds like a thing a Thai would do with a knife" about the murder of 5 members of the Fogel family is just fine, I don't have any reason to believe that you won't do it again somewhere else. Your attempt to blame your behavior on my knowledge of the country I live in wasn't very helpful. Sean.hoyland - talk23:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not too bothered what it sounds like to you frankly. It was not and personal insults are not allowed on wikipedia(not you). As for Sean..he clearly has no idea about the country that he claims to live in, I guess he still thinks it is the land of smiles and believe the TAT adverts.I was going to let it lie but now I am not as he continues to insult me.One more thing I never attempted to blame my behavior on anything, that is just some fantasy you have made up.What I did do was question your knowledge of Thailand and its people, totally different altogether,Owain the 1st (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that Thai people aren't happy smiling people, they're murderers who slaughter innocent children? Insisting that your racist slur against the Thai people is accurate is not going to do you any favors here, you know (Disclaimer: I live in Thailand too, for about half of each year - have done for 25 years, and my family are Thai) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is what to do with the extant unproductive comments on the talk page. I'd personally favour simply chopping the thread in question just prior to Owain's first comment on it, and unless there's a good reason not to I'll go ahead and do that. Obviously Owain should consider this a warning that further inflammatory nonsense of that type won't be tolerated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk23:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So no warning for branding people racists for sean then? I see how this works, just a witch hunt by the pc crowd. I deleted your warning. Have fun with the bullying.Owain the 1st (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Sean called Owain the 1st's comment, not Owain the 1st himself, blatantly racist. I think that the difference is important. ← ZScarpia00:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in the real world it is the same thing.Saying someone made a racist comment is calling them a racist..no way around that how ever hard you might try.So no punishment for the guy who breaks the rules on here and and personally insults me.But hey witchhunts are great ..You should all feel proud of yourselves.Owain the 1st (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then gotta have a good long look at your comment and think about whether it's racist or not. I know neither of you but even to a bystander like me, that's still a pretty insulting comment to make about a nationality and definitely inflammatory. Wasn't Giornorosso banned recently for something of a similar vein? --Blackmane (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People frequently utter racist comments without actually being racist - sometimes it's cultural, sometimes it's a poor communication of their actual meaning, sometimes it's meant as humour, etc. Opining that a comment is racist is not the same as opining that the commentator is racist. Should the editor who first suggested that your comment was racist be punished? Well, no, partly because we do not apply sanctions as punishment (and you haven't been punished either), but as preventatives - and they're not currently doing anything that needs preventing. And partly because it looks like there is a consensus here that agrees that your comment was racist. I don't know whether *you* are racist, and I make no claims either way - I simply note that from that comment, and from your now-deleted follow-up comments, you were expressing a rather jaundiced view of Thai people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing wrong with my comment at all whatever you pc witchhunters think.I see what happens here you enforce a rule against one person and do nothing against the other person. Bit of a joke.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is "enforcing a rule" against you. We are simply asking you to consider whether something could cause insult to someone before you post it. Also, Sean.hoyland specifically says "Your comment...is blatantly racist...". And, as the other editors have said above, that is completely different to saying an editor is racist. — OliORPyfan!13:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you would be wrong as I have been given a warning and in the real world not cyber land if you said to someones face that they uttered a racist comment then you are calling them a racist.Try it in a pub someone time and see what reaction you get.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using your own logic, if this was the real world and you made your comment to a group of Thai people, what do you think the reaction would be? Wikipedia is different to the real world. You were warned that if you continued to make inflammatory comments, a rule could be enforced on you. — OliORPyfan!13:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes wikipedia is not the real world, I can see that from all the comments on here. Seems all the people live in some cyber world.I suggest they get out more into real people land.As for your bit about the Thais..I would give you an answer but do not want to be witchhunted over that as well by the pc crowd here.My statement was to do with the specific circumstances surrounding the story from the Palestinian media that a Thai person had been arrested for killing the family because they owed him money. I said it was something that a Thai person would do.As in a Thai person not the whole of Thailand and all you lot have jumped in for a witchhunt.I should post up scientific research into Thai emotional reactions, there have been studies but why bother.Owain the 1st (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not any big deal, as I do not care whether this particular AFD is reopened, but I am a little concerned that Instruction Erosion (the antonym of Instruction Creep that I just made up) could be happening here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolinson Ferdinando. Or maybe it is Creep, because the users are applying PROD rationales to AFD procedures. I note in particular that the AFD was Relisted and then deleted the same day; not unusual in itself of course... Anyways, messy. Anarchangel (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a bit odd. AFD's without sufficient commentary are relisted. If a prod tag is removed, it's not replaced and AFD is then required (unless speedy deletion can be applied). Am I missing something here - I can't see any way this is standard procedure. Was WP:IAR applied? Exxolon (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this was a BLP PROD (which may not be removed without adding sources), not a normal PROD. The article was an unsourced BLP (though it did have two external links by the time it was deleted). Ucucha01:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If no one opposed a deletion request in 7 days, it could very well have been a prod. So why not? Being at AfD only increases visibility. Prodegotalk01:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time getting my head around the sequence of events here as there is no article history. Can you restore the article & history so I can see exactly what the sequence of events was so I can comment knowing the facts rather than having to guess. Exxolon (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Created 3:04, 27 January 2011; BLP PROD added 3:10, 27 January 2011; removed 3:21, 27 January 2011; AFD nominated 18:16, 2 April 2011; deleted 5:53, 9 April 2011. Ucucha01:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, without seeing the article & history I'm still a bit in the dark.The first question is did the two external links provide sufficient sourcing to satisfy the BLP-PROD policy requirements? Exxolon (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the BLPPROD was removed on 26 January, no links of any kind were added until 18 February, from what I can see. (I'm guessing I'm in a different time zone than Ucucha, but the basic point holds.)--joe deckertalk to me02:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite what I was getting at - did they provide sufficient evidence of notability that if the BLP-PROD procedure had been correctly followed the article would NOT have been deleted? (Note - it would be far easier to temporarily restore the article so we can see exactly what happened rather than having to rely on admins who can see the deleted article & history to answer individual enquiries.) Exxolon (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I would personally perform the delete on a BLPPROD if those ELs had been added either before or after tag placement, as neither source appears to mention the subject, and therefore does not verify any statement about the article subject. (At least in the simple case where the tag was never removed.) --joe deckertalk to me02:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit Conflict) - Thanks for restoring. Having looked through the articles history and checked the links neither of them would appear to be of sufficient quality to have averted a deletion under BLP-PROD had that have been followed correctly. This would seem to be then insufficiently clear explanation by the deleting admin who said "on AfD for a week with no comments, I'll consider it a prod then" and the closer of the AFD who said "The result was Deleted -BLP PROD was removed by author; AfD unnecessary. NAC by nom, housekeeping". What should have been said somewhere was somthing like "DELETED - Article previously nominated for deletion under BLP-PROD policy but process not completed due to premature ta wg removal by article author. Sourcing insufficient to satisfy BLP-PROD requirements and article would've been deleted had tag not been removed and not replaced. Relisting AFD not required as article should have already been deleted" or words to that effect - this would have negated this entire thread as it at least appeared that the admin was making policy on the fly by "converting" an AFDith no comments into an uncontested PROD. Exxolon (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you all should have done is taken advantage of the week long AfD to make these comments. But deciding on a redirect sounds reasonable. The deletion was done for the reason I gave. BLP PROD had nothing to do with it. I was indeed "making up policy on the fly" if you wish to call it that. The only reason the page wasn't already deleted was because of what tag was chosen to be transcluded on it. With no objections to deletion, I'll go ahead and delete, I don't see why the exact procedure will matter. Prodegotalk02:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Looks fine to me - it's worded neutrally, merely asking for input, and not trying to sway opinion. GiantSnowman01:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) The notification itself is fine, in a vacuum, but invites for WP:CONSERVATISM appear to have been targeted mainly at editors who display a conservative POV in their editing, rather than at editors who simply edit on conservatism topics, so the audience is something of a problem (not necessarily through any fault of Carrite's). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Roscelese is just saying what other people are thinking, although I'd rush to say that my interpertation of "the audience is something of a problem" is that posting only to the conservative project means that the audience will be conservative. I think that Carrite is playing in a very grey area. Asking the neutrally worded question "What is the best country in the world" in France will get you a different answer than asking the same question in Spain. Same concept at play here. Sven ManguardWha?05:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's necessarily true. It's certainly possible for a project on conservatism to attract non-conservative editors (perhaps those who are affected a great deal by conservative policies *waves*). And it's true that left to its own devices, the project might naturally have attracted more conservative users anyway, but there's probably not much can be done about it - I'm referring to the distribution of invitations to the project. But this is something of a digression. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that distributing individual notifications to the members of this project gives the impression of soliciting partisan opinions and should be avoided. The closing administrator may want to disregard opinions expressed by people so canvassed. Sandstein 06:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What people are getting hung up on is that a neutral message was sent about a deletion discussion on a conservative group to WikiProject Conservatism and thinking that non-conservatives should have also been likewise contacted (who exactly, I wouldn't know). Such expectations are not consistent with expected deletion procedures, but given the omniscient left-right divide that exists in real life, perhaps this is more of a natural reaction. –MuZemike08:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that a great many projects on Wikipedia are populated by editors with a specific point of view. WP:CANVASS allows posting to any project, and those drafting the guideline were surely aware of this. As long as the post is neutrally worded, the guideline permits the posting. [63] shows how a non-neutral post to a project looks. I think the difference is substantially clear. Collect (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is much the same as notifying the article rescue squadron about an AfD - the message can be as neutral as possible, but it is not going to attract neutral comments or a balanced keep/delete vote ratio. I just to joke with suggesting a template to tag an article for annihilation to attract deletionist attention, similar to the flagged for rescue template used by the inclusionists. I don't think project conservaism is going to attract many delete votes either, and it also doesn't seem to have been the intent.·Maunus·ƛ·14:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) It might be useful to note that wp:WikiProject_Conservatism seems to have at least four locations of afd discussions. 1) the scrollbox on the project page (it is fed externally, so additions to it might not show up on watcher's watchlists), 2) wp:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politics (which feeds that scrollbox, but one would have to view the page source to know that), 3) the yet-to-be-created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conservatism, and finally 4) the project talk page. This could conceivably be one reason why the message wasn't simply posted to the project page, as would have been preferred. BitterGrey (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Maunus. I don't think there was bad faith, but the odds are the recipients would be more disposed to one side than the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to think that members of a work project can address a notability question dispassionately. The fact is that WP Work Groups are often not being adequately notified of such challenges as this one and they should be — which I attempted to do. I have endeavored to provide a neutral phrasing in this case to the WP Conservatism Work Group. I do not believe this to have been a violation of either the spirit or the law of Wikipedia's CANVASSING prohibitions. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zoupan lately has been edit-warring on many Balkans-related articles and misusing sources on many of them. Since April 1 many of his edits have been reverts[64], so when he was warned about edit-warring by User:Kebeta[65] and source misrepresentation by me [66] he stopped editing. Three days later he returned as an IP editor living in Stockholm[67] and continued with similar edits, which made me realize who he is since he had been using a similar IP before leaving [68].
I assumed good faith and gave him the chance to admit his identity[69], but after my question he stopped editing again. Three days later he returned with another Stockholm-based IP[70] and continued the edit-warring[71] on all articles he had been editing as Zoupan. A block or a sanction should be imposed to make this user accept consensus or at least stop him from making edits like the redirection of a large article he considers OR[72][73].--— ZjarriRrethues —talk08:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This edit of yours is rather content dispute. You also precipitated yourself in removing all categories related to Serbia, when is clearly part of its history. Also, I fail to see any attempt of dialogue by any of you.
In all cases it´s rather about content dispute, and he is basically lone defending the Serbian point of view on those articles. From your recent edits I can observe you´re seaking some ethnically based association in order to block that user. I fail to see your so called "consensus" because no dialogue occured. WP:BRD has not been in use here, and you´re trying to block an user because you disagree with him. A good suggestion would be for some administrator to possibly intervene and obligate the editors involved to discuss the content instead of all editors edit warring without discussion, although the initiative can be donne without any administrative intervention, it simply requires good faith by the intervenients. FkpCascais (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only a very small minority of the articles he edits are related to my edits so I'm not trying to block him because I disagree with him and as for Andrea Gropa he was deleting sources and trying to present him as Serbian and he was reverted not by me, but by someone else[74]. On Torlaks, Andrea Gropa, Vuk Kosača, House of Kosača, Zachlumia, . he's been edit-warring, deleting sources, redirecting whole articles without any kind of attempt to follow any wikipedia policy. When he got his final warning he decided to stop editing from his account and return once in a while only to revert others with IP evasion techniques. Kebeta showed good faith with the warning and I showed good faith again when he started using IPs for his reverts and not his account, but he decided to change the IP and continue the reverts.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk09:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the edit war over Vuk Kosača (exemple: [75]) I´m having hard time to understand why was he edit wared. The other users are actually removing all Serbian related cats for no reason, adding Bosnian and Croatian language at lead without any reason, and the content dispute seems nothing too much dramatic. In House of Kosača the situation is similar, with him having expanded the article and being reverted for allegedly "unreliable sources". Torlaks debate is well known, because more than an real ethnic group, they are rather a linguistical one. The article however should exist and he was wrong there to simply create a redirect, however a discussion could/should be made. In Zachlumia its also a content dispute, with his additions being reverted. I honestly think that no real aproach of dialogue was never made in any case. I think that rather than punishement, a discussion would be much more productive. Regarding the IP, well, WP:SPI? FkpCascais (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a content dispute on all those articles, but because of the IP evasion there's no discussion. The Kosaca family for example could be classified as Serb, Bosniak and Croatian, but because non of the users involved is discussing all that's left is the edit-warring.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk10:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see such statement in the article. FkpCascais, can you please, point this sentence, where it is claimed, the Torlks are an ethnic group. Jingby (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the categories... Anyway, the article could be merged into Torlakian dialect and all relevant information from the Torlak article moved there. The Torlak article looks like pretending to be about an ethnic group without actually being it, and in my view not worth a separate article. We could have a WP:3O on that. FkpCascais (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching this and reporting it. Clearly Zhoupan is using IP's in order to edit war on numerous articles and a block is in order for this nonsense. -- ◅PRODUCER(TALK)17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speculative physics theories being promoted in Wikipedia and Wikiversity
This morning, I got forwarded a copy of an email signed by Sergey Fedosin and sent to physicists around the world, encouraging them to read Wikipedia's article Strong gravitational constant.
We have nothing to do with Wikiversity, I suggest expressing your concern to them directly. Under the instructions at WP:DRV, it says that if significant new information that comes to light which wasn't there during the initial discussion, you should start a new AfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The user has extensively vandalised Serbian- and Greek-related articles, and is known to have a history of prominent edit warring, reverts, OR, POV, etc. A brief look at this users talk page history is evidence enough for his personal feuds with User:Alexikoua, User:WhiteWriter, User:Athenean and his general resentment against non-Albanian history of Albania, the history of Greece (a majority in relation to Epirus) and Serbia (in majority in relation to Kosovo). He has been warned several times, and at times been subject of arbitration and bans. For recent reverts see Vojsava Tripalda (compare 1 and 2) --Zoupan (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, seems to me that all of you just jumped into reporting eachother rather than discussing content. Neither one of you actually did nothing worth administrators attention. No one broke any rule and what is happening is that all of you are edit warring insted of discussing content. There seems to be nothing sanctionable there. The only thing some administrator could do is to assist you in the discussions, but not allways admins are able to spare time for all divergencies. You could and should start discussing, and only when some of the rules is broke, you come here to report. I´ll try to see if I can spare some time to assist you in some content disputes. FkpCascais (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zoupan obviously cannot understand that when there's a consensus on WP:RS reached on various discussions [77][78], we should stick to it and not use IP evasion in order to avoid the consensus. Apparently this report is a reaction to my report of his IP evasion and edit-warring [79] earlier today. After deciding to stop the IP evasion Zoupan went immediately back to edit-warring [80][81], even though he has been given too many final warnings about it[82][83].--— ZjarriRrethues —talk16:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the article on Lakshmi (the Hindu godess of wealth and prosperity) the author has claimed that all Indians are money minded, materialistic and do't give importance to human values. The author has insulted the Indian people as a whole by proclaiming that all Indians are more interested in wealth than in knowledge. In doing so the author has not only hurt the feelings of Indian people but also made mockery of our ideals of secularism ( The author has presumed that India=Hindus by saying that Indians are money minded just because the Hindus worship goddess Lakshmi ) .The Hindus worship Lakshmi as a symbol of purity which makes us respect money and not to idle it away. Please make sure that the article is corrected as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.9.41 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see what is to be done beyond a warning, a quick correction if not already done, and eyes on the editor and the article for a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
![[5]](http://spankingartwiki.animeotk.com/wiki/File:KogaruSpk.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://spankingartwiki.animeotk.com/wiki/File:Kogaru3.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://spankingartwiki.animeotk.com/wiki/File:KD04.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AKogaru1.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=52903244&oldid=52901500){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gender_school_1.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kogaru_3.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Genderschool2a.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Akibachan5a.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Akina02.jpg){kind=link}
