Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 28

28 December 2011

User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal

User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Okay. Let me say the following. The MFD was only about the copy of the ban proposal and rebuttals to the !voters' comments.

The content that got speedily deleted per G4 does not meet G4 for the following reasons:

1. The MFD was not about that content
2. The MFD ended as "delete per user request", makes it further and more vague for G4 deletion
3. The contributors in the MFD had stated to link to the ban proposal via the archive, which the content that got speedily deleted per G4 is. ("If you want to see this problematic ban proposal, click here.")
4. There are no personal attacks, and no comments on contributors. The main point of Wikipedia rules.

(Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

re: #2: Consensus was clearly there to delete regardless of your intentions to thwart the process.

re: #3: An editor suggested to Porchcorpter that instead of linking to the subpage in conversation (the alleged reason for the creation of the subpage), which included the successful ban proposal, he could link to the archive thread.

All of this is an attempt by Porchcorpter to game the system and declare his displeasure with a ban that was proposed over nine months ago. As a "troubled Wikipedian" (Porchcorpter's words), my suggestion for him is to drop the stick already and move on to more constructive ventures. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you copy the entire subpage over here, too, while you're at it? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done collapsed boxes below. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 03:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

re: #4: Right, because calling the !voters at the MfD "troubled Wikipedians" is not a personal attack. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Click on these collapsed boxes if you want to see the content.

The content subjected to deletion by the MFD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Topic banned per consensus under the terms in the subsection here; specifically (1) no responding to reports by others at WP:UAA; (2) no instigating discussions users about their usernames, but instead listing at UAA; and (3) no removing or altering speedy deletion tags placed by other users. Topic ban lasts through 11 September 2011; presuming the terms are abided by, the contributors is free of restrictions as of 12 September. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC) 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) In the interest of full disclosure, it should probably be noted that Porchcrop has an editor review request up here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Support proposal. This user clearly means well, but lacks competence and risks becoming unwillingly disruptive. I also agree with Beeblebrox that he could really use a mentor. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Comment - any particular reason why the thread title refers to 'Lord Porchcrop', which is not the user in question's name? GiantSnowman 00:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC) He's changed his sig recently - he used to sign "Lord Porchrop" - I've changed it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Aha, thanks for explaining. GiantSnowman 00:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Support, with regret because he is very enthusiastic and is trying to work with 100% good faith. He has done some good CSD removals recently - I supported him over a couple, but he's getting way out of his depth at the moment and is showing some bizarre misunderstandings. His understanding of UAA policy also appears badly flawed, and he really shouldn't be replying to UAA requests at all. (Lots of people have tried to help over a lengthy period, but we're not really getting anywhere - I hope another 6 months makes some difference) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Additional comment. At this stage, in recognition of Porchrop's enthusiasm and the amount of good work he has done, I would only support Beeblebrox's original proposal - I would not support the more drastic sanctions suggested below at this time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Support as above - his heart is in the right place, but his execution isn't up to scratch. Getting a mentor is a great suggestion, and I hope it works out. GiantSnowman 00:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Support. I appreciate Porchcrop's enthusiasm and ability to keep a level head when I am essentially pulling my hair out on this side of the Internet. I've made comments on his talk page and quite frankly, I'm spent at the moment to add more here. Hopefully, during these next six months, Porchcrop will spend some quality time reviewing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Edited to add: full support of the recommendation made by Frank below. Best regards, Cind.amuse 00:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Support Necessary to prevent disruption.  Chzz  ?  01:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Comment from Porchcrop I have an admin coaching request pending. So an admin coach could be my mentor. And also see my learning log about the policies and guidelines here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porchcrop (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 March 2011 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) 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) 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 (??????) 01:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC) 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) 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) Support, but agree with Frank that steering Porchcrop towards article work exclusively would be even better. 28bytes (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) What is that reason for me not understanding the policies and guidelines and taking the ban? -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 19:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC) WP:COMPETENCE and the fact that this thread is here, I would imagine. Doc talk 06:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Porchcrop: Beeblebrox and other experienced editors have offered you detailed advice about the policies you're getting wrong, and in almost every case, your first instinct is to argue with them. If you're not going to listen to what they have to say about UAA, AIV, CSD and the rest, and just keep on doing things wrongly while insisting you're right, then the only option the community is left with is to ask you to stop working in those areas entirely. 28bytes (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC) On my talk page it already says that I do listen to other editors if they explain to me clearly how I am wrong. And could you explain how I don't have competence? -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 06:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC) 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) 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) Support Frank and AKMask's suggestions. Stuff like this (sorry, admins only) is mind-blowing to me. Grandmasterka 07:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Just to note I've offered to be Porchcrop's mentor [1][2]. 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) 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) 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) Support. It's simply clear that this is necessary. Truth be told, I think this is a fairly lenient proposal considering the circumstances. Swarm X 19:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Support Beeblebrox's proposal. Oppose Frank's suggested additions to it - bans like this should aim only to prevent disruption, not to try to force individual editors into having an aim and focus that is seemingly incompatible with their current character and attitude. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Support, with a sense of strong regret that it has come to this. I hate to put restrictions on an active editor that means well, but far more effort is being expended cleaning up over this user than we are getting out of their attempts to help. Lankiveil @ Alt (speak to me) 09:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC). Comment Thank you for your kind words above B!sZ, I really appreciated them. Porchcrop has accepted my offer to mentor them. From the enthusiam shown, I have no doubt Porchcrop can become a fantastic editor and whilst the community's patience has worn thin, I feel that Frank's suggestion is too strict - especially since he has shown good faith in accepting a mentor. I have no problem with the first 3 suggestions by Beeblebrox, 6 months not "acting like an admin" is not unreasonable. I do not agree that a member should be banned from submitting an RfA self-nom, however ill-advised. Porchcrop clearly edits with the goal of being an administrator and while the enthusiastic edting based upon that goal needs focussing - I refuse to remove that goal and therefore his enthusiasm for the project. WormTT 10:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC) That's great news. My real concern about his admin ambition is that it is distracting him from the much more important task of becoming a great editor - he's yearning for something that's currently beyond the horizon, when he should be concentrating on the ground immediately beneath his feet. I don't think he will ever have a chance of adminship unless he can put aside his burning desire to be one for a while, and instead focus on improving the encyclopedia in whatever ways he is best suited. And any more way-too-early RfA runs will severely damage whatever long-term chance he does have. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC) I intend to explain that to him, he should focus on now and each RfA diminishes the chances of the following one. And I also intend to work on focusing his work on something he enjoys rather than the admin flag. But if we restrict him from making RfAs (which IMO are not disruptive per se, though his attempts to be an admin are) then we are taking away his goal - very different to him learning patience himself. WormTT 12:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Yep, I think that's a fair point - and in his favour, he did withdraw his recent RfA attempt after seeking community opinion on it first. I'd be happy to drop the proposal for a 1-year ban on RfA, and leave that for you to deal with - I'll offer an updated suggestion, below. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Comment - My suggestion of simpler restrictions was meant specifically to be simple, not harsh. Despite the opposition to that proposed simplification, what folks who are resisting restrictions on Porchcrop's editing are not realizing is that Porchcrop is disruptive, even while trying to help. I don't think anyone here is saying that Porchcrop is acting in bad faith; what I see more of (and agree with) is that Porchcrop is either unable to understand how things work around here or unwilling to comply. Mentors are great, and I appreciate that folks are willing to put in the effort. If that strategy can convey the concepts in a way that helps Porchcrop contribute within community policy, I'm all for it. I don't see how that is going to be different than four editor reviews, but if the end result is Porchcrop making productive instead of disruptive contributions, I'm sure we'd all view that positively.  Frank  |  talk  12:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC) I can see that you were aiming for simplicity, but it was very restrictive. Some folk are not built for content creation and other work like cleanup, anti vandalism and all the other maintenance tasks may be where Porchcrop excels. I know there are currently issues and I intend to work on them with him - though I acknowledge the fact I could well fail - I just don't want him too demoralised! WormTT 13:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC) And to be fair to Porchcrop, he has actually done a fair bit of good anti-vandalism work. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Consensus? I think the section above shows we have a consensus for something pretty close to Beeblebrox's original proposal. But now that Porchcrop has accepted mentorship, would we agree to dropping the mandatory 1-year ban on RfA and leave that to his mentor, WormTT, to deal with? I do sympathize with  Frank 's points too, and his suggestion would make it simpler - but could we leave that to the mentorship process too? I'd like to see if we can get a consensus for... Porchcrop may not respond to reports by others 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 Then leave the rest to mentorship - and we can revisit it should the mentorship process prove ineffective. Would a quick Support/Oppose !vote help here? I think we do need a specific conclusion, and to state clearly on Porchcrop's Talk page exactly what the community has decided. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Support (with some misgivings per WP:TROPHY, WP:COMPETENCE etc, but nothing that won't sort itself out one way or the other in the long run) EyeSerenetalk 13:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Support am happy with this solution. WormTT 13:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Late to the party and non-admin observation, having reviewed everything here already... support but I think it'd be good to lay out some hard and fast rules on what kind of sanctions Porchcrop can expect for breaking any of his restrictions. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Support, with thanks to Worm and Feyd for volunteering to mentor.  Frank  |  talk  13:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Support, although as above I think steering Porchcrop towards article work and away from the relentless pursuit of the admin buttons would be ideal. 28bytes (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Support. I think Worm has made a very generous offer. I know Worm's work and I'm sure he will provide the right kind of mentoring. I would like Porchcrop to tell us that he has read and understood not only this ANI, but also taken on board the comments and advice on his editor review page. Kudpung (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you very much Kudpung. Just to mention, I intend to summarise and work through the points raised at the editor review, so if anyone wants to add anything that would be a good place WormTT 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Support and I too would like to thank Worm and Feyd for volunteering to mentor. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Support Frankly, the next time we have an AN/I discussion on this, it'll be about an indef, good faith or not. I can't imagine why these restrictions haven't been proposed earlier. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Grudging support We all know that if he submits an RFA within a year it will go down in flames like the Hindenburg, the RFA ban was as much to prevent that as to stop disruption, but if his mentor thinks he can talk some sense into him and stop from doing things that misguided I wish them luck. You're going to need it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Support and hope the mentoring will work. Swarm X 17:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Support and good luck. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Negative feedback If anybody would like to put any negative feedback about the above discussion, feel free to do so here. ALL WRONG! "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." "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?" - What the hell? Other editors have certainly not been clear with their explanations. "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?" - same as above "Support Frank and AKMask's suggestions. Stuff like this (sorry, admins only) is mind-blowing to me." "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." - absolutely unacceptable sentence from an editor assistant, who did both, support the ban proposal AND marked my EA request as "answered"?!?

The content that was deleted per G4

This ban proposal has got a lot of problems. There were plenty of truths regarding this ban proposal. Many of the troublesome Wikipedians did not like and got scared of the truths and decided to remove the truths. If you want to see this problematic ban proposal, click here. P.S. If you're an admin, researcher, checkuser or oversighter, you can see the truths yourself by looking at the deleted history.