Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

India v. South Asia

The following editors have, IMO, gamed the system to have their way when the broader Wikipedia community opposed a move request, something which all of them had supported.

• Mar4d (talk · contribs · block log)
• Athenean (talk · contribs · block log)
• Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · block log)
• Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · block log)
• Huon (talk · contribs · block log)

Neutral and uninvolved administrators are requested to evaluate the situation, rectify it (by deleting List of South Asian inventions and discoveries and restoring List of Indian inventions and discoveries to a state where content was not removed due to "duplication") and take appropriate action against the editors per WP:GAME and WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

Timeline

• Around March 19th, Fowler&fowler made a move request to move the article titled List of Indian inventions and discoveries to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries (which was a redlink till very recently).

• By March 27, the move request had more or less failed but it was still open when Fowler&fowler encouraged User:Mar4d to go ahead and create List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Mar4d did so soon afterward.

• On the basis of this newly created article/list, Gun Powder Ma started removing content from the original List of Indian inventions and discoveries calling it "double entries" because the same or similar content now existed in the newly created List of South Asian inventions and discoveries.

• Because the move request was still open and newer people were still arriving at the discussion to oppose the move ("WP:FAITACCOMPLI", 2nd oppose, "no consensus"), I pointed out that this was a case of gaming the system and WP:FAITACCOMPLI (also pointed out by another editor) and reverted the removals. My revert was then undone by User:Athenean.

Zuggernaut (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I was fooled by the proposed move template, which states: "The discussion may be closed after 7 days of being opened, if consensus has been reached." Seven days had elapsed, and consensus seemed to have been reached on a proposal almost everyone agreed on before the first of the "new" oppose !votes Zuggernaut links to arrived. RegentsPark pointed out that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions actually has a little more to say, which I acknowledged here. I still don't think that implementing a solution which at that time almost anybody but Zuggernaut agreed on counts as gaming the system. Huon (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I too was under the impression that a valid consensus had been reached on the talkpage (Not counting a couple of !votes, it was 8-2 or something like that at the time). Moreover, Zuggernaut's revert undid several valid, unrelated intervening edits, which I found inappropriate. Combined with the absence of any talkpage posting by this editor, but instead canvassing [1] [2], and spurious accusations of "gaming the system", I deemed his revert disruptive and undid it. In general, it is my impression Zuggernaut has been disruptive in this discussion, as he has canvassed [3] in non-neutral fashion (note the wording), launched into personal attacks against others [4] [5], and largely been absent from the discussion only to return a week later to claim "consensus" (and then more canvassing). Athenean (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose and support positions were running neck and neck right from the start and at almost no stage of the move proposal was there any consensus. So even before the new votes arrived it was clear that the move was doomed. As for Athenean and you not understanding the text in the move template ("The discussion may be closed after 7 days...) and pursuing another 'solution' with an identical title could have be viewed as a problem of competence if [you were newbies but given that both of you have thousands of edits on Wikipedia over the years, it is a clear case of gaming the system. You should be topic banned from editing articles on Indian history. I see that revert/edit warring has been a pattern with Athenean as is reflected by his block logs. More recently this person received an interaction ban as a part of Wikipedia:ARBMAC enforcement. A topic ban on Athenean will help us all keep the focus on improving articles in the limited time we have. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if anyone needs to be topic banned for the sake of progress, it is you, for canvassing, assumptions of bad faith, major incivility and general disruption on this topic (and now mudslinging by bringing up something completely unrelated to this topic). Talk about gaming the system. Athenean (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be under the impression that you will get away by obfuscating the situation. Let's wait until what other admins have to say and if either of us are not satisfied with the outcome of ANI, we can start take it through WP:DRR where Fowler is headed anyway and you can come along as well. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Zuggernaut, was not a part of the regular discussion on the Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries page. He has an old gripe with me from the Talk:India page and was there in the "inventions and discoveries" discussion for only one purpose, and that was to oppose me. Unfortunately for him, he managed to confess said purpose in one of the rare posts he made on that page. Said he, crossing in the process the line between reality and fantasy several times:

"It has nothing to do with your opposition to the project proposal and more to do with your patronizing and arrogant attitude which you have repeatedly displayed on Talk:India. In addition, I will scrutinize each and every proposal coming from you on my watchlist for your strong and demonstrated anti-India, pro-British bias. Your edits throughout Wikipedia demonstrate this bias and have included separating out Indians and British by ethnicity when the situation is ugly so you can put the blame on those of Indian ethnicity ..."

This means, of course, that if I support/oppose something, Zuggernaut will naturally oppose/support it, on the logic that I am demonstrating my anti-India and pro-British bias. What "India vs. South Asia" has to do with it, beats me. If anything, "South Asia" is more American and international usage, Britain (still fondly remembering its Indian empire in the haze of an after dinner pipe and port) would likely go for "Indian." As for the real discussion that began on March 1, there were some regular discussants; these were: Gunpowder Ma, Athenean, Huon, SSeagal, Mdw0, Wikireader41, SpacemanSpiff, Mar4d. In this discussion, Zuggernaut made two appearances, both on March 1 (his first ones); once in a humorous vein and the other to (predictably) protest my tagging the article. He then disappeared for three weeks, while the regular discussants labored through all the permutations and combinations of words in the various proposed names. They considered stopping the "List of Indian inventions ..." at 1947, they considered Gunpowder Ma's proposal to create a new "List of inventions and discoveries in the Indus Valley Civilization," ... Predictably, Zuggernaut was absent from all those discussions. However, when I finally proposed a page move, Zuggernaut was the first one to register an "oppose," confessing, in the process, the real reason (quoted above) for his appearance.

He then canvassed. At first, in this somewhat provocatively worded post on the "Noticeboard of India related topics" in the hopes that putatively "Indian" editors there would naturally oppose a page move in which their beloved "India" was being deleted. When the editors there didn't bite, he appeared in this discussion, accompanied by music from the Twilight Zone, on the Talk:India page. His fellow conspiracy theorist there has meanwhile added an oppose vote as well, having been no part of the "India vs. South Asia" discussion.

Now for the page move and the votes. First, the page has not been moved. My proposal was not implemented. What has been implemented is Gunpowder Ma's proposal. That proposal had 8 support votes—not just the six who supported my proposal, but also Shovon76 (who merely commented on my proposal) and AshwiniKalantri (who opposed my proposal). In other words, we reasoned that the vote count among the regular discussants one week later for Gunpowder Ma's proposal, which did not involve any explicit page move, was 8 to 2 not including Zuggernaut's drive-by vote.

Sadly, for Wikpedia there is now a type of editor, of which Zuggernaut is a good example, who spends his energies not in adding content (Zuggernaut has added precious little (read zero) to the "List of Indian invention and discoveries" page), or for that matter to the India page, but in holding forth every now and then on the deep ideological biases involved in the work of those who actually do add content, and in leaving no stone unturned in their path to help them trip. As the New York Times reported last year, a large proportion of Wikipedia editors left in 2010. I'm afraid that trend is only going to continue if Wikipedia doesn't stop a handful of disruptive editors from heeding the clarion call of their conspiracy theories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Fowler&fowler. Zuggernaut was mostly absent from and participated little in the discussion, realized too late that a consensus had crystallized and is now trying to undo community consensus via the noticeboard. I don't see any bad faith on the part of the users listed above, all has been only done after lengthy discussions taking over two weeks. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh. Another tedious encounter with our modern-day Indian wiki-nationalists. Zuggernaut has arguably merited a page-ban for stalking Fowler - which is, self-admittedly, his entire reason for being there - and CarTick apparently lacks the ability to follow a coherent argument. Someone really needs to sort this out and deal with the issues of consensus-stacking, canvassing, harassment and disruption. Moreschi (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is not Zuggernaut's first attempt at canvassing and will not be his last (there are at least two ANIs where this has been discussed), he has consistently used provocative language and posts to canvass his positions on WT:INB. The only reason he canvassed me (per Athenean's statement above) this time is because I had a mild disagreement with Fowler on this particular issue. I'm not entirely convinced that a name change is in order at the present time, although I can appreciate the arguments in favor. It's not a page ban that's needed but a topic ban that's required here. See the history on Talk:India where his proposal was rejected in September, then he comes back a few months later adding the same POV stuff in claiming that there was consensus in September, then in the face of complete opposition starts an RFC and keeps arguing the same points again and again. —SpacemanSpiff 18:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't commented on the move discussion (and would oppose it actually), but this Zuggernaut Vs Fowler thing is getting a little bit out of hand. Though Fowler doesn't help things with his sharp remarks and pithy edit summaries, Zuggernaut's behaviour is getting tiresome - he has a pretty strong POV on this issue. He has even suggested that projects to distribute wikipedia articles offline in india, go through the contribution history of articles to check for "known editors who have a known POV issue". Read the whole thing - he is actually suggesting a "pre approved editor list" for india related wikipedia articles that are selected for distribution. It gives me the creeps. Apparently, if you are non-Indian and you dont agree with him, you dont count; and if you are an Indian and you dont agree with him you are a "Brown Sahib". --Sodabottle (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps it is time for a topic ban on zuggernaut. I have opposed the move proposal but it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the merits of a proposal or on alternative titles when persistent POV pushers with an agenda are around. The persistent resurrection of topics that don't get consensus (see the Talk:India history pointed out by SpacemanSpiff above), the references to brown sabibs noted by Sodabottle (not, I am sorry to say, for the first time[6]), the long list of acronyms in the complaint above, these are all examples of an editor with a single minded agenda to insert his own POV into wikipedia. I suggest a topic ban on all articles related to Indian history. --rgpk (comment) 23:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

let us not forget the English nationalist POV pushed by Fowler. His edits across wikipedia promoting British East India Company, attempts to forecefully define Indian history to have started from English intervention and his recent attempts to separate Indian history from South asian history thus resorting to history revisionism requires a topic ban for Fowler as well. his relentless English nationalistic POV brings out the worst among other contributing editors. --CarTick (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen anything by Fowler&fowler during the move discussion that I recognized as pro-English POV pushing. Could you please provide relevant diffs if you argue for a topic ban? Huon (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

because he didnt do that. what he did in that move discussion was history revisionism. i am sure you didnt notice that! will provide evidences when topic ban is seriously considered. dont want to waste my time for nothing. --CarTick (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you expand on your view that Fowler&fowler has an "English POV"? Because I don't know what this means in this context and I haven't seen any of it yet. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Zuggernaut does have a very strong POV on issues regarding India and the British. If you look at Talk:British Empire, about two thirds of archive 12 and most of archive 13 are filled with threads started by him or exacerbated by him trying to add information about famines in India and how they were completely the fault of the British. Back then he was also canvassing and forum shopping to try and get his way (at one point contacting the Ireland noticeboards to try and get them to comment on whether information about famines should be in the article). His POV is very clear when he makes comments such as "I'm sure, free and democratic nations such as India would have industrialized or even surpassed Europe in the industrialization" as a reason for including economic information about India in the British Empire article (seen in this thread). Notably when discussing this article he had another editor pegged as a British POV warrior, similar to fowler now. Zuggernaut has twice before used AN/I to try and censure other editors (search for "Zuggernaut" here and here, both of which were remarkable flops. The current disruption has been caused because he found this inventions article and objected to the move to South Asia, which is fair enough. However, he provided no solutions to the issue at hand, and it trying to maintain that the article List of Indian inventions and discoveries should include inventions from all over the Indian subcontinent/South Asia/India before 1947, and for all inventions from the Republic of India as well, going as far as to ask for sources calling ancient inventions Pakistani. I dislike the idea of a topic ban, as the user does make good contributions to some India articles; however there does seem to be some sort of need for it as the same behavioural patterns have continued until now. Perhaps just one relating to Indian/British history, under the discretion of an administrator or something similar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• This remarkable bit of logic just appeared, "reliable sources consider IVC a part of India and per WP:Commonname, India equates to the Republic of India." I leave it up to others to make sense of this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• If others want to take the time to discuss this, I support a topic ban of Zuggernaut as there is plenty of reason to believe the nationalistic POV pushing will never end voluntarily. One clear example was a suggestion here (permalink) that text be added to Famine in India to say that due to his racist views, Winston Churchill had deliberately ignored pleas for emergency food aid and had left the population to starve. Despite the fact that the "refusal" was in 1943 at the height of World War II, Zuggernaut did not want to consider the possibility that the failure to ship food might have been influenced by the war—further than that, Z did not even want the war mentioned, saying "World War II is more or less European history and I think its a distraction in this discussion" (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That might sound displeasing to Churchill's supporters. but he seems within bounds to suggest that sentnence as i hope he had reliable references to back up his claim. however, the decision to include or exclude the sentence should depend on several other factors, WP:Due being one important. it is a content dispute and he clearly has a pro-Indian POV. what about other editors with pro-English and anti-Indian POVs? --CarTick (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• So, is a topic ban being planned for Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) and, if so, how will it proceed? Will RegentsPark and Morsechi (and SpacemanSpiff?), being admins, take the initiative, or will they invite some other admin? Please let us participants here know what is being planned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions

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.

Closed as consensus for imposing all four points. There is consensus in general to impose the restrictions with only limited opposition. Point #3 has slightly less support, but enough that I am happy to impose it. The comments below suggesting mentorship are also good, and I will include this in my notification to Zuggernaut --Errant ^(chat!) 08:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) is indefinitely:

1. topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia.

2. banned from interacting with or commenting about Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs), directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means Zuggernaut is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of this user.

3. subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits, comments, or actions which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected pages or set of pages. The ban will take effect after it has been logged here and the administrator has posted a notice on his user talk page. If he is specifically not banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.

4. banned from List of Indian inventions and discoveries and List of South Asian inventions and discoveries due to inappropriate canvassing in relation to these 4 pages. Note to closing admin: this last measure is to be logged as an enforcement action of the probation listed at 3.

• Proposed. Interaction ban warranted after [7] & [8]. Enforcement of probation warranted after canvassing (note the wording for the lack of neutrality). The repeated POV-pushing warrants the topic ban and need for supervised editing - see other diffs in the above discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support I suspect we may need more evidence presented in order to gain a consensus on this broad proposal, but my observations over the last few months have convinced me that some form of topic ban would be the only way to provide a stable editing environment. My above comment with timestamp "05:04, 30 March 2011" has one example of unhelpful POV pushing. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose that he has pro-Indian POV (which i dont deny) can not be a reason for such broader bans. everyone comes with a bias. that he has no blocks logged indicates he has worked within the boundaries of wikipedia policies and guidelines. looks like an effort to get rid of a serious opposition to pro-English and anti-Indian POV pushers. --CarTick (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that Ncmvocalist is not acting in good faith? Syrthiss (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • nope, i am not. please dont put words in my mouth. i just disagree with him. most of the ban proposers had fought with Zuggernaut in pro-English and anti-Indian camps in various talk pages and i dont expect them to be objective. so, i would say Ncmvocalist is one of the uninvolved here. we should consider where the opposition comes from. i dont want to accuse everyone of holding a grudge against Z. some are sincerely worried about the way Fowler vs Zuggernaut rivalry is playing out in various talk pages. i have my own reservations about Z but i dont think we have sufficient background for topic ban yet. --CarTick (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • i have such a bad memory. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey, Ncmvocalist and many others including myself were defending YellowMonkey. ncmvocalist was quite vocal in his defense. the RFC was filed by User:Yogesh Khandke over a block. Zuggernaut was there opposing YellowMonkey. therefore it is wrong to say Zuggernaut and Ncmvocalist have never interacted. just clarifying. --CarTick (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • It appears that you have no idea what the meaning of uninvolved is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • My preference was to avoid losing the user's contributions from all areas of the project when the problems seem to be when he is editing in relation to these topics. But to take an example; arbitration examines the conduct of all involved parties, and as you are one of them in this case, your own conduct could be the subject of a finding of fact. Is it necessary to get to that point before the problem can be addressed through a binding voluntary agreement? If we want to think about blocks, to take you as an example again, your edit-warring in the mainspace ([9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]) was worthy of a block...but do you really want blocks to be used? These two ways of dealing with the issues are a last resort, and the restrictions I've proposed are to avoid the need for that in the future, particularly if in the case of the Zuggernaut, he can conduct himself more appropriately and provide useful contributions in other topics. Incidentally, having a POV is not the problem; what is a problem is when it is pushed in a way which is disruptive and inappropriate; the canvassing, the comments I linked to above which were directed to Fowler, and what Johnuniq has shared earlier, are just a few examples of that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral: This seems too harsh. The civility restriction I can agree with, and while we're at it we might consider a WP:1RR restriction to head off edit warring. However, I've seen his most recent interaction with me (on a naming proposal to end the debate that seemingly started all this) to be civil and in compliance with relevant policy. Obviously the consensus hasn't been judged yet, and I'd be curious to see what his attitude will be when/if the consensus is judged to be against his point of view on the matter. N419BH 14:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I did consider 1RR, but I think it simply slows the edit-warring down to a point of exhausting everyone involved rather than resolving the underlying concern. That (to me anyway) seems pointless and will just exhaust precious time unnecessarily when it could be spent addressing the content issues. I'm not going to waste time trying to prevent the inevitable (I've been here far too long to try to meddle with what is destined to happen, be it an arbitration case, or more frequent usage of the blocking tool to prevent the problems). But at least after reading this discussion, nobody in the future can complain that there was a shortage of practical good faith proposals at the time (which is now). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Move to Support in light of Zuggernaut's response, which clearly indicates a total lack of understanding of the issues at hand and is full of wikilawyering. Enough. N419BH 03:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Limited Support: As I said above, Zuggernaut has done good work (a few GA's etc.) in some areas, and I don't wish to see him shut out of areas of editing unnecessarily. The topic ban range under 1 sounds feasible, although perhaps could be trimmed down to just British history, unless similar problems exist for other time scales. As for 2, I'm not sure if this will help. Fowler's not the only editor Zug's had these issues with, and frankly I don't think Fowler gives a damn (he can correct me if I'm wrong). In addition, Fowler works on many Indian related articles, so this may push Zuggernaut out of non-history areas as well. I'm not sure what 3 will work, although if it's creating a place where administrators can look over complaints that sounds good. As for 4, that seems to depend on 3. In the end, what I really wish for Zuggernaut to understand is that just because information he wants to place about how India's economy was destroyed, or how Churchill was racist, or how famines were caused by the British, was not added to the article due to other editors does not mean that the article is controlled by a British cabal, or that the editors involved are pro-English and anti-Indian. He should make sure he's not out on a mission to right great wrongs and fix the systematic bias of the wiki, and needs to understand that opposition to his pro-India edits does not mean a systematic bias is being enforced. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Changed to support. As seen in his response below, Zuggernaut just doesn't understand what it wrong, and refuses to acknowledge he's violated guidelines on editing. His claim he doesn't know if he has violated canvass is (per his want to call things a spade) complete bullshit. A previous time he was accused of canvassing, he asked about it here, and was told that it was indeed canvassing. After that he made a request (section below that) to change the guideline to allow people to ask others to vote with them. He has even edited the actual guideline. Another user additionally noted in the discussion that he was forum shopping, which he has also done at the systematic bias page, and arguably has done with this and previous AN/I's. In summary, he has broken editing guidelines, and he knows it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• From my brief time spent looking at this problem and being involved at the list page, I'll support 2 (very strongly, as he's openly admitted wikistalking), 3 (clearly necessary), and 4. 1 is probably a little OTT for now, and can easily be implemented under 3 later if necessary. Best, Moreschi (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1, 3 and 4 per my reasons above. --rgpk (comment) 16:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 2, 3, and 4, particularly 2 due to odious wikistalking. Athenean (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 3 without reservations. At this point this is a necessary measure, given the past behavior on various topics (Famine in India, India, British Empire etc etc). 4 is just a subset of 1, so I'm not sure it needs to be called out, but it has my support nevertheless. As far as 2 goes, I think it's necessary in principle, but the behavior is not restricted to F&f, so something broader would be preferred in terms of addressing the issue of wikistalking and not just interaction with one editor. That said, there's also the problem of one-way interaction bans (although there's no reason to make this a two-way ban currently) being that there's always the possibility of the perception of the banned party not being able to respond etc. —SpacemanSpiff 02:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1 2 and 3. (4 comes under 1) We all come here with our biases, but most of us learn to suppress the worst of them and work within the limitations wikipedia imposes on us. In the past, i had hoped Zuggernaut would change his ways and use his obvious talent to do some good work; But his disruptive behaviour far outweighs the article work he has done. I dont believe any editor who advocates censorship based on nationality, wikistalks, throws out insults like "brown sahib", "acting white" would be a net positive to India related articles.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Since I am mentioned by name in the proposal, I won't express an opinion on Zuggernaut. I will say that Zuggernaut was not the only one accusing people of anti-India and pro-British bias; CarTick, too, on the Talk:India page was accusing me, and Chipmunkdavis as well, of such bias, repeatedly accusing me of having "sneaked in" the reference to the British East India Company in the lead, and making me out to be a 21st century lobbyist for the East India Company on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support: For an amazing disregard for the dignity of other editors. For a shameless modus operandi of canvassing, race- and nationality-baiting, and bulldozing through painstakingly built consensus. For a lack of demonstrated self-improvement and compromise, revealing an incorrigible POV crusader attitude. Quigley (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support; Nationalist pov-pushing is incredibly destructive (it either wears down the productive editors, or it consumes all their time). bobrayner (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor in question has not a single block, so their editing has been well within the confines of existing policies and guidelines. A case of canvassing (perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't) is not reason enough for what is essentially an "India" topic ban -- EVERYTHING relating to India is part of its history!!! Mentoring may be a better option, instead of drastic measures such as being proposed here. What is it with a community which would rather ban editors - because that is the easy way out! --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Z has a series of POV positions, if he looses them in one article he tries again elsewhere. Time for him to take a break. I would support a tighter restriction namely Indian History issues where the British Empire is involved as that is his strong PoV issue (much as I dislike the Empire we need to be neutral). Also he shows no sign of understanding the issue which means he really needs a mentor regardless of what sanction if any is agreed. --Snowded ^TALK 19:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed bans are against natural justice as there has not been a single block in past. Also the proposed bans are disproportionate to the crimes allegedly committed by the editor. A formal warning should suffice to start with. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Russavia & Shyamsunder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentontunic (talk • contribs) 12:49, 7 April 2011
• Support 1, 2, and 3. 4 is merely a explicit example of 1, and does not need to be formally defined. What we have here is a POV pusher who has engaged in canvassing- the evidence clearly shows this. Our system of blocks does not readily adapt itself to such behaviour, as specific examples are usually not worth a block in and of themselves, or are uncovered too late for a block to be anything other than punitive. Also, it is unstated that violations may be met by a block by an uninvolved administrator, but if the closing admin's decision is to enact these restrictions, it should be explicitly stated. Courcelles 14:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it might be appropriate to state it explicitly due to the circumstances which led to this (this step is being tried prior to blocks/ban from editing the entire site; almost the last resort). I usually loathe spelling it out though because anything which hasn't been stated ought to be covered by policy, and it can mean less scope for frivolous wikilawyering (eg; "enforcement by reversion is not permitted because the restriction only mentions enforcement by blocking"). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1 though I do not like "broadly construed" at any time, and would prefer to have it "narrow;y contrued". I also would append that "ban" does not include userpages created in anticipation of dispute resolution or arbitration proceeding, or to participation in mediations and arbitration proceedings not started by himself. 2. marginally, but an interaction ban should address both users directly - the same interaction logically should apply to each, with the same restrictions relating to the ban. Oppose 3 as being a draconian remedy, and one which get others who have tangled with him in the past to carp on every edit in hopes they can run to a friendly admin. Also oppose 4, as 1 and 2 addresses the concerns fairly well -- this becomes redundant. Collect (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC).
• Oppose per Russavia & Shyamsunder. mentoring maybe a better solution. He is a productive editor who needs to be given a chance to improve while working on areas of his interest.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Responses

Three policy violations have been cited for the ban. I will address each of them below.

1. POV pushing - As a part of my editing philosophy, I follow the essay on POV pushing, which says:

The term POV-pushing is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular POV in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions. Editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing.

Since I have never knowingly violated 3RR and since I've now been sticking to 1RR as an editing philosophy, it is, by definition, impossible for me to push my POV in to articles. I would like to point out that all of the diffs and references made to my violation of this policy by those who want me banned are from talk pages.

2. Wikistalking - I had been thinking of setting up a new project about special India issues for several months. A diff from February shows this. Since I spend only a limited amount of time on Wikipedia per day, I never got around to doing this until March 4. In preparation of the creation of such a project proposal, I was searching Wikipedia for India-related articles that would come under this project. One such article amongst several others that I was able to locate was the List of Indian inventions and discoveries.

3. Canvassing - Per my colloquial usage of English, I am pretty sure that my notification on the India noticeboard is not "non-neutral" but I now see how other speakers of English variants might see it as non-neutral. I'm sorry about that.

Here's my general editing philosophy on Wikipedia:

• No edit warring, stick to 1RR
• Stick to WP:BRD
• Stick to all known Wikipedia policies and guidelines closely (no particular diffs to provide, just look at my entire edit history)
• If there is a policy or guideline that I have hitherto not been aware of and have violated, I apologize for doing so and I ensure that I abide by it in the future
• Calling a spade
• Be civil and polite as seen in GA success for Upanishads, GA success for Deshastha Brahmin, GA success for the Third Anglo-Maratha War

A friendly note to closing admin - here's what the banning policy says:

If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.

Pretty much everyone here who has participated in the ban discussion has been involved with the underlying dispute. Exceptions are Moreschi and N419BH. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly Zuggernaut, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of uninvolved anymore than you understand the meaning of tendentious POV pushing (the page you're looking at is an essay and what you've cherry picked out of that part of the essay is not widely held by the community). Good intentions don't justify disruption, and similarly, the worst kind of disruption occurs on talk pages. These proposals are giving you an opportunity to demonstrate that you can contribute usefully in other areas without engaging in problematic conduct; perhaps this issue won't exist in areas you don't feel so strongly about, and perhaps in the future you can resist your temptation to push POV so strongly to the point of testing and exhausting the patience of so many of your peers. In any event, whether you voluntarily accept the restrictions as binding, or whether they need to be imposed on you involuntarily, is another question altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

How about a response to the actual issue, such as the Churchill dispute that I mentioned above? Do you believe that it would be reasonable to state that a significant cause of a famine was Churchill's racism which led to him to deliberately ignore pleas for emergency food aid, without any mention of the fact that Churchill was fully occupied as one of the "big three" leaders fighting World War II, and might have had a number of issues competing for his attention? Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In the editor's defence, people should read things such as this, for example. There are clearly reliable sources out there which put forward the view that Churchill was racist in regards to Indians. Or this which states: "Few statesmen of the 20th century have reputations as outsize as Winston Churchill's. And yet his assiduously self-promoted image as what the author Harold Evans called "the British Lionheart on the ramparts of civilization" rests primarily on his World War II rhetoric, rather than his actions as the head of a government that ruled the biggest empire the world has ever known. Madhusree Mukerjee's new book, Churchill's Secret War, reveals a side of Churchill largely ignored in the West and considerably tarnishes his heroic sheen." If the points raised in this and other reliable sources are accurate, then yes, this is a POV that is valid for inclusion in articles relating to the famine and Churchill himself. For the POV that you are asking about, you would of course need reliable sources to back up your assertions as to the reason for famine, etc. This clearly looks to me to be a case of an editor presenting information into articles that others don't want to see, and this as an attempt to censure said editor for wanting to do so. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is denying he was racist. The problem is Zuggernaut wanted to insert information in the article along the lines of "These Indians died because Winston Churchill was racist and withheld food from them", when in fact he no doubt had bigger things on his mind at the time, which Zuggernaut thought was tangential (as has been pointed out above). Besides, it's not based on this one incident, and the current report was caused by his complaint about a completely different article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Russavia: Mukherjee's book has been roundly criticized, both in the New York Times review by Joe Lelyveld and by Amartya Sen himself (quoted in the review). Churchill might or might not have been a racist, but his decision not to send emergency food rations to Bengal has other explanations. As Lelyveld says in his review (see full quotes in the Talk:India archives), Churchill's main scientific adviser, Lord Cherwell, was an astute man and had in fact anticipated many of the principles enunciated by Sen five decades later. Cherwell, was of the view that there was enough food, but it was being held back by unscrupulous hoarders (both among the farmers and the grain merchants) and profiteers, that it would be more effective policy (bringing speedier relief) to go publicly after the hoarders and profiteers than to divert rations from elsewhere (already strained by the demands of a global war). In other words, Churchill's culpability is by no means a historical fact. In spite of this, Zuggernaut wanted to insert two loaded sentences about it in the very distilled history section of the India page, which earlier didn't have anything about the Bengal famine or any other famine, or World Wars, I or II. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

yes, Zuggernaut is here because he opposed moving List of Indian inventions and discoveries to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. for reasons and motives i will never understand, User:Fowler&fowler suddenly decided a few weeks ago that Indian history is too confusing for him. what next Fowler? moving all the content from History of India to History of South Asia?. Zuggernaut, rightfully opposed that. i dont think it is a mistake in Z's part at all. He is one of the over 10 oppose votes. there are roughly equal number (may be more) of "oppose" and "support" votes. this is just to make the point, he is not in the minority.

now, talk about canvassing. I dont think User:Moreschi is here as an uninvolved editor. Here is the message] Fowler left in his talk page in the middle of a previous dispute in Talk:India page. From the message, one could reasonably conclude that they have a good wiki-relationship. Moreschi was just waiting for an opportunity and this ANI provided him the cover. he did this edit without even participating in the conversation. anyone who has the time to read the discussion page (at and until the time he made that edit or until now) can conclude that there is no consensus to remove any content from the article. Yes, Fowler was not explicit as Zuggernaut has been. --CarTick (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

CarTick: First, Zuggernaut is not here because he cast an oppose vote in the India vs. South Asia page move. Many editors opposed that move, include a handful that are now supporting Zuggernaut's topic ban. Zuggernaut is here because he chose to open an ANI thread in order to after some people (including me). Unfortunately, the plan backfired, because after months of opening similar ANI threads, Zuggernaut's pattern of editing on Indian history topics is becoming manifest. It is that pattern of editing that is being castigated here. Second, it's not a good idea, CarTick, to make up outlandish conspiracy theories and then treat them as fact. I merely welcomed Moreschi, who I had heard had left Wikipedia, back to active editing. I have always liked his firm opposition to all forms of nationalistic POV-pushing on Wikipedia. Please don't make wild connections in order to bolster you flimsy argument. If I had in fact intended to leave a coded message for Moreschi to intervene in the Talk:India dispute (whatever it was), I obviously didn't succeed, since Moreschi didn't intervene on the Talk:India page, but somewhere else, a few weeks later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

CarTick, Zuggernaut is here because one of his traditional moves - complain about bias to ANI - has backfired. I supported the ban topic because i am tired of being accused of being a "brown sahib" if i oppose him and getting sick of attempts at censorship by nationalism. I have supported and opposed Zuggernaut's proposals in equal measure before. Fowler's attempt to change "India" to "South Asia" is nothing new. SBC-YPR made a [[Talk:History_of_India/Archive_4#Requested_move|proposal] to move "History of India" to "History of Indian Subcontinent" in 2009, for precisely the same reasons. I count atleast two other oppose voters - regents and spiff - in the inventions move discussion here. This should indicate even those people who sometimes support Zuggernaut's proposals are fed up with his actions--Sodabottle (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have found Zuggernaut disagreeable in many occasions and I expect to disagree with him in the future. However, there really is no case for topic ban yet. here is why.

1. This ANI, as other would have us believe, does not appear to be frivolous. User:Athenean, User:Huon, User:S Seagal, User:Fowler&fowler, User:Mar4d, User:Gun Powder Ma, User:AshwiniKalantri and User:Shovon76 supported User:Gun Powder Ma's proposal. User:Zuggernaut, User:Wikireader41, User:Mdw0, User:Ohms law and User:Andrewa opposed it. 8 support votes and 5 oppose votes at the time the content was moced. 5th oppose vote by Andrewa was at 18:25, 27 March 2011. The content from the article was removed at 20:08, 27 March 2011. Gun Powder had created the South Asian List before the last two oppose votes. 1) there was no overwhelming consensus to remove content 2) it is conflict of interest to judge and execute the consensus by one of the highly involved editor, GunPowder. Z filed this report at 00:50, 29 March 2011. i am willing to buy the argument that the last two oppose votes happened late and it could be that GunPowder didnt notice it. now, i will let other uninvolved editors decide whether this is a frivolous thread. while everyone is upset about the frivolousness, nobody seems to care about the conflict of interest.
2. That Mukerjee's book got bad review at NYTimes review can not be an argument for exclusion. the book has made news across the world. one possible way to deal with this issue could have been to add both Mukerjee's book and also add the NY times book review and let the readers decide instead of censoring it. regardless of the merit of the case, the point is, in both cases, Churchil's racism and Indian list as extensivley discussed in this thread, Z had references that supported his POV and is not entirely wrong. I dont see any difference between the passionate defense of Churchill by some of the editors here and Z's passionate involvement in Indian history articles. POV is a POV.
3. Thanks for pointing out the History of India to History of Indian subcontinent move by another user. i would like to note here that Fowler wants India to be changed to South Asia (not Indian subcontinent) per the discussion page.
4. Calling users "Brown Sahib" or "acting white" is reprehensible. he could be warned in his talk page and if continued, even blocked to convey the message. now, Zuggernaut was not the only one acting uncivil. please see the discussion pages Fowler has participated. he was reprimanded by User:Shovon76 here.

In summary, when claims of POV pushing, frivolous ANI threads, uncivil comments and canvassing accusations are weighed in sum, there is really not sufficient background for topic ban yet. He was not even blocked once for either uncivility, edit warring or canvassing. i would recommend a formal warning, followed by a few blocks (if he repeats) before we even consider topic ban. as it stands, topic ban is too premature, early and exceedingly excessive. --CarTick (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to CarTick Shovon76, The issue is not whether Mukerjee's book is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's definition. Pretty much any trade paperback popular history or newspaper review meets Wikipedia's definition. However, sources in Featured Article have to be held to a higher standard. WP:RS say, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." A featured article, moreover, is required to report the consensus among scholarly sources, and in the absence of such consensus to report the controversy. Among the manifold scholarly sources on the Bengal famine of 1943, what is the consensus (if any) about the causes of the famine and where is Churchill's culpability in all of it? Mukerjee's book is not a scholarly book, it is a popular (trade) history. Even if it were a scholarly work, it is too recent to be a part of the scholarly debate. (Mukherjee has written no journal articles on this topic.) Besides, there is no record of Zuggernaut adding these details, indeed any details about the Bengal famine, to the History of India page. Since "History of India" is written in summary style, the causes of the Bengal famine (in contrast to a mention), might be WP:UNDUE in the first place, especially since many much worse famines are not mentioned. How then does Churchill's culpability belong to History of India's own summary, which—double distilled—forms the India page history section? If this is not WP:Main article fixation playing itself out in relentless POV-pushing, I don't what is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

PS to CarTick Shovon76. As for the "reprimand" diff you provided, perhaps you should have also provided diffs for my reply and your more balanced response to the reply. The problem here is not one of incivility, but of something much more insidious and hard to deal with: relentless POV pushing, especially nationalistic. As someone said upstairs, it wears down other editors and even if it doesn't, it takes up all their time. There are sources out there these days for the wildest of assertions, and POV-pushers are good at cherry-picking one source, e.g. Mukherjee, and attempting to make it worthy of mention in a page in which both the topic and the decades of scholarly research in it have thus far gone unmentioned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind Shovon76 that he also thought that we could start splitting the article here. I fail to see how he can now turn around and accuse others of acting prematurely or even of gaming the system for doing what he too advised without becoming a hypocrite. Huon (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC) While these diffs are correct and address Shovon's talk page behaviour (maybe he too should have been named by Zuggernaut as another of those accused of gaming the system?), the comment I was responding to wasn't actually by Shovon. My mistake, sorry. Huon (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Huon, please refer to the talk page of the concerned article. My opinion as well as talk page behaviour does not reveal double standards or hypocrisy. At one of time I had an opinion when a certain amount of information were presented before me. As newer data came to my attention, I am entitled to change my opinion. After all, that's how the decision making process generally takes place. It does not matter whether I have supported or opposed the move. The point is that even before there was any consensus on the page move, Huon Mar4d created an article with South Asia in the title and started moving content from the List of Indian inventions and discoveries, which can be interpreted as presenting before other editors a fait accompli. Shovon (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Shovon, first of all, I didn't create the article; I didn't even edit the South Asian list. Secondly, of course you are entitled to change your opinion, so are we all. But that's not all you did, and it's certainly not what I critizise you for.

Fowler&fowler advocated splitting the list on March 27, 1:49 (UTC). You advocated splitting the list later, on March 27, 8:34 (UTC). Both of you did not just support the move, but argued that we could begin implementing it right away. There were no !votes in between, and Fowler&fowler made no relevant edits to either the article or its talk page between your edit and the opening of this thread. Yet Fowler&fowler was accused of gaming the system and creating a fait accompli, and you weren't. And then you said that the accusation of acting in bad faith is not baseless. Basically, you are saying: "Those who agreed with me before I changed my mind acted in bad faith." That's what I call hypocritical. Huon (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Huon: Yes, I had supported the move and also suggested that it can be implemented right away. But, I do believe that Wikipedia does not work on my suggestions alone. There are set of rules that bind the editors. Instead of following the rules to the letter and spirit, can you justify the page creation by giving the reason, "Because Shovon suggested this"? My contention was not against the page move/creation, but how and when the page was created and as such I do not find anything hypocritical in the concerned page. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting closure

• This was archived prematurely so I've restored it so it can be closed properly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, can someone step in and close the Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries#Requested move? No doubt it's no consensus. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. Cunard (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Vote count (Just keeping tabs): As of 16:20:30 7 April 2011, a full one week after the restrictions were proposed by Ncmvocalist, there are 13 supports (Ncmvocalist, Johnuniq, NH419BH, Chipmunkdavis, Moreschi, rgpk, Athenean, SpacemanSpiff, Sodabottle, Quigley, bobrayner, Snowded, Courecelles) including the proposer's implicit support, and 4 opposes (CarTick, Russavia, ShyamSunder, Tentontunic) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Closed, logged and user notified. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Promethean attacking science fiction conventions en masse

Resolved

 – Many of the AfDs have been closed and the others are proceeding, Promethean has apologised for incivility. If anyone (Raul) has wider issues, speaking to Promethean individually or an RfC/U might be your best bet. Fences&Windows 22:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Promethean, who apparently knows nothing about science fiction conventions or science fiction fandom, has done a bulk set of AfD nominations for various conventions, including some of the oldest (Icon (Iowa science fiction convention), Marcon) and most distinctive (Readercon) on the planet; as well as an AfD nomination for List of science fiction conventions, one of the most carefully maintained lists I know of. It is increasingly hard to assume good faith here, as he seems to be trying to make a WP:POINT about these articles, some of which could certainly use improvement and more external sourcing. Each convention discussion has understandably started drawing input from people familiar with that convention, and the accusations of COI, sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are flying. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. I like sci-fi as much as the next guy, but sometimes our favorite things just aren't attention-worthy enough to the outside world. In those 3 articles linked above, I see coverage that is purely local. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the examples above, I see no need on the face of it for admin action. Some prompt article rescue would appear to be called for, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, you need to get out more ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Those 3 conventions are all well known. I bet there is coverage in Locus (magazine) of all of them. The nominations sound pointy, sort of like that guy who was nominating articles about transistors recently (I'm not into the inclusionist/deletionist thing, but I generally believe uncontentious reference info about non-self-promoting topics is fine to leave alone). That said, if there are a lot of such convention articles it might be ok to merge some clusters of them. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Pointy or no, there's nothing here worth administrative attention. Let's close this. Editors need to work this one out; if there is insufficient referencing in these articles, well, the answer is left as an exercise for the student.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete it! Tarc (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's one idea, Tarc. Does the rest of the class have any other ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt: We're doomed if people can't figure out that you're screaming at them to just add some sources. Sheesh. --joe decker^{talk to me} 15:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the attacks on editors opposing him that Promethian is coming out with. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just from a cursory search about these conventions, i'm finding it quite clear that the nominator, Promethean, is failing WP:BEFORE pretty badly and, thus, his actions could be seen as being pointy. The rapid nature at which he is AfDing these articles show that he isn't even following WP:BEFORE even in a cursory sense, since there isn't enough time between nominations for him to have made even a quick look for sources. Silverseren^C 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• I honestly don't think Promethean is out of line, although I can certainly see where the "pointy" argument would come up. It appears to me — someone who casually likes science fiction, but not avidly — that we have a situation where some sci-fi related events, such as cons, may not meet general notability standards, but still exist because of a different, unwritten level of notability applied to the genre. This may be because of systemic bias, which is unavoidable to some extent. But it does beg the question: Do we need to establish specific notability policies for cons? Is a one-off event at the local Sheraton's meeting room, which draws 300 or 400 attendees, notable enough? And what of similar fan events in other genres? Something that needs to be addressed, IMHO. Cheers! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• My deep reserves of good faith are quite strained when Promethean argues "I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do" (here, for example) nearly a dozen times. - Dravecky (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, my comment probably wasn't tactful, was somewhat uncivil but I feel it falls short of a personal attack. It is an unfortunate that you do tend to see people who tend to vote keep (inclusionist) or delete (deletionist) without due regard for what they are expressing their opinion on and I refer to those as shitter arguements because they are the best way to screw up the otherwise working system and in this instance Dravecky arguing that limited coverage in a single local newspaper (who would report even on something as un-notable as a kid's face painting event) automatically qualifies MystiCon as 'Notable' is smacking of a typical inclusionist argument. Moving onto the mass AFD'ing, you might call it WP:POINTY or you could call it well intentioned but misinformed (Which it was, but I'm only the person who did it so I must be biased), it is ever so apparent that I am not someone who gets off to science fiction on any level, Among other things the MystiCon thread raised that there were a sizable number of articles which probably should go as well. So starting of with the list which honestly seems nothing but a mere promotional page with the number of external links and dates on it I started cherry picking random articles which imho failed to establish (by themselves) why on earth where they were notable. Other than checking out the refs on the article I did not follow WP:BEFORE and would duly note that not doing so is neither a blockable or warnable offence and was done more so out of naiveness than an attempt to disrupt. All in all the spectacle has done nothing but raised attention of the subject of science fiction conventions if nothing else and I’m sure that this will result in the references and cleanup fairy visiting quite a few pages in the list. Also, the thread title couldn't be any more dramatic if you tried, this isn't an "attack" on science fiction and en masse is somewhat inflating.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

How about apologising? Make any further personal attacks like you did (yes, they were personal attacks) or continue with gross incivility and you'll deserve to be blocked. Fences&Windows 23:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have emailed Dravecky personally.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly prefer all of my Wikipedia-related communication to take place on Wikipedia. I did take it as an uncivil personal attack, and one not well-grounded in the facts. (Before this deluge of AfDs, I was involved in precisely two active AfD discussions: this one where I attempted an article rescue and !voted a policy-based "keep" and this one where I've !voted and argued "delete" for similar reasons.) I prefer no drama and my boss calls me "the calm one" but this ongoing incident is seriously damaging my calm. - Dravecky (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone here should be aware that Promethean has a long history of incivility and personal attacks, including against me. Raul654 (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this pot calling the kettle black Raul? I see two effective blocks for incivilty in 2008, three years ago, where I got into two heated debates that probably shouldnt have happened in the first place. One was defending a user who was blocked for socking and later cleared. The latter was accumulated from various incidents. Meanwhile at the same time you were running around abusing checkuser (A Checkuser confirmed you checkusered me while while we were in a personal dispute for no reason at all and found nothing) and trying to get back at me by blocking my rename request out of spite. (which WJBScribe overruled you on, which I will never forget).   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I checkusered you after this edit in which you stated your intention to evade a community block by using sockpuppets. As for your rename request, I opposed it because I said you were troll with a history of incivility who was using the rename request in order dodge your own well-earned bad reputation. Lo and behold, you have gone ahead and proven me right. Raul654 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Note - Promethean was reported for incivility three days ago at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Promethean. That discussion is still ongoing. Raul654 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not an admission of sockpuppeting, thats a suggestion of starting over, on a new account, without all the drama and something I was well within my right to do and something recommended to me by an Admin at the time due to the fact that I kept getting stuck in a rutt. At the time a community block was not even on the cards so I wasn't trying to evade that. As for the rename it was from prom3th3an to promethean, I doubt that would have caused much confussion as talk pages and block logs follow users so your reasons for blocking it are flawed. A checkuser obviously felt it wrong enough to encourage me to report you to the Ombudsmen and at the time I did just that, but all this is hear say right, how else did I know you checkuser'd me when this is the first time you admitted doing it and WJBScribe told you to review how you acted on my request so not many people agree with anything you did regarding myself. Much like your presence here is fairly transparent. In any case I have sent both users concerned an apology per Fences and windows's question here and his warning on my page.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Just remember to watch out for unhelpful comments when things are getting heated. Fences&Windows 18:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

At the time you made that edit, there was an on-going discussion about community banning you which numerous people supported. Four days after you made that edit, you were again reported at AN for misbehavior and again a community ban was suggested. So your claim that a community ban "was not even on the cards" is a flat-out lie from someone with a history of trying to bury evidence of his past misbehavior. And your first claim - that your claims about creating a new account was to avoid drama is plainly contradicted by the fact that (a) you cannot edit without causing drama (then or now, three years later) and (b) it was just-as-likely-as-not that you were about to be community banned.

Also, for anyone else here who is watching, earlier today Promethean tried closing Wikiquette alert cited above. (See what I said earlier about "trying to bury evidence of his past misbehavior") He doesn't seem to grasp that users are not permitted to close reports of their own misbehavior. Raul654 (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And finally, it's worth noting that Spartaz's 2008 comment about Promethean - that he makes almost no useful edits - is still true. Pretty much the entirety of his activity on Wikipedia consists of voting in AFDs and being [redacted] to other people. Raul654 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Please don't attack people. Fences&Windows 22:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Raul, if you feel the need to personally attack me on ANI, I feel it would be best if you disengaged from consequent discussions because it would be ever so apparent that your presense is personal. With that being said I am well within my right to close my own alert, that is the way the system works over at WQA, It's not a report, its A) Flagging to me that ive been uncivil, B) Giving me an oppurtunity to discuss it with the person who filed the complaint. Ebe has already told me the discussion is over[15] from his side and now it has come to a close from my side as well hence it is resolved.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't normally say much at ANI, but I've been following this since I commented at Ebe's editor review, and your last sentence is misrepresenting the facts. In that diff [16] Ebe told you the discussion was over when he removed your editor-review comments, but then you complained on Ebe's talk page [17] (saying "Thankfully you do not get to choose when a discussion closes (goes back to the non-admin thing)") and re-added your comments to the editor-review talk page. The problem continued for another two days, until the talk page was speedied by Fence&Windows [18]. Whether Ebe now feels the matter is resolved or not I don't know, but that diff really doesn't prove it. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ebe has added nothing to that report after he told me the discussion was over, this was 7 days ago and an admin has now acted on the report. I have also sent Ebe an apology via email as a show of goodfaith (I wasn't asked to do this) and I see no possible further course of action on that thread at all.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Readercon as a snow keep after keeps leading 14-0 vs delete? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be an acceptable NAC scenario. I've closed it. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

comment Not that I checked out those particular articles, and I do admit that I lean toward the inclusionary side of things here at WP, as well as being a sci-fi fan; but, (1) I would think that these conventions can be pretty large, (2) Just because NY didn't cover one in LA doesn't mean it's not worth keeping, and (3) did anyone try to talk to the user and explain what we do here? OK, maybe one of the poorest sentence structures I've seen in a while there, but hopefully I got my point across. As far as NPA, well, that's a pretty big no-no here. If it's just a civility issue - those kind of things can get pretty dicey at times depending on the who and where of it all. Maybe the old trout would just be in order? — Ched :  ?  23:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC) This looks like a job for a quick topic ban. Easiest way to deal with this issue. Jtrainor (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit wars

Resolved

• Fjp1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.8.218.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.8.216.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.8.217.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I just came across this editor, apparently in an edit war on Bee Movie with an apparently dynamic IP. I gave him a warning but he blanked it and said "I know", then started dicking around when I asked what he was doing and offered to help. Checking his contributions, it looks like he's been in edit wars all over the place - his history seems to be almost entirely reverting stuff.

The latest wars have been with the above IP addresses, which are presumably the same person. I've no idea who's right here, but as Fjp1995 flipped me off when I asked him to explain (and carried on warring), I've indef blocked him, and I've blocked the latest IP for 24 hours - both for edit-warring. I really don't know what's been happening here other than edit-warring, or who's right - it's late here and I need some sleep. I'll notify Fjp1995 and the newest IP.

Can anyone work out what this is about and whether anything needs to be done? (Feel free to change my blocks without needing to check with me) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• AntiFjp1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just been created and commented on Fjp1995's Talk page - presumably a sock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I first noticed this guy on March 20 when I followed up on one of his early AIV reports and mistakenly blocked an IP who was making good edits. Discussion between me and seaphoto is at User talk:Diannaa/Archive 8#65.8.221.157. Since then, Fjp1995 has been filing many AIV reports on what appear to be content disputes. I have not been investigating them as my pop-cutlure knowledge is insufficient to know which edits are any good. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have the same problem, that I don't know anything about these topics, so I can't decide who's right - is there a Project anywhere that might help, do you know? (I can't think of any obvious ones) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As I'm a bit baffled by what's going on, I've had another try to talk to him, at User talk:Fjp1995#Your editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the user might be very young. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, judging by the answers I think you're right. I'm tempted to ask him to slow down, stress the need to talk, offer help when he needs it, and unblock - what do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, thinking again, I don't think I really want to offer to help too much, because I know nothing of pop culture TV and care even less - and I don't way to get dragged in to "Is SuperPingoBoy 11 or 12 years old?" arguments. So maybe just a friendly warning that he'll be watched. What do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing is to remind him of the verifiability requirement: if he's going to say that SuperPingoBoy is 11, he needs to have a reliable source that says he's 11. (Unfortunately, a lot of young editors seem not to realize that neither the SuperPingoBoy Wikia site nor its fan forums are reliable. But I digress.) That's why the standard second chance says to show both what changes you'd make to an article and what reliable sources exist to back it up.

I think unblocking would be in order. I also think that a one-revert-rule (or even 0RR, though that's a bit harsh) would be a reasonable condition for the unblock: if he's going to revert an edit, he must discuss the matter on the talk page (and not escalate straight to AIV). —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds great - I'll go with that (will do it after I've had lunch) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the problem has been solved. Since unblocking, Fjp1995's 2nd and 3rd edits (actually reverts) seem to be troublesome. This revert removes a table of Aron Warner's filmography that seems to be accurate according to IMDB (not an RS, I know, but in this case...). This is a table that he has removed 6 times from the article since April 6th 3rd. While it's not verified by a RS within the article, I'm troubled by this odd obsession of removing some random producer's film credits. This revert consists of changing the initials of the name of a storyboarder for the television show Phineas and Ferb from a "J.G." to "L.G." Elsewhere in the article, the storyboarder is referred to as "J.G." or "Joe." This appears to be a nonsense revert. He has not discussed either reverts on the article talkpage or with the contributor he reverted. Chillllls (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)corrected date Chillllls (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Dianaa has had a word with him, and I've reverted his new edits and given him one last warning - if he does it again, he's blocked again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK now - I'll keep an eye on him, and ask again here if I should need any further help. Thanksall. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request - RolandR

I have blocked RolandR. He has requested unblock, so I'm posting the request on ANI, because it will get a quicker audience here. The relevant thread is here: User talk:RolandR#Your 3RR report. I request review from any admin who is impartial with respect to Israel-Palestine issues and who is familiar with unblock request or is willing to spend the time looking at it. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin Comment I noticed you elected to claim the WP:ARBPIA reason for block. Even if you grant 100% rights to allow annother admin to overturn your block you should be aware that there is currently a discussion at ArbCom about overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by annother administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy. Your communication with the user, the blocking notice, and the block log notice seem to lead to the point that you are using an arbitration remedy for this situation. Hasteur (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am. And I also stated quite clearly that I am OK with another admin undoing my block. I don't think anyone would be upset if I reversed my own block, correct? Well, in this case, I will state that any other admin undoing this block is tantamount to me undoing the block on RonaldR. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is why I don't make non-trivial edits to articles under 1RR. It's just poison for collaborative constructive editing - and blocking from a single removal of a citation template from the lead (allegedly because already cited in body, though I can't identify the citation) is as good an example as any. It's a shackle around every ankle because you don't know who the criminals are. Rd232 ^talk 02:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• I looked fairly quickly at the history and I tentatively agree with the block. I didn't find RolandR's unblock request all that compelling so I declined it until he can demonstrate understanding and undertake not to editwar in future. --John (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Though I am sympathetic to RolandR's situation, I agree with User:John's decline of the unblock. The offer that John made in the decline message looks reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have unblocked, as I think that Roland's second unblock was more compelling. I have also given him some advice for the future. Hopefully I didn't step on anyone's toes. Feel free to reblock without consulting me if you think my action was inappropriate. NW (Talk) 14:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction has been quite successful in reducing edit warring in the I-P conflict topic area though. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia still lacks the means to reliably identify and exclude sockpuppets from the topic area. Like many "new" accounts in the topic area, AFolkSingersBeard does not look like a new editor. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The behavior of AFolkSingersBeard is so blatant that he seems unlikely to have a long career, whether or not he is a sock. He has already been notified of the I/P discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tholzel blocked indefinitely

Please see User talk:Tholzel#Blocked indefinitely and see if I have been too harsh. It's my feeling after reviewing all of this account's 2011 edits that they are definitely not here to improve the encyclopedia, but to advocate for a particular minority view regarding race and certain aspects of the history of WW2. If there is a consensus to unblock (and so far they have not asked for such), I would unblock or be fine with someone else doing so. --John (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well done. IMHO this sort of thing ought to happen more often. It's awfully tiresome to editors who frequent articles related to Holocaust denial to have to put up with this sort of thing and tends to drive good editors off the project. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not impartial as I have been in protracted annoying arguments with that user, but I do approve.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse:I have previously blocked this user and I endorse John's block. See my recommendation for an indef block if/when problems continue in this previous ANI discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the block. This editor obviously could not follow NPOV and has been unable to work with other editors constructively. TFD (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse indefinite block. Tholzel wasted inordinate amounts of other editors' time soapboxing about improperly sourced matters, sometimes WP:OR, on Talk:Race (classification of humans). Nothing he suggested could have been included in the article. Mathsci (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Gharr

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

First, a bit of history: A few weeks ago, Gharr concluded that nominating an article for speedy deletion and giving the 3RR warning for edit warring constitutes "hounding" and started an ANI thread about it. The thread quickly devolved into boomerang warfare as Gharr's accusations were rejected by everyone else, with several users trying to kindly explain that Gharr was the one who was wrong and that copyvio articles (if I recall correctly it was copyvio) are always deleted and 3RR warnings are always given to people who breach/are about to breach 3RR. I stepped in quite late, because I wasn't involved in the original discussion but grew weary of Gharr's unfounded accusations directed mainly at User:Sloane and User:OpenFuture. Soon afterwards, Gharr was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, and soon after that, for 48 hours because of civility issues.

After a few days off, Gharr's back, and still attacking other editors on User talk:Gharr. I and several other users have tried to reason with them several times, but it appears that Gharr simply removes all messages without reading or replying. At their current state, they're absolutely impossible to communicate or cooperate with.

Sample edits by Gharr to demonstrate their conduct:

• [19] The Venus Project, Gharr doesn't justify this change in the edit summary, instead resulting to threats.
• [20] Talk:The Venus Project, Gharr's intention is quite clear - instead of justifying their edits, they attack another editor with 3RR breach accusation (which turned out to be incorrect).
• [21] Lifebaka wrote a long and understanding reply to Gharr, which was deleted by Gharr who immediately continued their behaviour...
• [22] Gharr's first action after the block already shows they didn't get it.
• [23] Gharr removes most of the nicer stuff on their user talk page and create a new section highlighting the perceived unfairness of their blocks.
• [24] The major problem with these edits is that they highlight that Gharr, despite several people telling them (at least 4 by my count), think they weren't edit warring because they didn't breach the WP:3RR.

I don't believe Gharr's going to listen to anyone anymore (please try to reason with them if you want to) and even less I believe they're going to have a spontaneus enlightenment about collaboration. For this disruption to end, I think Gharr should be indefinitely blocked - not infinitely, but until they remove the false accusations from their user page, start listening to people instead of treating advise as attacks and confirm that they won't attack other editors again. If someone can get these assurations from Gharr without blocking, so much the better. Zakhalesh (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The following people were notified of this thread: Gharr (the subject) and Sloane, OpenFuture and Lifebaka as all three were active in the previous thread and will most likely want to comment on the case. Zakhalesh (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Gharr hasn't made any edits outside of his talk page in a week. So it's currently a non-issue, and he isn't disrupting anything at the moment. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OpenFuture's spot on here, Zakhalesh. As long as Gharr sticks to his talk page, the simplest way for you to no longer have to worry about him is to just avoid his talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

He's not doing any harm right now, but can we at least get him to clean out his talk page of all his attacks on other editors? I think I'm mentioned about fifty times. It's a little annoying.--Sloane (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just a load of rambling, and to be honest I don't think there's anything there that warrants forced deletion. I think the best thing you can do really is just ignore him. He'll either start behaving better or he'll be blocked again - there's no benefit in poking him further right now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read the blocking policy and it seems I interpret it way differently than you. While I don't think of Gharr as a lost cause or anything like that, in their current state of mind where they can't listen to reason and their only mode of communication is attacks and accusations, I don't think they can contribute to the encyclopedia project. This started from a single revert war warning and a copyvio template - what happens if a similar situation happens again, now that Gharr accuses everyone who has been in contact with them for various misdeeds? Blocking policy states that preventive blocks to end disruption can and should be used, and there even is a statement: "Blocks should be used to: encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" which suggests, at least to me, that people who are too uncivil to collaborate it should be blocked until they agree to cease their aggressive behaviour. I still think Gharr should be blocked from editing until they confirm that they won't behave like that anymore - the length of the block would be one minute, maybe an hour, or however long it takes for Gharr to realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment where being a partisan isn't going to help. Perhaps a block isn't necessary after all, if someone manages to have constructive conversation with Gharr about their conduct and why it isn't acceptable. I urge you to try, but I won't bother myself any longer, unless they have something to say to me, in which case I will of course reply with the best of my ability. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing he is currently doing that requires prevention, and so a block would not be justified. You ask "what happens if a similar situation happens again" - that's simple, we just block him again, for longer. Now, while he is only letting off a bit of steam on his own Talk page, which is the only place he's edited in more than a week, and not doing anything there that requires admin action (in fact, he hasn't edited there at all for 12 hours), there is nothing that needs preventing and nothing that requires a block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and there is no point trying to converse with him further at the moment - continuing to prod someone when they're clearly in an angry mood is almost never productive. An angry person is best ignored while they're doing no harm - if he does harm again, that's when to take action -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

While what you say makes sense, it still leaves one question open - how can one collaborate with an editor that sees everything as an attack? The entire racket started from a 3RR warning and a copyvio speedy template. As people tried to tell Gharr that warning for 3RR violations and deleting copyvios is a standard procedure, Gharr thinks it's a conspiracy. When Gharr's blocked for edit warring, Gharr thinks it's a conspiracy. When Gharr's unblock request is denied, Gharr thinks it's a conspiracy. And this all begun from a tabula rasa, as far as I know, with no previous interactions between Gharr and Sloane (who was Gharr's primary target in the first thread). It has to be explained to Gharr somehow - if they take a break and return, even with the intent of burying the hatchet, they'll still have the misconception that there's a conspiracy against them. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty, Zakhalesh. It is a very good principle. It applies here to. If Gharr chooses contribute in a constructive manner, he will be allowed to do so. If he chooses to disrupt, he will end up blocked. This part of the process works. Let it run it's course, instead of trying to force the specific outcome you would like to see. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) "how can one collaborate with an editor that sees everything as an attack?". The simple answer is don't. Just leave him alone unless communication is really necessary. And if he does something wrong and we really do need to communicate with him, we do it in the usual civil way - as he clearly reacts badly to templated warnings, I'd go for personal communication instead. If he then reacts inappropriately, we take whatever action is needed at the time - which might be a block.
• "It has to be explained to Gharr somehow". No, it actually doesn't. It's much better if it's explained and he understands, yes, but if he's completely closed to it and can't be shaken from the conspiracy theory, so what? As long as we use the right tools to prevent damage (like blocks), what does it matter what he believes? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Uh, I'm not trying to have Gharr hanged or punished for anything. Blocked, if necessary, until they affirm they can communicate without personal attacks, and I wouldn't suggest it if WP:BLOCK didn't state preventing disruption and encouraging civil behaviour as proper reasons. However, I don't feel the block is absolutely necessary, especially because BsZ has made some good points, and unlike you may think, I would prefer the whole issue settled in a more peaceful way. In any case, you didn't answer my question: how can you cooperate with an editor that perceives routine copyvio deletion as a personal attack? Well, it'd be no problem if the editor listened when people explain that it's not a personal issue but a matter of website policy and law. I swear by Socrates and Plato that if Gharr starts responding to people in a more acceptable way than refuting advice as attempts to silence or attack him, I won't bear a grudge of any sort and will welcome him to cooperate. I've already told this to Gharr a few times, I hope this time they listen. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Zakhalesh, as long as he's sticking to his talk page, collaboration isn't really an issue. The chances of you running into him elsewhere are exactly zero. Which is exactly the point. Right now he's not disrupting anything, so there's nothing we need to do. We can just ignore him and let him do whatever he's doing. And until he starts doing something else, that's exactly what we're suggesting you do. Just ignore him and let him do whatever he's doing. lifebaka++ 22:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I'm off to finish my article on the Kite experiment. Zakhalesh (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Warriorboy85

This is a Wikipedia user page, not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page anywhere except Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Beware that that page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs is not affiliated with any mirror site. The original page is located here.

I am a network admin, living in the Los Angeles area.

User:Warriorboy85

This user has been on Wikipedia for 15 years, 5 months and 24 days.

has a long history of violating BLP with his contentious edits. He has a page full of warnings about edit warring and BLP violations, and he was blocked at one point for making legal threats. He retracted the legal threats, but he continues to edit with non-reliable sources, making BLP violations. Note: I don't have any dog in this hunt, I know nothing about the problems he's dealing with, all I know is the long history of edit warring and his recent BLP violations with accusations of criminal activity and non-reliable sources to support his contentions. Corvus cornix_talk 05:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of problematic behavior? elektrikSHOOS 06:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

His whole edit history is problematic, but the most recent problem edit was [25]. Corvus cornix_talk 06:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Further unsupported BLP violation: [26]. Corvus cornix_talk 06:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a complicated something going on over corporate fraud and alleged corporate fraud and various companies or shell companies. Robert Rooks, a man convicted by the SEC of fraud, is at the center of some of it, as explained in a recently updated article on United_Assurance_Company_Ltd.. I don't think WarriorBoy has been doing anything intentionally of late, except not understanding our WP:PRIMARY policy. That's coming along though, and I think the user just needs some instruction about how we operate with sources, especially in controversial areas. I'm not involved here, but have been mediating of sorts between editors who are very well informed on facts but speaking past eachother. Eyes appreciated but I don't seen anything actionable for admins right now. Ocaasi ^c 08:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported accusations of criminal activity are not actionable? Corvus cornix_talk 17:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Maybe I'm missing something really obvious...it's happened before...but it looks to me like WarriorBoy85 is actually working on correcting potential BLP violations, seeking secondary sources for referencing, and otherwise working to improve the article. The trouble I see in the article Talk page seems to be arising from 173.75.81.106 (talk · contribs). Feel free to trout me if I'm misinterpreting things. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What am I missing here? How is this not an accusation of criminal activity? Corvus cornix_talk 17:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not an accusation to state that someone was criminally charged, then direct the reader to Lexis Nexis to look up the specifics. Criminal charges, if they exist, are a matter of public record. If a television reporter states a person has been accused of a crime, and refers to a filing of charges by a district attorney, does anyone yell that the reporter is making the accusation? No. Now, if WarriorBoy85 had stated Brooks had committed a crime, but not provided any sort of support for that statement, you'd have a basis for saying he was accusing Brooks of a crime. In this case (and I haven't yet looked at Lexis Nexis to see whether there's actually anything there or not), he's just relaying his information. I'd prefer if WarriorBoy85 had provided direct citations to the court proceedings, instead of just saying "look it up", especially since (last I knew) Lexis Nexis was a for-pay reference system. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

<==So anybody can make any accusation and tell people to "go look it up" and that satisfies BLP? Corvus cornix_talk 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please demonstrate that WarriorBoy85 is accusing someone of something. What this non-admin sees is WarriorBoy85 working on improving an article, and while he hasn't created an actual citation to support his reference (which I'd really like to see him do as a matter of resolving this), I have no reason to doubt his good faith. Do you have positive, demonstrable evidence to the contrary, something that proves bad-faith editing or blatant BLP violations? If so, please post it here so the admins can review it. I have off-wiki tasks to attend to, so I'm not going to be back to see this discussion for quite some time, but I'm fairly certain there will be interested parties stepping in. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't think there's any dispute about Rooks being convicted. In fact, both WarriorBoy and the ips seem to agree on that. However, there is disagreement over the role of Kimball Richard (or Kimball Dean Richard) that apparently goes back to a 2009 thread (partly here: [27]). Disputed family names and disputed company names and it didn't exactly come to an answer. I think all editors are now at least 'acting' in good faith, and we just need to stick to sources on the talk page for now. Ocaasi ^c 00:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

All I can do is shake my head and wonder why I bother. BLP is BLP, all accusations require reliable sources, which are not forthcoming. Do whatever you want, I'm through with this, but I'll expect equal lack of action the next time a BLP violation is claimed. Corvus cornix_talk 01:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This ANI is hilarious. WB85 obviously has a COI that has been problematic. It has been a mess trying to figure out is going on (I have been watching and am still completely confused). The diffs take some thought. I am inclined to let him keep on going since if he did it this long he deserves the credit. Nice work on duping the community, Warriorboy.Cptnono (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Insertion of an image from a banned user advertising their work depicting child sexual abuse

Melodia (talk · contribs) has just reinserted an illustration by Midnight68 (talk · contribs) in the article Fan service. Midnight68 was banned from Wikipedia by ArbCom, is banned from Commons, and is apparently banned from DeviantArt, which is a fairly open-minded site.

The illustration in question advertises "Kogaru Diaries", a graphical online roleplaying game that the user has created, and which depicts child sexual abuse (see [28], [29], [30], [31]). Several editors, including myself, Kraftlos (talk · contribs), Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs) and Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs) ([32]), have expressed concern on the article talk page and/or in Commons that the work the image advertises seems to be in violation of [33] and [34]. I had removed the image this morning after the concerns voiced in Commons. Melodia's edit summary in restoring the image was "Stop trolling, please".

Advertising a work by a banned user in Wikipedia that is themed around pedophilia and child sexual abuse is not what Wikipedia should be about. Admin intervention is requested; I would like to see Melodia warned for irresponsible editing that could result in harm to this project. --JN466 14:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Is any source given that describes any of the pics in the article as an example of Fan Service? If not, it's OR. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 15:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn1 (talk • contribs)

That same argument has been made on the article talk page and at the content noticeboard; other editors disagree. Using a fan service version of Wikipe-tan to illustrate the article is a poor choice, for several reasons; it is self-referential (that image is not a prominent image in the world outside Wikipedia); it links a Wikipedia mascot to fan service, as though fan service were what Wikipedia is about; and the fact that all the images used in the article depicted scantily-clad girls is sexist—in the real word, fan service also includes similar depictions of male characters, and we should strive for something like gender parity in illustrating such articles --JN466 15:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking over the user's Talk page, they seem to be a very positive contributor to Wikipedia. Manga is something I have next to no experience with, so I'm not really sure whether that image makes sense in that context or not. But IMO discussion would be a better route than one-way warnings or sanctions. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(non-admin comment) Far be it from me to state the obvious, isn't posting that sort of stuff illegal in most countries? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an attorney, but based on what I know of such laws from my photography work, the two images in the OP's diff are in a gray area. All the "naughty bits" are covered, even if scantily, so taken by the letter of the law, there's nothing overtly sexual about it, and manga characters are notoriously ambiguous in age. It would be up to the observer to decide whether either of them "appeals to prurient interest", as the statutes say. With my admittedly limited exposure (no pun intended) to uploading and using images in articles, I'm guessing this might be something OTRS needs to look at and make a decision on. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Manga and anime has so many sub-genres (which are notable) that WP should have an article about them...and probably should have pictures illustrating them, even if they are "in bad taste" for lack of a better description. WP is not censored. But promoting a specific game or artist should be avoided. On a side note, I would point out to others unfamiliar with Wikipe-tan (the anime girl with the WP puzzle pieces in her hair) that she has a rather dedicated following of supporters, and there's this kind of faux-consensus over numerous discussions that support using her (and her many depiction) in a bunch of semi-related articles. (If this discussion gains any momentum, expect a pile-on of editors, and, most likely, a diversionary sub-header somewhere in the future discussion thread that completely changes the subject.) Quinn ^☂THUNDER 15:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn1 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. To which I would add that in this case we were promoting the non-notable work of an artist who is banned here and on other sites. --JN466 17:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• The image was removed by admin Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) three minutes after this thread started. It has just been reintroduced by Jinnai (talk · contribs). --JN466 17:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I saw it and thought it was promotional, so I removed it for that reason - I don't object to being reverted if it's being discussed here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • There are really two concerns here, each of which is valid grounds for removal: (1) It promotes a non-notable piece of art (2) The piece of art in question is by a user who was banned here by ArbCom, is banned on Commons, and is banned from DeviantArt. It's a work of explicit pedophilia. I don't really understand why it should be controversial to remove it from the fan service article. --JN466 17:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Even though I agree with your pedophilia concerns, I think others would not agree, and that point runs the risk of throwing the discussion off track. (Not that I don't think it's important, but is a broader issue with anime/Wikipe-tan/etc. that IMO the Arb's need to make a ruling on one way or another).Quinn ^☂THUNDER 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Wow, getting banned from DeviantArt takes some doing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Just to clarify, my argument is not that the image in question is sexually explicit, but that it is taken from a work, and advertises a work, by name, that has explicit pedophile themes, like panty cams and spanking of prepubescent girls: [35][36][37][38] Kogaru Diaries simply is not an example of fan service; it is a non-notable pedophile role-playing game. As such, it is not a suitable illustration for fan service. The fact that the artist is even banned from DeviantArt makes promotion in Wikipedia all the more inappropriate. --JN466 18:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Ooh, nasty - as it's clearly not an example of "fan service", it should be expunged with all haste -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC) (move "Support" comment below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC))
• Support removing the picture on the grounds that it is from (or on behalf of) a banned user. If nothing else, at least crop the photo to eliminate the promotional name. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Edit war participant User:Jinnai wishes to protect the page. Jinnai also seems to believe that consensus has already been reached despite the ongoing discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, if you look at the talk page and the image's deletion discussion, there is enough imo to justify it being kept. With respect to Michaeldsuarez, he basically came in after seeing 1 person (other than the nom) say to remove it and did no inspite numerous legitimate arguments both there and on the image's deletion discussion that its not. While he is entitled to his opinion on whether the image is pedophilia, there is a large consensus who does not agree it is.

Whether a member was banned or not should have no affect on what the community decides as a whole; we do not go and removed non-vandalistic/non-spam/non-overtly biased text from banned members just because they were banned. If the contribution of a banned member is seen a positive, we judge the content, not the person who posted it there.

As for the FPP, considering its being brought to here and there is a large body who believes the image is fine and moreso appropriate, I believe it is warranted to have an FPP till the issue is resolved.

I would also say that there has been a longstanding campaign to remove all the free images of wikipe-tan and images like the one I restored on multiple places that imo looks like forum shopping (a thought that is shared by others).陣内_Jinnai 18:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, User: Knowledgekid87's comment is mispreresented here. He specifically said he was fine as there was no policy against it. User:Kraftos said to remove it, but mostly because of it being an advert; since its licensed under CC, the advert portion can be cropped. That indeed has been the reason for most of the removals; rather than trying for the middle ground of cropping people want to simply outright remove the image even though cropping would satisfy their stated concerns, unless they are using it as an excuse (i hope not, but considering the recent history of page and the image its hard to unquestioningly apply AFG.陣内_Jinnai 18:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Knowledgekid87, I was referring to his delete vote at Commons. --JN466 18:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

His concern is not with it being pedophilia, but advertising a banned site. If that's the big concern, I'll go ahead and crop the image and upload a new one.陣内_Jinnai 18:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I know about the campaign to remove Wikipe-tan images. I wrote a satire of it: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Wikipe-tan&diff=1998274378&oldid=1998256939. I'm actually for Wikipe-tan images, and I never asked anyone to remove a Wikipe-tan image anywhere. Nevertheless, I'm against using TGcomix's images (they're unrelated to Wikipe-tan) on Wikipedia. I didn't "move in." Jayen466's comment concerned the Wikipe-tan image, not the Kogaru Diaries image. Concerning the "numerous legitimate arguments," none of them mentioned the "Kogaru Diaries" until I entered the picture. I injected an entirely new idea into the discussion. In addition, I want you to take a look at this, this, this, this, and these. Your image of pedophilia is extremely narrow and would be disastrous in a Public Relations department. Wikipedia shouldn't use any piece of art from TGcomix's / Midnight68's "Kogarus Diaries. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that comment. We shouldn't touch that work with a barge pole; it is not a suitable source of media for this or other Wikimedia projects. --JN466 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Support removal of the picture (I've already been reverted once); in addition to the concerns raised above, I fail to see what it adds to the article; there is already an example. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have uploaded a version that does not contain the advertising. As many of the "remove" votes elsewhere were based on the advert, those should not be counted as supporting removal of this version.陣内_Jinnai 18:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing the text from the image doesn't change the fact that it's from the "Kogaru Diaries". Can't we just draw a entirely new image with an adult instead? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support as well. I had thought at the conclusion of last month's raging Wikipe-tan debates that the more pervy/creepy images were going to be removed from project-space. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well, but as with most of these child exploitation images/Wikipe-tan related discussions, it fizzles out with nobody sure what to do about anything, each side claiming consensus, and nothing changes. It's going to take Arbcom or Jimmy or somebody from Wiki-Legal to set some sort of parameters about using these pictures. I mean, perhaps an image like this would be acceptable in an article about child exploitation in manga, but there needs to be some sort of guidelines. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 19:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support the removal of anything related to this "Kogaru Diaries" thing, as it's not "fan service", it's anime/manga pedophile porn - I'm amazed that we actually have people here passionately arguing to keep this image. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC) (Support removal of Wikipe-tan image too - it's not a genuine "fan service" character. As a non-official Wikipedia icon, it's use is debatable, but I think it has no valid place in article space at all -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC))
  • Just as a comment, Kogaru Diaries images seem to be kinda all over the place. One on Underwear fetishism for example. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've removed the Underwear fetishism one, and left a comment on the article Talk page pointing people here - I think we should seek out and remove all such images -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
      • TGcomix's images are commonplace on foreign-language wikis. Here's some more of his non-deleted images hosted on Commons: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Remove. Pedophilia: the girl is too young for an encyclopedia to be encouraging the reader to leer at her. An image of an adult would be best. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Removing it is the best approach. We have one definitely free image which highlights the subject (it is not the best image, but meh). Fan service is not particularly related to images of underage girls so I don't see any particular need to use an image of one to demonstrate the topic. An acceptable second image, to me, would be one that demonstrates non-sexualised fan service. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(NB: I've just fully protected the page until this can be sorted out and the opinions of a wide number of editors can be garnered. Happy for someone else to unprotect when this discussion is resolved. Actually is taking place both here and article talk page) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've almost always taken a position of almost absolute non-censorship beyond the legal requirements. Bu tin illustrating articles on a genre or fictional concept, we normally use images from works that the reader is likely to recognize--basically, from the most highly notable works that show the range of the genre or concept. If the work and the artist are truly non-notable, that is excellent reason for not using them, regardless of their nature, if there are equally good or better images from notable works--preferably whatever is in the genre considered to be iconic. I cannot imagine there is likely to be any difficulty in finding some. This is the sort of article where a range of illustrations are necessary to illustrate the concept. However, is the work and the artist truly non-notable, or are we biased towards considering them non-notable because the work is objectionable? From the discussion, it seems they are quite familiar to people here. (If we did have to do an article on an artist who is highly notable for works of borderline legality, I suppose we would do it by picking one of the least objectionable for an illustration even if not characteristic of the range, and stating in words the characteristics of the others.). DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with the basic principles DGG expounds here. Illustrations of fan service should be iconic, notable examples. As for potential bias, being known among Wikipedians—because of past on-site controversy, in-project use etc.—and being notable in the wider world our readers inhabit are two quite different things. That applies to Wikipe-tan as an illustration of fan service as much as it does to Kogaru Diaries. FWIW, I looked this morning and found no evidence of RS coverage of Kogaru Diaries or its creator. --JN466 21:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support removing both images from the article - I hate to be the one who drags Wikipetan into this, but since we are discussing images used in the article, how can Wikipetan, a fictional character not part of a manga or anime series, be used to illustrate something that happens in manag and anime? An image of Wikipetan in a bikini was recently deleted at Commons, but here is another image of Wikipetan in a bikini being used in another article. I think perhaps it is time to draw a clearer line between use of Wikipetan in project space and use of WIkipetan in article space. . Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • So personal dislike of a character has become the new threshold for non-inclusion in Wikipedia. Wow. Talk about biased.陣内_Jinnai 23:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Did you actually read that comment by Delicious carbuncle? It doesn't say anything at all about personal dislike, but about non-notability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Oops. That was meant for MuZemike, however, I'll note DC has a history of being against every Wikipe-tan image so while it was an accident, given his(?) history I would have to assume his reson for removal of the images is WP:IDONTLIKEIT for Wikipe-tan.
      • He also wants us to violate WP:NFCC by requiring any image of fan service be used in an existing manga or anime.陣内_Jinnai 23:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • You do not appear to understand NFCC. For example, we use File:Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg in several articles, even though it is from 1968 and copyrighted. Fair use is based on the fact that it is a notable representative of the article topics it is used for. The same goes for fan service. Find a notable, iconic example that is cited by multiple sources, and use of it in Wikipedia becomes fair. --JN466 23:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Jinnai, there is no reason for you to assume my reasons - I gave them. And if you are going to start making accusations against people who hold a different view than you do, I am asking you to provide diffs. I have in no way advocated violating NFCC by asking for the removal of the images, so please do not try to put words in my(?) mouth. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Jinnai, I really don't think you'll do your case any good by trying to turn this into a personal criticism of other editors, and by making up their reasons for them - you really should leave people to state their own reasons themselves -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm not doing anything that hasn't been done to me. Others have assumed what I said to mean X.陣内_Jinnai 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
            • I can understand it's annoying if that's happened to you, but retaliation in kind only makes things worse -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • " An image of Wikipetan in a bikini was recently deleted at Commons, but here is another image of Wikipetan in a bikini being used in another article." < That image has since been restored so I do not know how that can hold any water here. Also fan service is not just confined to anime and manga works as was stated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support removal per Delicious carbuncle. This is not censorship, as some contend, as it is exercising editorial discretion. As far as I am concerned, there is no context to include images of Wikipetan in an actual Wikipedia article, even of this sort. Given that she is currently a contentious figure on en.wiki and that the community cannot agree as to whether or not she represents Wikipedia as its mascot (official or unofficial), we shouldn't be forcing it one way especially in the mainspace. –MuZemike 22:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In the caption box however it mentions: A bathing suit is typical "fan service". There is no single mention of wikipe-tan in that sentence, in fact if you remove the puzzle pieces from the image you have a fan service image and yes it can be done because wikipe-tan is a free use picture and as such benefits this article with an image. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support removing both images from the article per Delicious Carbuncle. --JN466 22:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• This is pretty clear, it needs to be removed unless there are some reliable sources linking it to (or showing a relationship with) Fan Service. Not even a question. RxS (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support removing both images from the article per DC and MuZemike. It's not rocket science, people - Alison ^❤ 01:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose removing Wikipetan image To echo the opinion I expressed on the article talk page, where this is also being discussed, I think the Wikipetan fan service image is very illustrative of the concept, particularly for anyone who is already familiar with Wikipetan. That said, if someone had an alternative image that it could be replaced with that would not have copyright problems, I wouldn't object, but all of the images should not be removed. Also, since the primary issue raised here has been addressed, shouldn't the Wikipetan discussion continue at the talk page where it was started? Monty₈₄₅ 02:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose removing Wikipetan image Image is of fair use and is thus not easily replaced, this image has a deletion request over at the commons and currently has a down the line Keep consensus there. How many more places and consensus hearings does this need to go through? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose removing Wikipetan image War | Battle | Strife | Strike |Clash. Yeah let continue the long extended Wikipe-tan global conflict :) Currently this is the most suitable free image available at Commons to illustrate the article. If you can demonstrate that this image is unsuitable then no image at Commons is suitable. On a such basis we will be allowed to use non free to illustrate the article and there are "certainly" relevant non free images that even can fend off accusation of Original Research --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support removing both images from the article per DC and MuZemike.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the various Booru boards contain a quantity of borderline material which a competently crafted bot is uploading right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noon68 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Re Wikipe-tan, I've proposed using an alternative Commons image to illustrate the article that seems more suitable (File:Anime_Girl.svg). --JN466 13:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan bikini outfit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

OrangeMike self-reverted his edit of the fully protected page, so there is no longer a question about administrative action. The issue of whether to include Wikipe-tan in the article is already an active topic of discussion at Talk:Fan service and should be continued there. Dragons flight (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

---

• • Since the article was editprotected [44] has gone in and inspite clear consensus both here, on the deletion discussion at at WP:Anime removed the image. Since its editprotected, and there is consensus to have that image in there, I would like an admin to restore that image; the dispute that caused the edit protection was not about that image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnai (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 April 2011
    • Te best approach here is to talk directly to OrangeMike; he shouldn't be removing the image because the article is under full protection (regardless of the merits of the removal or replacment). It could well have been a mistake, I am sure he will self-revert if you point it out :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• I support removal of the image. It's in no way, shape or form an image that is notable in the wider world as an example of fan service. --JN466 22:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • While it might possibly not have been appropriate to have removed it while under full protection, this image has no place in this article - Wikipe-tan is not a notable "Fan service" character (or a notable character of any description, in fact) and should not be anywhere in article space -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm reverting for procedural reasons, but that image is an obvious WP:COATRACK violation, as it is totally and utterly irrelevant to the subject of the article where it is used. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• • • I would beg to differ. She has been noted by numerous news organizations as associated with the Wikimedia Project (specifically Wikipedia). Of course those reports aren't accurate since she's a fan mascot, but they still attest that those claiming she's "unknown in the wider world" are just basing things on their own opinion rather than fact.
    • The image was also created as a depicition of fan service by her creator and notability doesn't play a part in article content.陣内_Jinnai 23:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
      • She may have been noted by published sources as associated with Wikimedia, but has she been noted by such sources as an example of fan service? Because the article is about fan service, not Wikimedia. --JN466 23:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Exactly. What I'm saying is that if we want an example of X, we should use a real example of X, not something made to look like X just for Wikipedia - we should use a genuine example of a noted fan service -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
          • The creator has said on his deviantart page that is a depiction of fan service. Surely you're not claiming the artist doesn't know when he creates something, especially something intended for use on an article page as an example, that he doesn't know what he's talking about?陣内_Jinnai 23:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
            • OK, so can I make an image of a duck on DeviantArt, say it's an elephant and use it in List of mammals with big ears? OK, that's a bit sarcastic, but the point is that there are real genuine examples out there that are not deliberately made as an illustration of the style, which our NFC policy allows us to use - do you really not think that would be better? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
              • That's not a comparison because it doesn't illustrate the text. So yeah, that sarcastic remark isn't even close to what we have here and you know it. We're not trying to use this image to describe an anti-hero. We're using it to describe fan service, something that if you read the text, the image does.陣内_Jinnai 23:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Kasuga states on his DA user page "It's mere fanservice, lol." That doesn't make it a suitable image to illustrate the article fan service. --JN466 00:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
              • Yes, in and of itself it doesn't. But it doesn't try to introduce new and unpublished ideas. It depicts something the article text (which is backed by RSes) says, girls in swimsuits.陣内_Jinnai 00:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
                • The new and unpublished idea, which is alien to published anime and manga works, is Wikipe-tan, the girl with puzzle pieces glued to her head. Please find a real-life, iconic example of fan service in manga or anime, upload it with a fair use rationale. You can use the Warhol example I posted above as a licensing model. Perhaps document sources referring to it as such an example for added security. Then add it to the article, and the project and its readers will be served. --JN466 00:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure why you wanted to say "possibly' - there was no pressing need for the image to be removed, there was no consensus, and the article is fully protected. It was, I'm sure, just an error, but it wasn't an appropriate one. - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
      • It's just a figure of speech - this is about the image, not about grammar pedantry -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote.svg

File:Vote.svg has just been deleted from Commons. There are an awful lot of links to that file, at the English Wikipedia and elsewhere. Can this be fixed before the delinker bot starts to damage all those pages? I suggest File:A coloured voting box.svg as a temporary replacement. The image has (had?) permanent full protection, so I think the fix needs an admin. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've pointed the commons admin who deleted the image at this thread. Exxolon (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That file was a derivative work of a file lacking permission (File:Voting box clipart.gif), which was not deleted by myself, as you can see in the log. The copyright status of the original image was not verifiable. I was concerned about the significant usage of this file and the original that it was derived from, and posted the concern on the copyright questions page, but as I said, the source image was deleted by another administrator. We can't really ignore licensing issues just because an image is widely used. The image was marked as missing permission since December 22, 2010, so I can't fault the other administrator either. Adrignola (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

And this is why I hate Commons. It never would have occurred to them to create at least something to replace the deleted image temporarily, or even tell the rest of us about this. No, they just delete and damn the other projects that are forced to work with Commons. A good idea co-opted by mindless bureaucrats and wannabe lawyers, at this point I'm for requiring deletion discussions on commons to transclude to the proper place in each local project, as we never find out that they're about to pull the rug out from under us until our asses are on the floor wondering what happened. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Four days ago I added a request for just that sort of thing at Commons. Seems your comments provide a more recent example of the ill-will I remember seeing previously toward Commons. This follows the lackluster response I got posting the idea six days ago on the village pump. Adrignola (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, it's this sort of action that causes users, myself included, to feel that it is much better to just host images on-wiki and not deal with Commons. To date, all the images I have ever uploaded (which are very few, I admit) have been on-wiki. Silverseren^C 19:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Silver seren here. Yes, Commons is independent etc etc etc but it's there to support the other Wikimedia projects, and at the very least should be notifying the major Wikipedias somewhere when they take a unilateral action that they know will cause massive disruption. – iridescent 19:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use files have to be hosted locally anyway. For other files, if they were deleted at Commons due to copyright issues, there's no reason to think they wouldn't be deleted here as well given time. Uploading locally would just be trying to take advantage of less oversight on images here. If you upload to Commons you will be notified of deletion discussion on your images or when an image you upload has an issue, such as no license/source/permission and get an email for the talk page change if you so desire. Adrignola (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just not true; the copyright rules on Commons are much more onerous than they are on wikipedia. I agree with Silver seren, Commons has become too much hassle to bother with. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

They're not "much more onerous", at least for user-produced content (which should never be fair use). And if one is doing it right it doesn't matter whether things get uploaded here or to Commons as properly-licensed content can make its way to Commons by itself. Very few pieces of falling sky in my umbrella tonight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, that's not true. Commons demands that an image is out of copyright in its country of origin. wikipedia demands that it's out of copyright according to Florida law. Big difference. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris, my main issue is that they do an incredibly shitty job at caring about the impact they have on the other projects that are, at this point, pretty much forced to deal with commons. They make no effort to communicate with other projects, they don't factor cross-WMF impact into their discussions, and when you confront them, they almost universally say that it's "not their problem". You know what? That's a damn inappropriate way to behave and speaks very poorly about their character as people. Until Commons decides as an organization to work with the rest of the family, they're going to continue to be that second cousin everyone hates but still invites to family gatherings because they have to. Should commons delete inappropriate content? Yes they should. But if a file is being used by another project, they have an obligation to tell that project the day the file goes up for deletion. Finding out that a file used on hundreds of pages got deleted on commons only when the file disappears breeds the kind of hatred or distrust of commons that you're seeing here. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that sentiment. I was responding to the point that Commons has unnecessary licensing requirements. Well, so do we: it's sort of what free content is about. Commons is particularly anal about it, but so long as there is a good enough feedback loop that shouldn't be a problem for us. The problem is the feedback loop, not the licensing requirements. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

JFYI: Per request at commons:Commons:Help_desk#Vote.svg i have created a redir to the replacement file as a temporary workaround. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Continuing and responding to the point about on-wiki uploading, yes, stuff that is deleted on Commons will also likely end up being deleted here on-wiki as well. However, the primary difference is that, in deleting it here, we'll make sure to follow the proper procedure and delink things beforehand so that the deletion doesn't end up disrupting hundreds of articles. Commons, on the other hand, doesn't notify the various Wikipedias when they are going to delete something and, when it is pointed out to them, say that it is not their problem. Well, if it's not going to be their problem, then i'm going to make sure that they have absolutely no say in the images I upload, as I will be uploading them on-wiki and they won't be able to do a thing about it. Silverseren^C 22:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I wonder why nobody here bothered to get CommonsTicker running. Seems to work fine on other projects. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

    It's long been defunct. See contributions. That's why I'd like to see a replacement, so I don't have to feel like a bad guy working at Commons. Adrignola (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  Delinking would have been disruptive (had a negative impact) on us here anyway as the icon in question was still needed. What was needed was appropriate feedback which would allow for a replacement to be provided before deletion. As for a CommonsTicker replacement, someone on Commons said that dewiki already has one: can't theirs be cloned? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal abuses/acquisitions

This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nasnema (sorry used whole link, as was unsure how to do it otherwise) - repeatedly dismissed suggestions as well as accusing me of being 'drunk' and saying I should 'go to bed'. This just because I suggested a change to the Ricky Gervais article. I provided a source for the change. See talk page for whole discussion. The discussion in question was titled 'English', I was using a ip address as wasn't logged in. Robmanu7 (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Without delving into this too deeply, it's clear that this was out of line. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• And on the other hand, Robmanu, you hadn't notified Nasnema of your complaint here. I just did that for you. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• It seems to me that we have an ordinary content dispute here. Robmanu is well into 3R territory, and I've left a warning on their talk page, and the same applies to Nasnema (this is not a case of outright vandalism). AFAIK, there is no rule on Wikipedia for handling such a naming dispute (and I've asked around)--in short, it is a matter for the talk page, where these two editors are apparently engaged in somewhat civil discussion. I can't really find consensus on the topic in the history. Unless someone wants to slap one or the other editor for some incivility, I'd consider this case closed. Do I hear a second? Drmies (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Question...

Resolved

 – Silliness is tolerated on Wikipedia, regrettably.  Sandstein  13:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a guideline against vandalizing your own talk page? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 01:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it really vandalism? It seems to me to be a reference to some YouTube material which the editor in question thinks is funny. I don't, but given the diverse nature of humour, who are we to argue? HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The user's only edit other then what they did to their talk page was pretty clearly vandalism. So it looks like what they did to their own talk page was probably intended to be as well. It may still fall into the wide latitude you get with your user space, but it seems to be pushing that boundary if it hasn't outright exceeded it. Monty₈₄₅ 01:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We do have policies such as WP:NOTWEBSPACE, which is sometimes cited in the removal of such text. But a note on the editor's talk page with an explanation is probably more fruitful than an ANI thread, and will either spark more outright vandalism or clarify things for that editor. It's worth a shot, Erpert. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be vandalism really. -- Avanu (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Disregard then. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – Blocked 48h, serious threat or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a legal threat here. Since the IP's other edit moments earlier was to vandalize a page, I don't think it is legit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:HOUND & WP:NPA

Reporting long-term WP:HOUNDING and long-term abuse by User:Timbouctou (forgive the length of the post, am trying to describe a long-lasting problem in a few words). After his recent arrival on Talk:Croats, the user posted one provocation after another, and in spite of being met by neutrality or even good faith on my part, succeded in completely disrupting any creative discussion and inflaming a conflict. After my having consented to the user's desired article changes, the provocations continued, finally causing a personal conflict. Seeing as how the issue was settled (in accordance with his wishes), I asked User:Timbouctou to please avoid me (seeing as how he obviously hates my guts). A mistake, apparently, since in the immediate aftermath of that request the user followed me to all other discussions I am or was involved in recently, opposed anything I proposed, and continued to insult and provoke. The user continues to follow me around, and I would like to see if something can possibly be done about this.
A more detailed description supported by diffs follows:

I cannot stress enough that the discussion on Talk:Croats was decently friendly and amicable up to the point User:Timbouctou arrived and posted the listed comments, and that my responses to User:Timbouctou (available for review Talk:Croats#Josip Broz Tito) were that of a person not quite understanding why he is being attacked and slandered by some user out of the clear blue sky.

• The user's very first recent post there (Talk:Croats#Josip Broz Tito) has a very belligerent and abrasive tone, among otehr things I am being described as "blabbering something" [45]. I had not spoken a word to the guy for months beforehand, and we never really had any previous conflicts.
• I was frankly very much surprised at such an attitude. This must be taken in the context of a discussion that was very civil up to that point, with absolutely no bad blood. An excerpt from the user's second post:

"I love it how he [DIREKTOR] thinks he is the only one who understands wiki policies and I just love it how he loves to be bold, but denies the same right to everyone else. Sure DIREKTOR - the thing you made is a work of genius, all praise to you - but it will be taken down unless you can prove that this article needs images in the infobox at all. Regards. (P.S. - The only reason the whole discussion started last November was over the fact that there were too few women in the picture - and after everything was said and done and after DIREKTOR decided to make this topic his little bitch what we have is one woman out of twelve images - and Savka is not even the woman we voted for - the consensus agreed on Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, Janica Kostelić and/or Blanka Vlašić. Well done DIREKTOR, you truly are a beacon of democracy around here.)"

• In his third post [46], again completely unprovoked I cannot stress that enough, the user calls me 1) "arrogant", he says I'm 2) "blabbering", 3) a "hypocrite", 4) "stubborn", describes a discussion I started as 5) "idiotic", adding "I said it, sue me"
• Fourth post: the user simply abandoned discussion and started edit-warring after the article had been peaceful for almost a month. He "declared" that he was starting an edit war with "Until you learn to participate in discussions your edits will be reverted without warning." [47]
• Fifth post, "bully", "troll" [48].
• This is followed by "Lol, your arrogance never ceases to amaze me" [49]. At the time I was still mostly surprised by all this hostility, I responded:

"Look you hate me or whatever, and I'm sory for that, but I'm not "arrogant". Did I not tell you just back there that the very reason I introduced this format is its flexibility? If you want to add/remove someone in particular to the infobox it can now actually be done more easily. Do you have any actual changes to propose? Lets discuss. Or do you just "hate me" and want to be insulting and start edit wars?"

etc.
I eventually agreed to all his proposed infobox image changes, and implemented them myself in a gesture of good will. I did not, however, add one image (out of 16) because its licensing was fair use, and I said so on the talkpage. He promptly accused me of "playing dumb", and stated the he "expects to see it included". I kinda lost it after that and told him to please leave me alone after habing his way with this Talk:Croats affair. Almost INSTANTLY I see his posts on the two other talkpages I am involved at, followed by a third shortly after. Insulting me all the way, and opposing even without any reasonable argument. (I will only post a few examples since the report is already pretty huge.)

• Talk:Yugoslav Front. "naive editors like Fainites who seem to have an endless capacity for putting up with your bullshit." [50]
• Talk:Serbs of Croatia, where he arrived and decided to "oppose" my edits on the grounds that listing secondary university publications is "WP:OR" :), is among other things home to "you're a troll", and "You're a paranoid individual with a greatly over-exaggerated sense of one's own importance. There are far more better terms for your activities on Wikipedia than 'edits'." [51]
• Talk:Ante Pavelić. Here an infobox issue had actually been concluded quite amicably a while ago. Seeing this, User:Timbouctou posted a new thread opposing my position in the recently-concluded discussion, taking the opportunity to insult my mental health: "your psychiatrist should know." [52]

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• The situation is a tad more complex then presented here and is already being discussed at User talk:Fainites, an administrator who has been involved with the problem over the past few days. I'd appreciate it if whoever is in charge of responding to these reports waited a day or two before deciding on sanctions, should any occur. I might add that I have no intention of debating this with User:DIREKTOR here and if anyone in charge is interested, a lenghty post describing the situation can be found here. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Do not try to confuse the issue. The complexity lies in the issues discussed, not in your conduct. The obvious hounding and personal attacks are very straightforward matter indeed. As for Fainites, the admin you apparently consider "naive", I posted this here so as to spare him any further trouble with this nonsense. I have informed him of this, hopefully the man will take a break from all this Balkans nonsense. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• You are not being truthful. These were all two-sided exchanges and you have been reprimanded by an admin several times for it in the past few days. You have been explicitly warned to stop being aggressive on your own talk page here and before that here. Timbouctou (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am being truthful. These were two-sided exchanges but the overt insults and WP:HOUNDING were overwhelmingly on one side. The same side that worked very hard to provoke the conflict.
  I admit I myself lost my temper after almost a week of continuous abuse, and I say so above, but there is in essence no comparison. Not least because you are the one who, out of the clear blue, started goading me to the best of your abilities, and then followed me around to pick a fight out of malice.
  The editor who warned us both was not aware of the above, or of your previous abhorrant behavior which brought about the aggressive atmosphere in the first place, the initial exchange having occured in a seperate talkpage section. You also curiously turned a lot more civil with an admin around (though that phase did not last very long, apparently). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The complain here by direktor is something that the word ridicolous just wouldn´t be enough. I will like all admins to read Timouctou´s comment on User_talk:Fainites#Block.3F which describes it all, and btw in a light manner. I fully subscribe Timbouctou´s words on that comment and much more could be added. We have a disruptive editor (direktor) that constantly creates battlegrounds all over Yugoslav related articles. He may have wrongly convinced in the past some admins that he was actually victim, but after 2 years of experience, many editors from many different nationalities have all gathered because they have been fed up of constant disruption and uncivility of this user. This was just the last exemple in which I have been involved that ended also with direktor being forgiven for clear disruption, beside all evidence and a total consensus from all other editors. Now, direktor, you just can´t say that this time I´m saying this because of the mediation, because you gave it up, so it has nothing to do with it anymore, but rather to expose your toal manipulation of this report against an excellent, one of the most productive, cooperative and NPOV editors ever found of Yugoslav area of wiki. I basically have all the best words for Timbouctou, and all the worste against you, and I´m not saying this because of our divergencies, because I had also divergences with Timbouctou, but those with him are allways constructive, while any action of yours on wiki, well I wouldn´t be exagerating to say that is allways destructive. An editor that constantly wants to make a point, consides every discussion and life and death battle and that didn´t contributed in any constructive way should really think about his actions first. I propose a topic ban for direktor and I really beleave most established editors on the area will agree. FkpCascais (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• @Direktor: Whatever. All I ask is that the discussions in question are considered in their entirety. You are pulling stuff out of context - and btw no - we were not BOTH warned, only YOU were. Post a diff from my talk page if you can find one, please. As for your "hopefully the man will take a break from all this Balkans nonsense" comment - I bet you'd love that wouldn't you. Timbouctou (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As some editors here know, User:FkpCascias is something of an "arch-nemesis" of mine, that also likes to do drop out of the clear blue sky, completely uninvolved, to oppose me because I'm me :). I have posted a report because of the overt insults and abuse I have had to endure for weeks now, and the fact that User:Timbouctou has been stalking me all over Wikipedia. I'm reasonably sure the responding admin will addres the topic of the thread, in spite of efforts by the "We Hate DIREKTOR" Club. If any of the users have a complaint regarding my beavior, they know full well they can post a seperate thread about their concerns. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you menaged to create an anti-you club composed of most editors of many different nationalities and opinions that actually solve their issues in a normal and civil way and that are fed up of your years long constant battlefield on a already sensitive area. We are actually a group of editors that peacefully edit and discuss articles and we are only not more productive because of unbelivebly tolerated constant disruption of yours. FkpCascais (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have been out of it when this kicked off. The kids are all ill. In short - I have been adminning around the Balkans pages for a while, trying to avoid getting involved in content and trying to bring - without much success, some order to the process. Whilst on occasion it has been possible to achieve a degree of consensus and some progress - for example the Yugoslav Front infobox belligerents section and the 16 pictures of famous Croats, these scarcely figure against the background of disruptive, party political editing and personal emnity. It is striking that on occasions, for example the translation of Yugoslav Front, even when consensus is begrudgingly reached, nobody bothers to make the actual changes to the article. Everybody went off and started a punch up somewhere else. Another example is the Croats infobox pictures. No sooner had agreement been reached than an almost identical argument continued on the Serbs of Croatia article. It is painfully apparent that serious editors are probably avoiding the whole mess like the plague. On the first attempt to rename Yugoslav Front, there was a lot of valid, serious input. The second and third attempts have just consisted of the usual personalised rants. I have not posted any diffs here because really one needs to read the talkpages involved.

In short, after several weeks of involvment, and after analysing the ARBCom decision on Balkans articles, I have come to the conclusion that DIREKTOR should be topic banned for a period of time for disruption. It is all but impossible for any other editor to edit or express a view contrary to his without DIREKTOR aggressively personalising the issue and laying down the law. I have tried reasoning with him on the subject on his talkpage. here and here. I do not know if he just doesn't get it or if he is pretending to be naive. His apology was not followed by any change in behaviour. I appreciate that this whole area is infected by nationalist and IP POV pushing. I have in general avoided taking a bureaucratic line on strongly expressed views, accusations of POV (inevitable in this topic) and reverts against nationalist editing. The field is full of wind up merchants. However, many of the articles are in a parlous state. The mediation on Mihailovic has dragged on for a year with no sign of resolution.

I am not proposing to indef topic ban DIREKTOR. He is knowledgable in the field and can be a useful editor though with a tendancy to select those sources that support his POV and aggressivley reject others. (For example promoting the use of Sabrina Ramet on one article when she was opposed for being a political scientist rather than a historian, then opposing her for the exact same reason on another). However, currently he acts as if he owns the whole topic and no-one else is allowed to edit without his approval.

Timbouctou has certainly been rude but it is quite wrong to suggest this was initiated by him with DIREKTOR only responding under provocation. I warned him also because his last argument with DIREKTOR become unacceptably abusive on both sides. The occasional spat is not the problem and can be easily resolved with warnings and short blocks when they get out of hand. The problem in my view is the overall pattern of aggressive WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT by DIREKTOR. Timbouctou has appeared on a number of Balkans pages recently. DIREKTOR appears on most of them. So do FkpCascais and Wustenfuchs and some others. It's all one big argument on the same theme carried on over numerous linked topics.

There are others who are frequently unproductive, contribute litttle other than argument and poke people with sticks. I was not proposing any immediate blocks of anyone else now though. 

I am proposing, under the terms of the arbcom decision, to topic ban DIREKTOR from all yugoslav/balkan related articles for 1 month.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

New spam only account.

Resolved

 – Blocked indef as spam-only account, as the URL they were spamming matches their username, which makes it a clear vio of the username policy as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Agent4lee started an account and immediately began spamming the article Cape Coral, Florida.[53], [54] After removing the 2 spam entries, I gave the user a level 1 spam warning.[55]. Editor immediately went back and added the spam back manually. [56]. Spam removed, another template message [57]. Not sure if he will continue or not. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• User notified [58] Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Factlover1

I think that this editor's aggressive behavior toward other editors has become detrimental. See this thread at editor assistance for details. Danger (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly don't condone the uncivil comments of Factlover1 I do understand their frustation. It was some way in to the thread before Factlover1 was pointed to OTRS, which is what they really needed, and when shown that, the response was civil. I understand that the vast majority of copyright breaches really do not have permission, but that is no excuse for lazy replies, especially at EAR which is supposed to be helping user's with this sort of thing. Factlover1 has been warned, they have the information they need, the thread is now closed, hopefully they will take note of the warnings and not repeat. SpinningSpark 09:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User Rklawton "A dirty, rotten, low-life, disruptive trick"

Hi, all. I'm having a difficult time communicating with admin user Rklawton in a thread (link/permalink) at the talk page for our article on Prescott Bush, grandfather to George W. Bush. The conflict started after he and another user deleted the only mention in the article of the matter of Geronimo's bones, a single "see also" link to our article on the Native American Chief.

I'm not asking for help with the content dispute, which has to do with whether allegations should be included in the article that Prescott Bush dug up bones from a graveyard when he was stationed at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in 1918, and then presented those to his pals in Yale's Skull and Bones society as being those of Geronimo, who was buried at Fort Sill in 1909.

I am asking for admin help, though, to prevent Rklawton's very aggressive, ownership/battleground behavior from continuing. After I objected to his post saying I was "sneaking around", and I provided further basis in policy for including the content, he wrote, "There's consensus not to add that kind of crap to this article, so it will be removed on sight."

By saying there was "consensus not to add that kind of crap" he appears to have meant anything critical of Prescott Bush, even if that criticism does happen to have been reported by every major news outlet in the United States, and been discussed at some length in at least three books. An investigation of this article's history gives me the strong impression that Rklawton, in concert with one other editor primarily, has been essentially standing guard over this article, intimidating other editors who seek to add any critical information.

( Editors who want to examine that assertion further should review this section of our article, which has been a special point of focus, and especially should compare the weight given there to the 2004 article from The Guardian − not quoted from at all, and dismissed as the work of a "conspiracy theorist" − to the weight given to this nearly illegible primary source and this 2003 statement from the Anti-Defamation League, quoted essentially in its entirety to dismiss the allegations in the later 2004 Guardian article as "an internet rumor". )

I next posted additional policy links and discussion to the talk page, and Rklawton responded with this post:

"a well considered and thoughtful reply"

Let me be more clear - this bullshit was removed previously from the article. Trying to re-add it via "see also" was a dirty, rotten, low-life, and yes - disruptive - trick. So the disruption was adding it - not removing it. If you want to add it back - discuss it here first. If you'd like to spend your time critiquing my editing, feel free, but Wikilawyering won't win you any points. In fact, Wikilawyering often backfires for reasons that should be obvious and don't bear repeating.

The "see also" link that Rklawton was objecting to here had been in the article, subject to some recent edit warring, for at least a year. He and another user deleted it on April 7th (UTC), I restored it, once, posting at length to the talk page about the policy basis for doing so, and he again deleted it, three hours later. I did agree on the talk page, btw, that a "see also" link wasn't the right place for this content, and stated my intention there, prior to Rklawton's comment above, to add it to the body of the article, something I haven't done yet.

I'm sorry to have to bring this here, but it seems pretty clear that Rklawton won't tolerate any critical information being fairly represented in this article if he can possibly help it, and that he's perfectly willing to try to bully other editors to prevent that from happening. I know he's an admin, but he's still obliged to conform to our policies disallowing personal attacks, battleground behavior, and article ownership, and I'd appreciate it if the community would take whatever steps are necessary to try to make him understand that. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've no opinion about the content dispute, but obtaining the input of more uninvolved editors, such as via an RfC, might help. I agree, though, that the comment by Rklawton was strongly incivil and uncollegial, especially from an editor who as an administrator is expected to adhere to higher standards of conduct, and is in my opinion grounds for a block (though I am aware that many editors think that civility blocks are seldom useful).  Sandstein  13:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)