Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 205.155.141.9 (talk) at 19:14, 9 March 2011 (→‎User:Chinaraileng38265: mass creation of Chinese railroad articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Outing comment

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


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

    I have RevDeleted the supposed "self incrimination" and WP:Outing issue. I shall leave IntrigueBlue a gentle reminder not to believe unreferenced content on WP and a strong hint not to repeat it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The following edits concerning the WP:Outing issue may have been missed for the RevDeleted process:

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

    Fixed :) --Errant (chat!) 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Was it necessary to RevDel my edit, which redacted the discussion? I thought that deleting the edit immediately before mine would prevent the material I removed from being visible in the diff. January (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm not sure I understand how this was a contravention of WP:OUTING. From the linked description (emphasis mine):

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

    The IP user in question posted their own name in relation to an edit, which I then repeated elsewhere. Unless I am mistaken, the individual did not redact this self-disclosed information, so the last sentence in the quote above does not apply. It wasn't my intention to incite harassment, merely to make other editors aware that someone with a strong WP:COI was repeatedly editing the article. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, an ip posted under a name which they said was theirs - we have no evidence that it was; it may have been a Joe job. As such, saying an ip is who they claim they are can be considered trying to disclose an identity without knowing that the individual has released that information. I know that it is a tricky concept, so that is why I only advised you and strongly urged you to be more careful - privacy expectations is such that the usual response to a disclosure attempt is an official warning or even sanction. To sum up, we do not know for sure that the subject has edited Wikipedia and that noting they have by referring to an ip comment claiming to be that person is considered WP:Outing - and it should not happen again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What? The IP claimed to be the person. While that may be a lie, it is absolutely not [[WP:OUTING]|outing]] to repeat that claim. It may be wrong, but it has repeatedly been held that as soon as a person outs xyrself, it's no longer outing to repeat that claim. If I state here that I am John Travolta Madonna Joe McJoeyson , it doesn't matter whether or not that's true--any other editor is safely able to repeat that information ps, none of those are true. There is no violation of policy here. Furthermore, that RevDel was not appropriate: editors are allowed to self-identify. Now, if they did so without realizing the consequences, and later asked for the info to be retracted, it could be allowed, but I see people self-identify all the time and I've never once seen that self-identification removed (outside of minors giving too much info, but that's not the case here). I believe both LessHeard vanU and Fages need to explain more clearly why they've contravened policy here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, and ErrantX, since xe's the one who actually did the revdel. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply followed up on action already taken (i.e. one revision was removed and someone added that there was more), you'd have to ask LessHeard vanU. --Errant (chat!) 08:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go, from WP:OUTING;"If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason." On the basis that you, nor me, cannot confirm that the ip is the person they say they are (as you note, you can call yourself anyone) it can be taken that they are attempting to connect a real person with an ip address - and by confirming it, without knowing it is true, you are involved in outing that individual. I would really appreciate it if you would AGF that what I am saying, although quite arcane, is correct, and that I have been exampling as much good faith as I would want you to extend that I am explaining and providing a rationale for my comments. You made a mistake; we all do, and it is hoped that we recognise and understand the situation and move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I AGF that you think I (well, actually Intrigueblue) made a mistake, but I actually think that you made the mistake. This was an editor posting personal information about himself. It may be a lie, but it was not posting personal information about another person. By your logic, I could never repeat anytime anyone self-identifies. For example, on your user page, you claim to be "Mark James Slater." By your logic, I "cannot confirm that you are the person you say you are" because "you can call yourself anyone." Thus, by repeating what you yourself have written, I am violating WP:OUTING. A lot of IPs sign with a name, because they don't know how or don't care to bother creating a Wikipedia identity. By both the implied logic and the explicit wording of WP:OUTING, I may refer to that person by that name (of course, accounting for the possibility of dynamic IPs). So, if you're confident in your interpretation, I would like to you to clarify under which circumstances referring to a person by a name that they have themselves revealed is acceptable, and when it is not. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    “Confirmation” presupposes additional knowledge. If I had somehow gathered the named individual's IP address from elsewhere and stated that indeed the statement was correct (or that it were incorrect), I would be providing confirmation and giving “feedback on the accuracy of the material”. I never made any such attempt to confirm or deny, only made the good-faith assumption that the anon user's statement was correct and repeated it elsewhere, as explicitly permitted in WP:OUTING (see bold text in blockquote above). As for your comments, AGF does not mean “assume that I am correct”; I don't attribute any malice to your perspective, merely a faulty interpretation of events and/or of policy. I hate to be stubborn, but your subsequent attempts to explain your reasoning seem to require a leap of logic that I'm not following.
    Regardless, I would like to hear you justify using RevDel unbidden on a user. Can you redact John Travolta's comments above because you think he made a mistake in posting his “name”? Can you redact this post because I just “confirmed” that Qwyrxian is John Travolta? What if I stated on Talk:John Travolta (which I won't) that Travolta was editing the article under the name Qwryxian? Where does the distinction lie? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just use common sense and reasonable judgment, taking into account the nature of the claims, and the type of person named (in terms of their likelihood to inspire imposters). It's not helpful to concoct weird edge cases and wikilawyer over them. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the standard, then in this case the RevDel was even more inappropriate, because, due to the edits the IP made and the deleted statements made on the talk page, it seems highly likely (i.e., common sense) that the person is who they claimed to be. Again, this is common practice for IPs, to "sign" in plain text. Again, by LessHeard's logic, if an IP writes something on a talk page, and signs it "Bob Bobber," and then in the reply I write, "Bob Bobber, I think you're wrong," then I am guilty of outing. If an IP or user self-identifies, then that automatically means WP:OUTING no longer applies, and the policy makes this explicitly clear. If a second party says "That IP is actually Bob Bobber," then that second party is outing, and if I repeat the second party, then I am also guilty of furthering the outing. It really seems very simple to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that unlike an account, an IP's edits cannot all be assumed to have been made by the same person, so if someone editing as an IP self-identifies that should not be taken as an admission that all edits made by that IP were theirs. In this instance, it could be a shared IP address for a company (quite possible considering the variety of edits from this IP). January (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a valid point. It doesn't completely address the underlying issue, but I should perhaps have been clearer about the uncertainty of the matter in my original statement. As far as I can recall (the original has been RevDeleted), I said, “It seems that [name] has been editing Wikipedia using IP [1.2.3.4].” I didn't state categorically that IP = name, though I did neglect to indicate that IPs can of course be shared by multiple people. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    That seems much more applicable. However, the individual in fact made a self-identifying post on their own biography. I did reply to that post, but provided no additional information there. I repeated that information on the article about the company owned by this individual, which to me is a reasonable conclusion of a COI. And indeed, the IP in question had made clearly COI edits to the article, so I think the warning to other editors had merit. Was it jumping to conclusions for me to say that A was editing C because A had IP B and IP B was editing C? Maybe it would have been more appropriate for me to say that IP B was making strongly POV (but not necessarily COI) edits to C and leave it at that.
    However, if my actions were inappropriate, how is it different to dedicate an entire section and even an entire article to the same subject? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 10:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has a promotional tone, and at the time was semi-protected because of repeated attempts to remove the material in the diff provided. That makes it obvious that there was COI editing going on, there was no benefit to speculating exactly who was doing it. Re your second point, as T. Canens says it's an unsourced assertion about a specific living person, and is quite possibly incorrect (I'm convinced by the variety of edits that others have edited from that IP). January (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Because those articles are sourced to something much better than an isolated IP comment. T. Canens (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree outing is a poor description of what's going on here. If my user name is David Montoya and I say that's my real name in my user page, it isn't outing if people say I'm David Montoya. However per BLP, we do have to be careful when trying to link either an account or an IP to an identifable person outside of userspace even if that account or IP has made the claim they are that person. As someone has said, we also have to be mindful that not all IP edits may come from the same person. On the other hand the fact that someone claims to be the subject (or someone covered) in an article is often not completely irrelevent as it gives greater urgency to their comments so it's not uncommon in BLP issues that someone will mention something like 'an IP who says they are ...' bringing up the point while making it clear we can't be sure the person is telling the truth of who they are say they are. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That being the case, would there be any issue with me repeating the statement that an IP claiming to be the individual in question had been editing the page? That information has been redacted by LessHeard vanU, but on no legitimate grounds that I can see. If the claim is true, he is old enough to decide for himself what information he wants to provide and what he doesn't. Others shouldn't be making that decision for him. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 04:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't a problem with saying "user claims to be Joe Blow", as long as you remember that he might actually be your Auntie Monica. If a user wants to take some kind of action based on them definitively being Joe Blow, they need to contact WP:OTRS, who can handle evidencing the claim offwiki.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is where the original discussion and “ruling” that I wanted to challenge took place. I've removed the RFC tag, though. This has gone as far as it's likely to. Thanks everyone for your input. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 18:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tarc

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

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

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

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

    At the risk of possibly going over old ground, could you supply a diff or two where women stated they were leaving wikipedia because of this cartoon character? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What I was referring to was several respected (IMO) editors opining to that effect at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!, not a specific person saying "I am leaving because of this". Tarc (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect they're making assumptions. Unless they are also providing diffs? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)There are making what I believe to be reasonable assumptions, yes. I don't mean to be rude, but does this tangent have a point? I never claimed specifically that women are leaving or refusing to join the project because of the presence of this Wikipe-tan project-space page, I only noted that others called for deletion of a related -tan page based on presumption of such. It seems like you're setting me up for a fail because I have no diffs for something I didn't really say in the first place. Tarc (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm just trying to get my head around what the real issue is. Apparently there are variations on this kind of cartoon character which are X-rated. But does that automatically mean that any representation of an anime character is suspect? The key question: Is there reasonable evidence that the continuing presence of this cartoon figure could cause significant damage to wikipedia's reputation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Using images of a 9-10 yr old girl in various poses, sayings, and outfits just creeps me the fuck out, to be honest. And others, apparently, though I certainly don't claim that others share or approve of my colorful commentary above; that's my responsibility and mine alone. Are all the images of this thing overtly sexual? No. But IMO there's enough of a taint with past imagery...whether it was the blackface or the french maid outfits of the "Think of Wikiped-tan" image gallery, or the outright pornography that Jimbo deleted from Commons a ways back...that I think this stuff just needs to be buried in a deep, dark hole. Tarc (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Explict stuff can and should be gone. But the "normal" stuff is something most people either enjoy or couldn't care one way or the other about. Saying that we need to discard all of it because some of it was bad is classic throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and claims that "women might be driven off" sounds like a textbook case of WP:BEANS to me. Contrary to the popular stereotype, there actually are a lot of women who are fans of anime/manga. And we have a lot of more important things to do rather than debate over whether G-rated cartoon personalisations should be trashed because some idjit was stupid with R/X-rated versions. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're seeing stuff in it that I'm not seeing. However, I'm not up on this "lolicon" stuff. Given that Jimbo is the visible face of wikipedia, has anyone asked him about this? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He's commented about it recently:

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

    As far as I can determine, while he's not a fan, he doesn't view the character as being particularly problematic either. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds to me like he would be just fine if it went away, but he doesn't feel the need to force the issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen any mentions of specific examples, and I don't expect that anyone else has either. It's certainly possible that something of the sort does indeed take place, and it's a worthwhile topic for discussion; but there doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence either way.
    Regardless of that, though, I don't think Tarc's comments about the editors who support the retention of this page are warranted, particularly given the scurrilous nature of the allegations he makes. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; indeed, the diffs linked to in the first post are certainly WP:CIVIL infringements, and even seem (to me, anyway) to be violations of WP:NPA; a "people who state X are Y" statement is no different than "you state X and are therefore Y". - The Bushranger One ping only 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The diffs presented by Kirill appear to show at the very least distasteful comments by Tarc not in keeping with WP:AGF. While one is free to have an opinion on the matter, calling everyone with the opposite opinion what is alluded to above is not in keeping with the consensus-based discussion model. I would suggest Tarc keep his arguments focused on the content, and not other contributors. N419BH 05:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarc should be admonished to avoid attacking those who present views different from his in forums such as AFD. There has been a long history of attacking, demeaning, and ridiculing other editors, both in his comments and his edit summaries, rather than simply discussing the issues in a civil manner as required by WP:NPA. Twice in the last couple of months he has characterized "Keep" !votes as "fraudulent" in AFD [7], [8] and has shrugged off requests on his talk page [9], [10] that he strike the incivil postings, just adding accusations of "making up things that don't exist" and then deleting the request (without archiving it). He then characterized a DRV request in an AFD which the closing admin and other characterized as difficult and complex as "To "whine" doesn't accurately reflect what this DRV is; the Brit's notion of a "whinge" just seems to capture the essence far better than us colonials can muster. This is whingeing, the classic case of filing a DRV not over admin wrongdoing or mistakes, but because one disagrees with the result. ". In that DRV, he attacked several opposing editors with comments such as "That is quite a lie there." Tarc, please do not try to win in every dispute by insulting and attacking other good-faith editors. Discuss the issues instead. When people bring a concern to your talk page, do not just disparage and delete. Edison (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what we call "piling on". My dear Edison, that has nothing to do with this; if you have a beef with something said at DRV then you should have taken the appropriate steps to lodge a complaint at the time, not hold it in reserve to pounce at a convenient moment. Honestly, that turns your complaint into more of a pointy action rather than a legitimate grievance. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as your pattern of attacking others in AFDs is being discussed at this forum, it is an appropriate and non "pointy" time to bring up the long history of such behavior, which is not limited to the one DRV as you claim, at which others noted your past habits of such behavior. Clearly you want any complaint limited to the one individual abuse without demonstrating a pattern. That way each personal attack, taken by itself, might be insufficient to justify a block or a restriction of some sort, than a larger pattern might require. This thread should not be an AFD or a DRV as such about any one article. Edison (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Some of the images, however, are concerning. I have nommed one for deletion to test the waters over removing the worst offenders. --Errant (chat!) 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if as Tarc says "images of a 9-10 yr old girl in various poses, sayings, and outfits just creeps me the fuck out, to be honest" then I strongly suggest he never looks at a family photo album. Exxolon (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      This strawman has been attempted in the MfD several times, and easily refuted. I am speaking about THIS image in THIS specific context, not of imagery of children in general. Please don't attack positions that I am not actually taking. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the end of this we still have the same issue; a vocal faction decrying attacks on their "unofficial mascot", a mascot that was until quite recently used in some merely suggestive imagery, and some outright pornographic. I'm sorry if said faction feels aggrieved, but understandably there's very little tolerance for what this image has been put to use for. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the end of this we still have the same issue: Tarc still dodging acknowledgment that his attacks on others, in multiple AfDs despite his own strawman, are unwarranted and violate the basic principles of Wikipedia.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copypasta of someone else's words with your own twist at the end really isn't a productive, helpful, or rhetorically imaginative response. Regarding the comments, perhaps in the future I shall think of more creative and less directly caustic ways to express my disdain for those who are in favor of retaining suggestive imagery in project-space. At the end of the day, a WP:SPADE is still just that. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a comment on the original complaint. Which seems to have been successfully obfuscated in the ensuing conversation. Tarc is experienced enough and literate enough to not engage in personal attacks. Tarc started in the right direction when he called it heavy handed. Though he veered in the wrong direction IMHO when he qualified that admission, and then focused on the fact that it was two weeks old. But for those comments, I would have viewed this as much ado about little. But under the circumstances, I would simply caution him to cut it out. He can make his point while remaining civil, I'm sure, and I expect it would be more readily received were he to do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I don't ever seem to recall Tarc assuming good faith or being diplomatic about anything. He may indeed do so on occasion, but what sticks in my mind is a series of posts (e.g., at DRV) that demonstrate overtly and overly partisan deletionist behavior. The fact that this is an outgrowth of that does not surprise me at all; the fact that Tarc has not yet been sanctioned for repeated incivility is more of a surprise to me. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The above two comments sound like RfC material rather than points relating to this "incident". The issue at hand is not whether or not the editor has a history of being rude, but if particular comments he made about a particular issue were a policy violation. I believe they were beyond civilized discourse and it would be good if he were admonished, but I doubt there is much else to do about them. Should some of you think this and other issues warrant a RFC/U then I suggest starting one. Piling on here is not right though, IMO. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone familiar with Tarc will know that comments such as those leading off this discussion are not uncommon for him. He knows what's appropriate and what's not. Its been duly noted for anyone keeping track, and the ANI can be closed.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my. Well, one "final" final note. People attempting to frame this as being connected to acrimonious past DRVs/AfDs that I may have been involved in are barking up the wrong tree. Being frustrated with cliques who scrabble for flimsy reasons to keep articles on 15mins of fame one-eventers is one thing. Wanting to rid project-space of sexual anime imagery that originates in some long-past "unofficial mascot" era and that a growing number of editors feel is not conducive to retaining female editors in the project, is worlds apart. Honestly, a deletionist-inclusionist squabble is kinda insignificant in comparison to what we're trying to pry out of Wikipedia: space here. Tarc (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clearly we have different definitions of 'sexual'. The truly bad ones have got to go, agreed, but saying that all of them are "sexual" because some are/were is like saying the 24 Hours of Daytona is the same thing as the Indianapolis 500 since both involve cars going around a racetrack. (And there's also a scent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here.) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only thing "sexual" about this image, for example, is that the cartoon character is presumed (though not provably) female. Anything beyond that is prejudicial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it is a drawing, so whatever characteristics it has are somewhat subjective, but I think it is safe to assume that it is intended to represent a female since I don't detect any hint of a penis in this image and Wikipe-tan appears to have sprouted breasts in this one. Also, the creator of those Wikipe-tan images, User:Kasuga tends to draw pictures of young girls. such as this popular illustration of Lolicon. I'm told Kasuga has created many more like this which are available off-wiki (but not on DeviantArt, who made Kasuga remove some because of "underage nudity"). If you think the sex of Wikipe-tan is ambiguous, you may be thinking of Futanari. User:Niabot is the go-to guy for futanari and hentai pictures here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You never know, where drawings are concerned. It just occurs to me that banning a G-rated drawing because the character has been used in PG-rated, R-rated, or X-rated drawings, makes about as much sense as banning all G-rated illustrations of female humans because some female humans have been depicted as PG_rated, R-rated, or X-rated. Maybe just dress all the females in burqas, and everything will be peachy keen dandy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your argument is unsurprisingly ridiculous. We aren't talking about banning all cartoon images of young girls everywhere, we are talking about the use of a specific character on this site and why that makes some editors uncomfortable. You have said that there is nothing sexual in the images created by User:Kasuga. Knowing that this same person has had images removed from DeviantArt due to "underage nudity" should make you think about that position again. I'm not suggesting that you see anything sexual in the images, but perhaps you haven't spent a great deal of time wondering why some other editors find there to be sexual overtones in these images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Removing G-rated images by an artist whose other work is not G-rated on the grounds that his other work, even of the same character, is not G-rated, is equally ridiculous. If editors are made uncomfortable by the images, then it's simple: don't go to WP:Wikipe-tan. As for being unconforortable if she's used elsewhere - Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; we don't not feature images of spiders on the front page because arachnophobes might see them, for instance. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Perhaps you misunderstood - we aren't talking about images of naked adults or adults in sexual situations, we are talking about images that were removed from another website because of "underage nudity". Since Wikipedia is, as you say, NOTCENSORED, I assume there would no objection if images containing "underage nudity" were posted here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, I understand perfectly - and those images, if ever posted here, should be purged with fire and the person who posted them reported to the authorities. However, those images have not been posted here (at least, I hope not!), the "questionable" ones have either been deleted or are on their way out. What's being discussed here - I thought - was whether or not the G-rated images of Wikipe-tan should be removed because there are/were illegal/immoral images of the character that were posted elsewhere, and because editors here might be "uncomfortable" with the character because of that. If I've misunderstood the entire discussion and that isn't being mooted, then I apologise for that, but from my reading of the various debates several people (including Tarc) seem to be arguing for exactly that on exactly that grounds. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There are various reasons given for disliking Wikipe-tan, but I am not sure that most people who find Wikipe-tan "creepy" are even aware of the other images by User:Kasuga or the derivative Wikipe-tan images by others. I believe some people simply find the use of a cartoon female child inappropriate for a project largely maintained by adult males. To dismiss the connection between Kasuga's other works and Wikipe-tan, as you and Baseball Bugs have done, is akin to wondering why Fox News viewers were upset to discover that Matt Sanchez had performed in gay porn movies. While on one level there is no reason for connecting the two, on another level there is a fundamental disconnect with the community's values. I will leave this alone now, but I think it is clear that this issue isn't going to go away without a broader discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Err commons has a wide range of images of various types of people who are not adults naked.©Geni 11:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • (Yes, I'm a bit late with this, but hey.) Maybe a more specific analogy would be better. Should the fact that Jenna Jameson has appeared in hardcore pornography mean that we must remove all the G/PG-rated pictures of her from Wikipedia, regardless of their content or appropriateness to the article in which they're used? How about Christina Ricci--should the movie poster image be removed from Addams Family Values because she appears in that image, taken while underaged, and has since appeared in nude scenes in movies? Or Natalie Portman--should her images be removed from her page, because a paparazzi secretly took topless photographs of her that were later published in a magazine, despite her never volunteering to do so? (If I could think of an example of a woman who had nude/sexual photos of her secretly taken in what she believed to be a private place, without her knowledge, where they were later published, but I really can't think of one off the top of my head.) How about Princess Leia--should the images there be removed because people have drawn pornographic pictures of the character? Basically, what you're arguing is that there should be a standard, whereby a fictional character who doesn't exist in any living, breathing form automatically becomes pornography in all images, should a single pornographic--or even suggestive--image of said character exist. If you follow through on that standard, all the examples I've given here would also have to also have their images all become pornographic, because pornographic (or at least explicitly nude) images of them exist. Indeed, the standard would probably mean that it's more important to remove those images, due to WP:BLP concerns regarding Jameson, Ricci, Portman, and Carrie Fisher, than it is to remove the Wikipe-tan images. Or should a double standard be put into place, where real people wouldn't have to have their images removed, but cartoon characters would? And what about, say, Red from Red Hot Riding Hood or Jessica Rabbit, cartoon characters explicitly created to be highly sexualized adults? I've seen pornographic images of both--should Wikipedia be purged of all images of them for that reason?
    In short, I say that doing this is not only going against both the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED and common sense, but opening a huge can of worms that we have no real need to get into. Let it drop. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to let it drop, but people keep misconstruing what I have said and coming up with ridiculous analogies. First off, I have not said that I think all Wikipe-tan images should be deleted (on any grounds). My reason for entering this discussion was to try and explain what I felt were some of the reasons that editors might be uncomfortable with the use of Wikipe-tan. Second, we are discussing cartoon images of a specific fictional character, not photographic images of real people, actors portraying fictional characters, or anything else. Third, I have neither said nor implied that I think any image should be deleted because someone, somewhere has made a pornographic image depicting the same person/character. Fourth, Wikipe-tan, unlike your examples, is a female child. This may seem obvious, but I believe it is fundamental to why some people may be uncomfortable with the character (and probably why some people are fond of the character). Fifth, Wikipe-tan is not an actor playing role or a person photographed by paparazzi. Wikipe-tan was created by User:Kasuga, an individual who also creates images containing "underage nudity" and sexual situations. While this makes Kasuga the ideal person to create the image used in Lolicon, they may not be the best person to create a mascot for Wikipedia. I cannot say that Kasuga intended there to be any sexual overtones to Wikipe-tan, but it is clear that some editors perceive one. If images are deleted on that basis, there is no reason to assume that all images of cartoon children will be deleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, then, what about, say, Shinobu Maehara? She was created by Ken Akamatsu, who also has made/still makes (depending on your source) pornographic doujinshi, and there's a great deal of hentai material out there starring her. If, hypothetically, there were a picture showing her in her swimwear at her canonical age of 13 that was on either en-Wiki or Commons, would that mean that image should be deleted on the grounds that it's sexual material? (It's a serious question... I just want to know where, hypothetically, the line should be drawn.) rdfox 76 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I haven't suggested here that Wikipe-tan images be deleted, so your question seems somewhat misdirected. I believe the correct wiki-response is WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, but I'll try to give you a real answer. The two situations are superficially analogous, but you seem to be ignoring the fact the Wikipe-tan isn't a character from a popular series but the creation of a Wikipedia user for use as a representation of Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of Akamatsu's work, but if the situation is as you describe, I would hope that editors were aware of that in discussions about adding, removing, or deleting such an image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Having been the target of some of Tarc's pungent comments, as well having received similarly pointed supportive comments from him in other discussions, I'd say his comments regularly go beyond what are generally seen as Wikipedia's civility boundaries. However, and more importantly, I've seen a clear double standard in applying civility boundaries to discussions involving sexual content, and note that far nastier comments than Tarc's have been tolerated even when directed at named editors (myself included). Civility standards shouldn't be used to bash one side in a long-running discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    it is unfortunately rather routine at Wikipedia to deal with content disputes by personal insult. Even if the insults do not bother the individual whom they are directed at, they poison the atmosphere, inhibit rational discussion, and discourage the less hardy sort of editors. Sometimes that's the purpose: what reasonable normal person would go into a discussion where they know there is an editor ready and eager to call his opponents morons? It's not complaining about extreme rudeness that is an attempt to influence content issues--it's the rudeness. I have been reluctant to even comment on matters involving this particular editor, for I know he considers that I do not act towards him with good faith. But this sort of thing must be stopped. It's hypocritical to complain that relatively innocuous possibly slightly sexualized images of the sort seen universally in the world harm the image of Wikipedia, when it's the continuing recourse to rudeness in discussing them --rudeness of a sort way beyond what is normally seem in public discussions in responsible publications--that does the real harm. I think the images harmless, but I would gladly ban them if we could also ban that sort of invective. If anyone with whom I have no prior negative involvement uses this sort of language and I should notice, I shall give a final warning and then block. I hope someone--preferably someone who supports the person;s underlying position-- will have similar courage here. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Activist#Hostility. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Panagiotis Xenos-Kokoletsis

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

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

    Looks clueless, esp. about formatting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I left him a note in Greek explaining the non-compliance to the MOS and advising him to comply. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Dr. K. I don't want to have anyone discouraged from editing here but if such a message is required in Greek, maybe they can be persuaded to contribute to el-wiki instead? Please let us know if they reply in Greek. Regards SoWhy 19:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you SoWhy. I think he is proficient in English; he has created a few articles after all. But I don't think he understands the gravity of WP:CON and the importance of complying with policies/guidelines. Hopefully a reminder in Greek will bring this home. I will let you know. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the matter is resolved. Further edits indicate compliance with WP:CREDENTIAL and no further edit-warring. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear that optimism was premature. Further edits such as this one show the same behavior again. :-/ Regards SoWhy 07:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear that a short block may be in order. I really don't know why this editor is so unresponsive. But it is becoming time-consuming and disruptive to keep up with him amidst all this edit-warring. Give him a final warning and follow with a block if need be. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It's gone beyond ridiculous. It's become similar to a Whac-A-Mole game. Only difference there is no redemption. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No replies to any of the suggestions/warnings, no change in editing pattern, no apparent effort to conform with the MOS. I like seeing someone creating needed articles, and his English is not that atrocious, but against such persistent IDNHT perhaps only a temporary block might help. Constantine ✍ 00:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now IP-socking. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Great. Now we are playing Whac-A-Mole with the socks as well, not only the badly formatted edits. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is becoming ridiculous; I had to self-revert because he now "wins" the edit-wars using multiple IPs. *sigh*. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the incident that time forgot? Any admin out there? How can you allow this thing to fester days on end? I knew there is admin shortage but this is getting ridiculous. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked him 48 hours for block evasion (he went on editing when the IP was blocked). As to the rest, I don't think you've made it really clear to the admins what the issue is, that's why you haven't seen any action.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)
    Thank you Ellen. In short this editor uses formatting contrary to MOS and incessantly edit-wars against multiple editors, on multiple articles, for days on end without acknowledging or responding to repeated messages in English and Greek. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite clear that somebody who refuses to acknowledge any sort of communication should be shown the door. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, If the block doesn't do the trick, and he continues once it's over I am willing to indefblock the account. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Theresa. I agree. This attitude is disruptive and antithetical to the collaborative editing environment of Wikipedia. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross-wiki promotion

    Resolved
     – Article is now at AfD; nothing left to do here.  Frank  |  talk  02:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think you are looking for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.  Frank  |  talk  13:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know the page but since (1) as a sysop of fr-wiki, I was marginally involved in the deletion there and (2) I do not have enough experience on en-wiki to feel comfortable with such a request (and i know that notability guidelines are different), I do not wish to do what could appear as a WP:POINT request. Bokken | 木刀 13:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The community would decide that either way. People might try to claim WP:POINT but ultimately the issue is whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Deletion elsewhere and involvement on another wiki are not the point, unless you try to claim the reason for deletion here is that it was deleted elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  13:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bokken appears simply to be giving the community a head up. It's not necessary to WP:BITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed (with IP). Bokken, there would be no issue if you wished to nominate the article for deletion, or indeed to edit it to remove material supported by dodgy references.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree with IP - no need to WP:BITE.  Frank  |  talk  15:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, on this article sources are all from most popular French Newspapers Les_Échos_(France), Libération, Le Monde, Le Parisien and Le Figaro. I do not know how we can invocate awkward reason such as reliable sources for deleting the article.--Lawren00 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is not the reliability of the sources but the fact that they are barely talking about François Asselineau, meaning that his notabilty is questionable. Udufruduhu (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau.  Frank  |  talk  02:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Reporters Without Borders

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

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

    Reference link to prior discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive678#Reporters Without Borders and Press Freedom Index. --- Barek (talk) - 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked into the possibility of the rangeblock previously. There appears to be some collateral last time I checked. I looked into the possibility of smaller rangeblocks though. Based on recent edits, 123.231.82.0/24 and 123.231.85.0, looks blockable, and 123.231.114.0/23 is a somewhat. Will look at others Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 15:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite warnings, the IP continued edit warring over restoring a prior version that contained personal attacks, so I've semi-protected the talk-page for 31 hours. I invite comments on this action. If consensus is against the protection, please feel free to lift it without waiting for comment from me (as I will be going to bed soon). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Action supported. Dreadstar ☥ 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Formula 1

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

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

    You want the attention of a CheckUser, who can check whether there are sufficient good faith editors from that Buenos Aires range to preclude a block. Just because it may be a large range may not mean there is a lot of potential collateral damage to the English language WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, we'll see if one will come -  Checkuser needed::  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Thank you Prolog, I've yet to get my head around IP range construction. I've done semis on the pages that were attacked (I haven't finished checking all the pages yet, there were a few that were missed by everyone - this is the real problem, if we are not careful), maybe a combination of that and your rangeblocks will show them that we can act to stop them even with their IP hopping.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BKLisenbee suspected of evading topic ban

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

    Forgot to mention this earlier, but in December 2010 the IP address (see contribs.) had made edits to other articles covered by the topic ban. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it not possible that two separate people have the same thought, now would it?--Jojhutton (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it is entirely possible. I should have re-phrased my last comment: the IP has only made edits to articles covered by the topic ban. This particular matter has been going on for six (6) years (again, see User:FayssalF/JK), so certain patterns tend to raise a red flag at this point. As FayssalF once pointed out (see ANI archive), 90% of the edits to the topic ban articles have been by the same two editors, and FayssalF also explained why he thought indefinite blocks/complete bans on the involved accounts would not be effective. However, FayssalF, who has shouldered the burden of moderation in the past, is currently inactive. Given the ongoing topic ban, I continue to raise the issue here. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that the main user, hasn't even edited since last October, and actually only made 6 edits in all of 2010. Seems to be inactive. The ip only made a few edits. Those edits should easy to revert if needed. I'm not an admin, but I've seen similar requests at ANI before and usually admins don't take action against inactive accounts. But of course that just my opinion and action may still be taken, if deemed warranted.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Need block for reverting speedy tags

    Resolved

    User:Aishwarya.lr has reverted speedy deletion tags 7 times (so far) today on an article he/she created, DNA electronics. They've been warned at least half a dozen times on their talk page. Can someone take a look at the article (which is an obvious copyvio), delete it, and block the user? —SW— gab 17:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I went ahead and deleted the article as a WP:COPYVIO. I put it on my watchlist, in the event that it's re-created. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. —SW— speak 18:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So, seven reverts in a day is not good for a block? I don't have access to changes to deleted articles, but it looks to me from the talk page as if those reverts continued even after a final warning. Did I get that right? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why shouldn't it be? In my more active days I'd give users removing speedies warnings 1-4 and then put them up to WP:AIV. The users were blocked and the articles often removed very quickly afterwards. uw-speedy does state that removing speedies results in blocks, so I see no reason why the punishment shouldn't be dealt. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. Leter of the law, sure he could have been blocked. But what's the possible future. If he restores the copyvio, he gets blocked. If he never comes back, no worries. Or that slim chance that the deletion get him to actually read the messages on his talk page. IMHO not something to lose sleep over.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, what Cube lurker said. The edits were confined to the one article. With the article gone, a block seemed merely punitive, not preventative. But, again, the deleted article's on my watchlist. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment

    I'm being harassed by another administrator by the name User:Maunus. I've already opened a section weeks ago. Here's the link [11].

    After a series of content-dispute problems he had with me the past, he obviously took a personal interest against my person. His harassment is characterized by watching my contributions very closely as evidenced in my first complaint [12].

    That time he got involved (without being asked to) in a discussion between me and a 3rd party, giving false and misrepresenting statements about myself, in what I can only assume to be an attempt to create animosity[13]. Maunus' problems with me were over months before this incident, which clearly evidence I WAS BEING WATCHED because we had no interaction at all for months. He finally theatened me to open a RfC, which he finally did. Please see comments of the outsiders to see.

    After weeks of ZERO interaction between us, not even crossing into eachother's edit path, HE IS AGAIN DOING THE SAME. He's getting involved in a discussion HE WASN'T PART OF. He was not asked to get involved. I created a Wikiquette Alert against the other user and Maunus ALL OF THE SUDDEN gets involved [14], trying to LURE THE OTHER PARTY to comment in the RfC he opened against me in the past [15]. Finally, the other user was convinced and commented in the RfC [16]. I want to make clear that the ONLY WAY he could have found out about my Wikiquette Alert is by WATCHING MY CONTIBUTIONS PAGE. With no interaction between us, is clear that he's waiting for some person to have an argument with me, so he can missrepresent me and in this particular case, to get the other user to comment in his RfC. The other user was clearly mad at me, so it was easy to assume he would comment against me.

    I cannot stand this. I've been a good Wikipedian, I've produced graphics to enhance this project and I'm a good-faith editor. It is not fair to be harassed this way by a person who is obviously WATCHING me in order to JUMP IN whenever I have a problem, just to make his point that I am not a good user.

    I demand some action. I demand a detailed view on this. It is not fair. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Maunus harassment is characterized by getting involved with the users I have a discussion with, even if he's not part of the discussion nor asked to get involved (he argues he tries to "help dispute resolution" but that's in request of any of the parties, something that has never happened). He also never does that with any other user. In plain words, he tried to "join forces" with that two users that had a problem with me, and succeded. I feel harassed because he's obviously watching me in order to see if I happen to have an argument with another editor. I'm so frustrated nobody can get this. He does not get involved in anybody else's discussion. Just mines. And he doesn't contact the other parties to help, he contacts them to "join" him in his arguments against me. I hope this helps to make you guys see my point. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I just want to make clear that he obviously is avoiding contact with me not to make it look harassment (he kinda admits that here [17] in the talk page of the OTHER user that was having a discussion with me), but HE IS WATCHING ME, "fishing" for users to comment against me. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - you do not seem to have informed Maunus of this discussion, I have done this for you. Please note this is required. Exxolon (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have defended myself against these completely unfounded accusations at the RfC regarding AlexCovarrubias' conduct. I am not harrassing him or watching him (I have ANI and WQA on my watchlist as well as several articles that he frequently contributes to). Rather, I have fruitlessly tried to engage him in order to adress a problematic pattern with his editing that has been observed by several other editors than me. Alkex refuses discussion through talk pages but deletes requests for discussion without answereing them. This pattern of behavior left me no other option than to approach other editors who had also asked him to stop reverting without discussion and jointly file an Rfc. This is the standard dispute resolution process in wikipedia and in fact the only possibility to adress conduct issues of editors who are not willing to engage in communication. It is not harrassment to follow our dispute resolution process. Following the process of course entails notifying users who have complained of similar conduct issues of the rfc, this is what I have done. I don't need to fish for users to comment against AlexCovarrubias as long as he himself keeps reverting goodfaith users edits and uses personal attacks, accusations of harrassment or racism against them when they ask why their edits were reverted. I urge administrators to take a good long look at the many diffs provided at the RfC and then consider what interest I might have in harrassing AlexCovarrubias or whether I might be acting in goodfaith in order to get AlexCovarrubias to stop reverting edits he sees as "anti-mexican" without discussion.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again Maunus, you're totally willingly giving false information. Your language is subtle so other people might think I'm actually doing what you're saying. I'm surprised that after I've clarified this in my talk page, in the past ANI post and in the RfC you're still saying the same over and over. To make it clear AGAIN: I don't refuse to discuss, I just erase messages after I read them. As you were told by another admin, it is my right to delete my user talk. Also you make it sound as if I delete only the messages "I don't like", I DELETE ALMOST ALL the messages. And this is about harassment. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You deletes messages containing questions and requests without answering them first (and continue with the behavior that you are requested to stop). You revert goodfaith edits with no edit summary. How is that not refusing to communicate? ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is frankly very disgusting from you Maunus. Do I have to tell you AGAIN? You're just asking the same questions trying to misrepresent me. I delete almost all messages. Recently, out of frustration by some users such as you, when I'm asked to discuss some edit, I just rather STEP ASIDE and stop editing. Something that ANOTHER USER already commented about in the RfC you opened. Didn't you read it? This is very disgusting and frustrating. Hopefully, a comitted admin will read the whole RfC. And besides, this is about my complain of harassment. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alex - you delete messages without answering. You admit you delete almost all messages. How does this constitute communication? You also evidently do not change your behavior when people ask you to stop reverting without discussion and without edit summaries, because if that were the case we wouldn't have 5 editors all saying that you did this at different times, each of them approaching you on your talkpage and asking you to discuss rather than revert. I simply don't get why it is so difficult to see that communication is essential for collaborative editing and communication require responsiveness to other editors concerns.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you're the one bringing the complaint of harassment, you have the burden of proof...but you insist on deleting the very messages that might support your case. IMO that's a classic example of shooting oneself in the foot. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I left the relevant discussion on my user talk page and a link in my main post above. Maunus harassment is characterized by getting involved with the users I have a discussion with, even if he's not part of the discussion nor asked to get involved (he argues he tries to "help dispute resolution" but that's in request of any of the parties, something that has never happened). He also never does that with any other user. In plain words, he tried to "join forces" with that two users that had a problem with me, and succeded. I feel harassed because he's obviously watching me in order to see if I happen to have an argument with another editor. I'm so frustrated nobody can get this. He does not get involved in anybody else's discussion. Just mines. And he doesn't contact the other parties to help, he contacts them to "join" him in his arguments against me. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Many users will discreetly monitor the edits of someone who looks like they might need help at Wikipedia. If they need help, we help, and if there are no problems, we soon get bored and stop looking at their contributions. That isn't, in itself, harassment. Harassment would be if this person were undoing your good edits, for example, or leaving personal attacks on your talk page. I'm having trouble finding any harassment in the links you've given. However, when I have more time, I'd be happy to review some of your edits to see if you do need more help in editing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You should probably take note that neither shouting in bold text nor making demands on the admins will sway anyone toward sympathy for your situation. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is strange... it looks like you already know that most Wikipedia users will leave messages on their talk pages for a while, long enough to respond and allow a conversation to happen, and then, after a few weeks, will move them to an archive. You know that's so customary that many users will take the blanking of their notes as a negative, and that their feelings will be hurt. But you seem to be complaining that other people are reacting to you as though you've hurt their feelings? I don't quite understand... you chose to hurt their feelings, so I don't think there's anything that I can do to make them feel better- but you could. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also odd; you call another user 'racist,' but I don't see where the racism is. That's a very serious problem regarding one of you- if he is making racist personal attacks or adding racist content to articles, we need to stop that at once, but if you're calling someone else 'racist' without good reason, that's a personal attack in itself. Can you provide some diffs of this user's most racist edits? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As Maunus correctly pointed out, there's no need for anyone to look for users who lament Alex's conduct, as his lack of manners and his habit of making grave, groundless accusations against anyone who disagrees with him make sure that there are plenty of users who are dissatisfied with his shabby, disrespectful behaviour.--LK (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    FisherQueen I'm not complaining about anything but Maunus' harassment. A topic that seems to have been left aside. I'm sorry to say that I had little hope for this to be reviewed since Maunus is an administrator, and this kinda proves me right. You guys are totally missing the point why I opened this. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    When there are concerns about an editor's behavior, we do use their editing history to find, fix or otherwise address any problematic editing or violations of Wikipedia policy - this is not considered harassment, it is what administrators are supposed to do. So far, I haven't seen any evidence of harassment on the part of Maunus. I urge you to take FisherQueen's excellent advice above and perhaps take her up on her fine offer of assistance; or find a suitable Mentor to help. Dreadstar ☥ 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, don't forget Maunus had serious problems with me in the past so there's a personal component here. Secondly, he does not get involved out of concern or to help. He basically is watching me to contact whoever has a problem with me, in order to "join forces". He doesn't offer to resolve anything. He just contact others to pick on me. That's harassment. And has happened two times now, at least that I know of. And finally, he does not act or gets involved in other's discussion. That's shows his personal interest against me.AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You realize that it is a requirement in order to file an RfC that two people endorse it? How can one file an rfc without approaching an other editor who has a similar problem to ask if they thing it is an idea to file an RfC? Also, of course I have had personal disputes with you, how can one file an RfC against an editor with whom one has not been in a personal dispute? I can appreciate that in this case I asked someone one your talk page, which was probably a little rude, but he was asking you to stop reverting his edits without edit summaries just like I had done several times in the past so it seemed fairly logical to ask him there. Underlying Ik was having the same problem with you again today. I am not harrassing you - you have a pattern of behavior that causes you to have troubles with editors repeatedly - I am just the first editor to call you out on that in an Rfc..(well the second editor actually since there was already another rfc about the same topic).·Maunus·ƛ· 22:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, no matter how you spin it, this only shows that there are at least four users who are tired of your disrespectful behaviour.--LK (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're really going to have to provide diffs to prove your accusations. Dreadstar ☥ 22:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just disgusting. You're making this personal, and willingly giving false info. I told you why I thought your behaviour in particular was not appropiate [18] and then I even THANKED YOU [19] after you understood my point. And it was me who opened a Wikiquette alert because of your behavoir. You're just sore and that's why you're commenting here. Anyways, this is about harassment, remember? You're the only one trying to "spin" the conversation. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict x1)(Full disclosure: I am not an admin)
    Alex without evidence that prove your accusations there isn't much anybody here can do. Furthermore, when you file a complaint at ANI you can expect your own behavior to be analyzed as well.
    If you really believe you are being harassed here is what you do: Lay it out for us. Give us links to your evidence along with a brief summary of why you had a problem with Maunus's conduct in that instance. --*Kat* (meow?) 23:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point being that it is ok to repeatedly reinsert uncited information removed by another editor because VP:V says that "uncited information may be deleted" but not that it "has to be"... That is a fairly innovative interpretation of that policy.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Attention please

    I need someone to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/AlexCovarrubias2#Question_to_Participants and tell me that I am not crazy. I really don't see what I have done wrong. I will give a short summary of the development from my viewpoint:

    1. . I have had several disputes with User:AlexCovarrubias regarding articles related to Mexico. These have been content disputes, where I feel that he is trying to push a certain Nationalist Mexican POV into articles and censor information that he views as negative and that I see as central to describing the topic (e.g. social inequality, discrimination against indigenous groups). He often simply reverted my edits without edit summaries, and whenn I started discussions on the talk page he didn't participate, or he simply said "I disagree" with no arguments and then continued to revert. When I asked him why he reverted on his talk page he deleted my messages without answering, then left the topic for a while untill one day he just removed the material I added again. This was a pattern that repeated over several months. The few times we did have interaction he would accuse me of being "anti-Mexican" (which is ridiculous since I study Mexico professionally, is married to a Mexican citizen andhave lived in MExico for several years).
    2. . Looking at AlexCovarrubias talkpage I saw that several other editors also tried to ask him why he reverted their edits - their messages where also deleted without being answered. Some of them tried several times to get him to answer. I decided to approach one of them and suggest that we open an RfCU about AlexCovarrubias conduct. We did and this enfuriated AlexCovarrbias who began to argue that this was harrassment to contact other users to ask them to take such steps against him. I don't see how this can be true because openeing an RFC requires to people to endorse it - how can two people decide to open an Rfc without one asking the other? How can it be harassment to follow the dispute resolution process after trying to communicate civilly on his talkpage but being denied?
    3. . Yesterday AlexCovarrubias was in a dispute with Underlying Ik, - AlexCovarrubias had removed fairuse images used outside of the scope of the rationale form the article Mexico, AlexCovarrubias reverted and accused Underlying Ik of being a "racist" - presumably because he only left a picture of a desert (the only one that was properly licensed) which AlexCovarrubias found to be "stereotyping Mexicans". Underlying Ik also remove duncited material in the article about certain Mexican companies (Alexcovarrubias focuses a great deal of his efforts on trying to portray Mexico as a very important industrial nation). Alex reverted the removal first without an editsummary, and then the second time he argued that "WP:V says that uncited material may be removed, not that it has to be". Then he opened a wikiquette alert against Underlying Ik accusing him of racism(with no evidence). I saw the thread at WQA and as Underlying Ik tried to defend himself against the accusations of racism, I joined the thread and told him the RfC was still open - this seemed loigical since he was experiencing the exact same behavior from AlexCovarrubias that the three other editors endorsing the rfc did. This made Alex even more furious and accused me of hounding him and watching his contributions. (This is false I am watching Ani and WQA, and the Mexico (but notice I had stayed out of the dispute between him and Unerlyinh Ik because I didn't want to inflame the issue))
    4. . Now AlexCovarrubias started accusing me of harassment, because I have had the audacity to start and rfc and suggest to other editors who have been affected by his problematic conduct to comment there. At the RfC several editors are stating that I did not go about the issue of creating an rfc in the right way, but they don't say what I and the other editors who have had problems with AlexCovarrubias should have done instead. I need to know: what should I have done in this situation? Talkpage discussion didn't work, messages were deleted without being responded to. The behavior of reverting without discussion continued. How were we supposed to deal with this without it being "harrassment"?·Maunus·ƛ· 16:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't know what to think about this. You were extending peace at the RfC you opened against me, and I have accepted and agreed. Oh and I haven't opened a RfC against you, that's false information. Can you please provide the RfC link that I supposedly opened? Now I'm surprised to see this message here. I don't want to think that you only extended peace there and not here, just because this is the administrators board. I won't answer any of your claims (all of them very missleading), since I have already answer them and addressed them properly in the entire RfC. So I only hope that whoever is gonna read the RfC reads it all and patiently. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 17:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote this before the statement at the rfc. It was a typing mistake that made it look like you started the rfc - you haven't started an rfc about me, but you have been accusing me of harrassment in the rfc that I started. I just wanted to clarify the chronology of this and am now entering into the voluntary interaction ban in regards to you that I decided to impose on myself afer having posted this above. I still think it is problematic that I am being accused of harrassment when I have follow the letter of our policy on dispute resolution and I hope that when you are less angry you will realize that I have not actually been harrassing youbut have been trying to resolve our dispute in good faith and publicly retract that accusation. This is the last you will her from me in a while.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JimmyDarmodyRules

    Resolved
     – Blocked by Mifter. lifebaka++ 02:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor JimmyDarmodyRules (talk · contribs) continues create copyright violations to TV pages such as Hell on Wheels (TV series) and Falling Skies by adding text copied word-for-word from other sites ([20] [21] [22]), despite several warnings. Similarly, he has been warned by another editor for continually uploading copyrighted photos and claiming "own work". [23] (Note: all images have since been deleted/removed.) --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic bans for Porchcrop

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

    • I've tried not to let it come to this, but enough is enough. This user has four failed RFAs and recently had a fifth he was working on deleted when it was made clear to him it would fail as well. He seems desperate to appear "adminlike" but fails at every turn. He has caused disruption at WP:UAA by submitting unfounded reports and even worse making uninformed incorrect replies to other reporters and initiating discussions to try and get new users who have not actually violated the username policy to change their names. He tried to have the history of his talk page deleted so nobody would ever see anything that could possibly reflect negatively on him. (subject of a previous ani thread). And over the last few weeks he has been causing disruption in the area of speedy deletion, again by acting like he understands policies that he clearly does not. These are all areas where he is running into new users and giving them a very bad first impression. Polite advice has been tried. Stern warnings have been tried. Nothing helps, he seems unwilling to accept that his understanding of certain policies is deeply flawed despite literally years worth of comments to the contrary. There is a competence issue here. Nobody doubts he is trying to act in good faith, but his attempts to make himself appear well-informed on Wikipedia policy are causing problems on an almost daily basis. There are piles and piles of threads on his talk page that support this view. Therefore I suggest the following restrictions:
    • Porchcrop may not respond to reports by other at UAA for a period of six months
    • Porchcrop should not instigate discussions with users about their usernames but instead report them to UAA for review by admins for a period of six months
    • Porchcrop may not remove or alter a speedy deletion tag placed by another user for a period of six months
    • Porchcrop may not nominate himself for adminship for a period of one year
    • Additionally Porchcrop is strongly advised to seek a mentor

    Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Entire text of that request for coaching: "I had 4 failed RFAs. And I would like to know when I can become an admin." I don't think it's going to be answered anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an admin coach you need, Porchcrop, because you won't be ready even for admin coaching for quite some time - what people are suggesting is that you need a mentor as a general editor and general Wikipedian. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as well; as much as I like the enthusiasm, today's example of sticking a UAA-wait on my report for User:The Record Label is misguided, and it seems to be a pattern. A six month break from UAA and trying to get through the bear pit would probably do everyone involved some good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support but I think it should be made simpler: Porchcrop is limited to article pages and talk pages of articles he is actively editing, and no CSD tagging at all. Yes, it's restrictive, but it's also very simple. No UAA. No AIV. No anti-vandalism edits. Strictly learning how to write articles, find sources, verify sources, work with other editors, you know....build an encyclopedia. The rest will come as that experience develops....not before. (I said as much in my comment at his latest editor review.)  Frank  |  talk  02:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest modification While I am supportive of this proposal, the rigid time frame concerns me. Not only does it potentially hold up development of the editor if he improves quickly (relatively speaking, say 6 months) nor would it prevent disruption if the user turned out just to not get it even after a year. Make the relaxing of the restrictions conditional to the approval of his mentor and not time elapsed and I would support without reservation. -- ۩ Mask 04:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but agree with Frank that steering Porchcrop towards article work exclusively would be even better. 28bytes (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't want to seem to extreme in my stance, but if there is support for more stringent sanctions I am all for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Guys, I have helped alot in the project, and I have alot of experience now. If you'll still have problems with me, please report all of them here, otherwise I feel that this is an unfair and unreasonable ban. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 05:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given the number of editors who've advised you that the "put all your (false?) negative information here" page is a bad idea, I'm somewhat surprised you're still directing people to it. Why even have an editor review if you're not going to take on board the reviewers' suggestions? 28bytes (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And they have indeed explained many times how you are wrong. Yet, you continue to make the same mistakes, despite repeated warnings. Clearly, this is an issue of competence, is it not? -FASTILY (TALK) 07:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a big difference between saying on your Talk page that you listen, and actually listening - people have explained many times, very clearly, what you're doing wrong. But it's not getting through - instead of careful listening, understanding and acceptance, we get argument and refusal to follow good advice (Like that "Negative feedback" page thing - I absolutely will not use that, I'll use your Talk page because that's what Talk pages are for). Or do you honestly think that you alone are right and everyone else is wrong? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Frank and AKMask's suggestions. Stuff like this (sorry, admins only) is mind-blowing to me. Grandmasterka 07:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support proposal due to distinct lack of competence and inability to get the large number of clues given to them. Skinny87 (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – while I also would support a restriction on proposing anything for speedy deletion, as I think it's only fair to do so. Otherwise, after looking at the deleted contribs and from what was said above, there are some huge red flags in which I see. And after witnessing the Wiki Greek Basketball fiasco, I'm rather surprised Porchcrop has not been blocked or banned yet. –MuZemike 07:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Porchcrop, other editors have told you, repeatedly, how you can improve, and they have been as clear with their advice as is humanly possible. If you still don't understand their advice, you must stop editing in these areas. Please trust them when they say you've done something wrong, and don't try to argue the matter: nobody is out to get you. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the Frank proposal. Porchcrop, one definition of a competent person is someone who has the qualifications, knowledge, training and/or experience to both do a task well and to recognise when a task is beyond them. Unfortunately you've shown again and again that you can't tell when you shouldn't be doing something because you don't have the knowledge and experience to do it properly. If you really want to stay on Wikipedia you need to stop creating problems that other editors have to spend time cleaning up. Eventually, no matter how good your intentions are, the other editors will decide that it's more trouble than it's worth and stop you editing here at all. Write some properly-referenced encyclopedic articles, find out the stuff you don't know, and forget about adminship and backroom work until you've learned enough to be competent. EyeSerenetalk 10:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - although I hardly see what good ending the ban in six months would do. I'd actually be curious to know (although I know I have no right to) how old this user is. If he has reached the age of majority and this is his best effort after three years, I think it's a little unlikely that much further improvement can be expected. I also agree with MuZemike's suggestion: no deleting or adding CSD tags. The Frank proposal seems just fine, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Porchcrop has made many valuable contributions to the project, and sometimes offers good admin like advise, for example here But there has been some disruption and Beeblebrox's proposal is well judged. Frank's call for harsher sanctions seem unnecessary and overly simple. Porchcrop's anti vandalism seems generally good so unless theres evidence to the contrary theres no need to deprive the project of a useful vandal fighter. Also porchrop seems to more orientated towards maintenance work, so we should only exclude them from areas where theres been ongoing disruption. So strongly oppose Frank's suggestion. Porchrop now has a wiki otter, though a mentorship would also be useful as Otters lack the patience to be good substitutes for a proper mentor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note I've offered to be Porchcrop's mentor [24][25]. I'm not an admin (indeed WP:EDITCOUNTITIS - I have less edits and been here less time) and I would not be coaching him for adminship, so I may not be suitable for the requirements, but I would be willing to try. WormTT 13:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a look at your interactions with other editors you're mentoring and I think you'd make a great mentor - I hope Porchrop takes you up on your kind offer -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the proposal - I've also been following Porchcrop's work and I'm afraid I have to agree with the many comments above. He seems not to be able to follow the advice he's been given so many times. In particular, he does not appear to have understood the criteria for becoming an admin. Kudpung (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blackash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Slowart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have had a long drawn out dispute regarding the Tree shaping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. Various forms of dispute resolution have been tried up to MedCom, and various editors have given of their time to attempt to resolve the issue, but it continues to drag on. It has been suggested on the COI noticeboard that a Topic Ban might now be appropriate. A voluntary Topic Ban would not work as Blackash has stated she won't agree. Articles involved in the ban would include Tree shaping, Axel Erlandson, Arthur Wiechula, John Krubsack and Expo 2005. There may be others. SilkTork *YES! 00:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, and add Grafting and Richard Reames please.Slowart (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've listed for Formal meditation twice, the last time Slowart didn't agree. If Slowart would agree to go to Formal meditation I'm willing to go. Blackash have a chat 05:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for the reasons given at the COI noticeboard. I agree with Slowart that the ban should include the Grafting and Richard Reames articles as well, in fact all articles related to tree shaping. I think the topic ban should go ahead even if there is also an effort at mediation, since mediations often fail. In the lucky event of the mediation being successful, it will be easy to get the ban lifted. The turmoil at these articles should not continue, and a topic ban is a milder option than blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for three editors, but allow comments I have been semi-following the Tree shaping issue since noticing it at a noticeboard in June 2010, and have found myself in agreement with Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs)—we think there has been too much effort devoted to minimizing use of the term "arborsculpture" in the article. As I recall, Martin Hogbin and I are the main contributors to the talk page who have no commercial interest in the topic. One editor (Slowart, named above) apparently has a commercial interest in "arborsculpture" and has favored mentioning that term as an "also called" in the lead (diff), while two other editors are very keen that "arborsculpture" not be used in the lead: Sydney Bluegum (talk · contribs) (diff1, diff2) and Blackash (named above) (diff). Many more such diffs over months are available. I support a topic ban for Slowart and Blackash and Sydney Bluegum: there is little point in applying a ban to only two of these editors. In a normal topic ban, the editors must completely avoid the topic. However, in this case I suggest that each be permitted to make suggestions on article talk pages, although they should be asked to not comment frequently or repetitively. These editors can make useful suggestions or point out errors, but an article topic ban should be enacted because the editors have unduly focused on the question of how "arborsculpture" is mentioned in the article—off-wiki interests seem the most plausible explanation for the vigor with which this matter has been pursued. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Question Johnuniq I noticed you have pointed to where I've supported an editor removing alternative names from the lead (my reasoning), yet you don't point out I later offer a comprise that puts alternative names (inculding arborsculpture) back into the lead diff. You also don't mention that Slowart removed a chuck of cited content about his own methods and then refused to talk. Why didn't you also point this out? Blackash have a chat 15:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User Lashuto

    Not sure what to do about about an editor (User:Lashuto) that is hell bent on adding external links and now has made a second template at Template:Musician-info-footer despite what was said and shown to the editor at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 7#Template:YouTube artist about our policies on the matter. I was going to speedy delete the new template but not sure this will solve the over all problem. Moxy (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Moxy, this discussion belongs on Template_talk:Musician-info-footer.--Lashuto (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it to TfD as well. It doesn't fit any of the speedy criteria and it's currently unused, so running it through a (now-highly publicized) TfD shouldn't be an issue. Cheers. lifebaka++ 07:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lashuto has made this a (minor) ANI issue with this edit at the TfD which added: "I fear that Moxy is on some sort of external links hissy fit. Where is the policy rule that "Navboxes are for internal links"? Was there an ArbCom decision on this matter?" Would an uninvolved admin please peruse the two TfDs mentioned above and inform Lashuto that there is a strong consensus against the use of templates/navboxes to encourage linking to videos: such "official" templates offer video links a false aura of legitimacy. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On further review, there's quite a bit of incivility coming from Lashuto on the YouTube artist TfD. I'll be dropping him a note about it on his talk page. No other action is required at this time. Cheers. lifebaka++ 08:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you "Lifebaka" - I seem not to be able to communicate with him and need someone (hopefully an admin) to step up and try to communicate with him. I have been told to Foff in our first encounter and since then get responses like this. I no longer wish to communicate with him. I have been nothing but polite and pointing to policy the whole time. I simply want him to read and follow our policies and guidelines on spamming that he has been shown. All he plans on doing is advertising for music as we now have Template:Allmusic artist Template:BAE band Moxy (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been trying to assume good faith with User:Lashuto, but I find it a bit concerning that as brand new editor, his first edits are to spam YouTube artist pages to scores of articles, followed by creating a template to enable even faster spamming. When the template was put up for a deletion discussion and it became clear that there strong consensus is to delete, he starts creating yet more templates for yet more commerical music download sites, spamming them to yet more articles, and has now created a template that allows him to add 6 of these sites to an article in a single edit. Even assuming this is a good faith attempt to improve Wikipedia, perhaps someone could request him to please stop these mass additions until these discussions have run their course. Voceditenore (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Skucorp

    Skucorp appears to be creating articles for his company "Skucorp" on voter election machines. I have reported him to WP:UAA and attempted to explain to him that he has a WP:COI. He is now making articles with similar titles about voter election machines. Can I have an administrator look into this please?

    See his contribs: [26] Regards, Phearson (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Three spam articles deleted and a note left on the user's talk page.  Frank  |  talk  03:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He will also need blocking, as his user name is clearly promotional. Phearson (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Chesdovi and 1RR on Israel, Palestine and the United Nations

    Chesdovi (talk · contribs) was blocked in December and January for >1RR and violates 1RR today on Israel, Palestine and the United Nations: two edits are clearly reverts (with an intervening one by User:Number 57): [27] and [28], restoring text, as seen in this earlier revision. My effort to bring this issue to the attention of the editor in question was rewarded with yet another edit on the article ("in your face"?). Insisting on strict adherence to ARBPIA strikes me as desirable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Surely, you're familiar with WP:AE, no? -- tariqabjotu 04:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes -- though I've never started a "case" there -- I had the impression that one does so for "bigger" problems. I take it that that impression is incorrect and that I should go there instead? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no, don't bother. That's not a violation of the 1RR rule. Yes, Number 57 moved the article between the two edits, but Number 57's action was not an edit, so it's not an intervening edit. And even if it were an edit, so long as it wasn't relevant to a section Chesdovi was editing, any reasonable admin would consider Chesdovi's edits (just, what?, ten minutes apart) to be consecutive, with Number 57 just butting in with something irrelevant. There's nothing to see here. -- tariqabjotu 04:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Islamic metaphysics article appears to have been deleted and redirected, can it be recovered?

    Good evening,

    I am requesting assistance in determining what happened to an article which seems to have disappeared. In particular, if the article can be recovered this would be much appreciated. Specifically, it is the article's history about which which I am most concerned. If the original article history can be restored under the article name Islamic metaphysics, I would be most grateful.

    An overripe content dispute may have led to the deletion of Islamic metaphysics and the subsequent redirect of its name to Metaphysics. The incident would have occurred in early October 2010. It was originally reported around that time but I didn't understand the article had apparently been redirected. Perhaps the redirect occurred later, it was reported again here.

    I lack the expertise to undertake these forensics. My immediate goal is the preservation of article history. My bigger fear is this may have happened to other articles as well.

    Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for what has happened. I hope so. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

    -Aquib (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This sounds familiar. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a different article, perhaps some different players, but the same bitter dregs. -Aquib (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm horribly mistaken, all the history seems to be accounted for. There are no logs for the page and no deleted revisions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to write the same thing. Looking at the first few sentences here I strongly suggest not merely undoing the redirect; there are major POV concerns in the nuked text. We are informed from the get go that Avicenna gave the first ontological argument, but this is a minority view, see Ontological argument#History. I see that the main contributor to the nuked article, Jagged 85 has been chastised in a RfC/U for stuff like that. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the history remains intact under the original title, even though the name is redirected to another article. So the original article is still there, it is just blanked and redirected.
    Not to worry, I don't plan on reinstating it "as is", and thanks much for your time. -Aquib (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry, BLP violation and disruptive editing

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

    Suspected of using a variety of sockpuppets to disrupt articles on friendly fire. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc. Is currently removing a number of SPI warnings from all of the suspected socks.

    BLP violation is taht he persists in adding an allegation that a British Forward Air Controller (individual is named on talk pages related to the topic) faced manslaughter charges or was responsible for a friendly fire incident. This is based on an old report in the Daily Mail [29]. That information is seriously out of date, no charges were ever brought, the subsequent investigation cleared the FAC and the coroner found no individual to blame see [30].

    Uses a variety of fringe and WP:SPS to source his edits, none of which satisfy requirements for a WP:RS.

    Articles involved: Friendly fire, Royal Anglian Regiment, List of post-1945 U.S. friendly-fire incidents with British victims

    He is also removing discussions from talk pages, does not engage on talk pages, routinely ignores warnings and is now disruptively editing using a new User ID User:JamesHawks‎. He is editing faster than we can clear up the mess afterwards. Please could we have some admin action to stop the disruptive editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I added userlinks to the user in question (top of your message), if you don't mind. Remember to notify the editor about this thread on their talk page. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have commented on the SPI page; I don't think there's anything more to do here.  Frank  |  talk  13:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser confirms sock puppets, noting Paulioetc has already been blocked once for abusive use of sock puppets could we have some action to stop further disruptive edits. At least a permanent block on the sock. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked the sock because it was being used in the same articles etc. --Errant (chat!) 13:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Bandagharka's edit war

    I am engaged in an edit war with Bandagharka on 2 articles; Ram Rahim Singh and Dera Sacha Sauda. I felt both articles were very POV and tried to wikify them and add citations here and here. You can see from the revision history of both pages one two that he/she is just reverting back to revisions they like instead of adding on to other editors' revisions. Also he/she has only responded with inappropriate messages on my talk page[31][32][33], including quoting poetry which says I will be "dispatched to hell" for criticizing somebody[34]. I also tried asking another user for help who has some experience with these types of issues but they didn't respond[35]. Basically I would like to edit these pages constructively without having my edits rolled back.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Why have you not posted a single thing on either of those articles talk pages? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 14:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Help! there is widespread edit warring at Cypriot related articles over turkish laws dating back to world war 2 including an edit war at Yialousa, the revert war is between Dox1donny and Seric2, Chesdovi also has had a minor role in the edit war. can an admin step in please--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    They seem to have stopped. Further edit warring should be reported at either WP:AN3 or WP:RFPP. TNXMan 19:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chinaraileng38265: mass creation of Chinese railroad articles

    Chinaraileng38265 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User:Chinaraileng38265 has been mass creating articles on non-notable Chinese railroads. I think similar things like this have happened before.(not necessarily with this user though). Not sure where this should go.205.155.141.9 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum: Just realized that a thread was started here as well:WP:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Chinaraileng38265.205.155.141.9 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I find Wikipedia useful for traveling and this information could be helpful. Google has some possible refs. I am sure that there would be Chinese verification. I do not have a problem with it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't a single article better show all these stations than 50+ one sentence articles?
    "Zhongliangshan Station is the station of Chongqing Metro, services of spur part of extension Line 2, and the code is ???"
    This doesn't appear that useful(and it's the only sentence in the article), and all the info on various stops in a railway system could be centralized into one main article on that system.205.155.141.9 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=418003281"