Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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 Beware that that page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs is not affiliated with any mirror site.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, 11 months and 20 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 [1]. Corvus cornix_talk 06:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Further unsupported BLP violation: [2]. 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: [3]). Disputed family names and disputed company names and it didn't exactly come to an answer. I think all editors are now at least 'acting' in good faith, and we just need to stick to sources on the talk page for now. 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)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm still not seeing any evidence of bad faith editing, apart from not citing a source. And since the article is about a corporation, not an individual, I'm not even sure how WP:BLP applies. I ask again, is there actual evidence that he's accusing anyone, as opposed to reporting on accusations made by others? If not, the entire ANI report here would seem to be nothing more than a bad case of "consensus didn't go my way and I'm going to make someone hurt for it." That's not how Wikipedia works. (Congress, maybe. But not Wikpedia.)

Also, perhaps now is a good time to remind everyone that the absolute defense to libel is truth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, another reminder to add, is that the WP:BLP policy does not exist for the primary purpose of avoiding litigation. (My mini-essay on the subject expands that slightly.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What part of {a person's name} was criminally charged in Nevada 8 or 9 years ago, and those records are available is a sourced non-violation of BLP? Corvus cornix_talk 04:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You're ignoring the elephant in the room: Allied Artists International is an article about a corporation, not a person. Therefore, BLP does NOT apply. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I'm posting? The name I redacted above is a PERSON, not a CORPORATION. Corvus cornix_talk 16:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have read this entire ANI, the article in question, and WB's Talk page and contribution history, as well as several of the links from the latter two. There are two issues that stand out: WB85's WP:PRIMARY issues, as pointed out by Ocaasi, and a content dispute between you and WB85, as pointed out by the remainder of the exchange. Your incredulity and unwillingness to see anyone else's points don't change those two simple, stubborn, irreducible facts. Were I an admin (which, as should be clear by now, I am not), I'd be directing both of you to the dispute resolution process, with a further admonishment to WB85 to review WP:PRIMARY and include citations/references to support changes to articles. Since I'm not an admin, and since you don't seem to be interested in my input, I'm walking away from this topic, effective now. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. WB is posting accusations of criminal activity without supporting them with reliable sources. I do not understand why you don't see that, and I do not see what more I need to do to point this out. I'm tired of beating my head against a brick wall. I'm done. Do something or don't do something, but BLP is not optional. Corvus cornix_talk 19:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the details here but some of this discussion concerns me. We definitely shouldn't be telling people to go look up court records, particularly not in a BLP. If no one else has published details the these charges then they don't belong in the article. P.S. I briefly read [4] and it concerns me even more that in what seems like an incredibly complex case stuff may have been added or at least proposed to be added based on an editor's analysis of multiple court records Nil Einne (talk) 23:03, 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 [5], [6], [7], [8]). Several editors, including myself, Kraftlos (talk · contribs), Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs) and Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs) ([9]), have expressed concern on the article talk page and/or in Commons that the work the image advertises seems to be in violation of [10] and [11]. I had removed the image this morning after the concerns voiced in Commons. Melodia's edit summary in restoring the image was "Stop trolling, please".

Advertising a work by a banned user in Wikipedia that is themed around pedophilia and child sexual abuse is not what Wikipedia should be about. Admin intervention is requested; I would like to see Melodia warned for irresponsible editing that could result in harm to this project. --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: [12][13][14][15] Kogaru Diaries simply is not an example of fan service; it is a non-notable pedophile role-playing game. As such, it is not a suitable illustration for fan service. The fact that the artist is even banned from DeviantArt makes promotion in Wikipedia all the more inappropriate. --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: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. --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)

• 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)

• Support removing both. Pedophilia appears to be part of mainstream Japanese culture, but it's illegal in most of the world, and especially in the US, where our servers are. Keeping the picture that is currently not in the article removed is therefore a non-brainer. The Wikipe-tan bikini picture is more of a borderline case, but the character is without a doubt depicted as under 18, and the context in which the picture appears removes any doubts that the sexualisation is intentional. Hans Adler 14:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • First, I think that is a gross misrepresentation of Japanese culture - and, on a personal note, I encourage you to visit the country and learn about it before making such unfair comments! Secondly; this is a depiction of underage girls, but it is not pedophilia. This is a relatively important distinction. I think it is important only to factor in the depiction/association as a factor. We have legitimate depiction of underage girls in minimal clothing in other articles (besides, you've probably watched American Beauty, a great film and definitely closer to the divide than many of these images). Ultimately there is not anything legally wrong with them. I think that the issue of it being a depiction of underage girls does factor into a removal argument, it is not sufficient to be the only valid reasoning --Errant ^(chat!) 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I was using the term pedophilia in its more general sense, which includes preference by significantly older people for not fully developed adolescents. Although I didn't say it clearly, the girl looks to me as if she must be at most 14, possibly younger. However, I am a European and since I know Japanese women generally look a lot younger to me than they are it seems conceivable that Japanese girls also look a lot younger. Sorry if I offended you. I have now googled for "pedophilia in Japan" and found that it's probably not so much a misrepresentation as it is a stereotype which, as most stereotypes, does appear to be rooted in a real, measurable difference that is, however, dominated by internal variance.

    I cannot respond as to whether what you call "legitimate depiction of underage girls in minimal clothing in other articles" is actually legitimate or not. I simply don't know what you are talking about. (The same holds for the film American Beauty. I know that there is a film of that name, but I don't even know what it is about. It sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me.) Hans Adler 20:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support removal — Ched :  ?  18:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Administrator note: This board is only for discussing incidents, which need administrative intervention. This dispute is, however, purely editorial. Administrators have no authority to resolve content disputes or to order removal of images based on opinions of editors expressed on this page. So this "vote" is meaningless. Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • (1) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and a consensus on one of Wikipedia's most busy pages is not meaningless. (2) Staying well clear of illegal content is not a purely editorial decision. Hans Adler 19:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I feel like this chat has gotton out of control here, it was orginally for one image but the wikipe-tan image discussion has since become mixed up with this discussion, there is already another discussion going on at Talk:Fan service. The image in question is up for deletion over at the commons with more recent commons in favor of deletion due to it's nature (If it is deleted problem solved there) the wikipe-tan image is also over for deletion at the commons but has a solid keep consensus going for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• I don't know why we're even arguing about this. Pro-pedophilia advocacy has been bannable here for a long, long time. Jtrainor (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone should be accused of pro-paedophilia advocacy by simply because they support the inclusion of the original image. Having said that, it is worth noting that the originator of those images has been blocked by ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There are two colliding discussions one over "Kogaru Diaries" that should be removed for various reasons and not just the one creating the discussion here and the other on a "Wikipe-tan" image both present on the Fan Service article. As far as i can tell "Kogaru Diaries" is removed and will remain so, "Wikipe-tan" is likely to be removed and replaced. Meanwhile another discussion to remove "Kogaru Diaries from Commons is under way and discussions for the removal of several "Wikipe-tan" images from Commons ended with Kept or very likely ending this way to much the chagrin of some editors here. I guess that Commons isn't English wiki. --KrebMarkt (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
    • There are several aspects to bear in mind for Wikipe-tan.
      1. Wikipe-tan started out as a mascot for the Manga WikiProject. It seems appropriate as such, conforms to manga style, and Commons should host it to support those projects that wish to use it.
      2. Then there is the use of Wikipe-tan in mainspace. That is always inappropriate, unless reliable source coverage of the article subject references Wikipe-tan.
      3. Then there is the fact that a few Wikipe-tan images are in danger of crossing the line towards overt pedophilia and crass sexism. Examples are File:Wikipe-tan-in-seaside-cropped.png, with the waterline at the little girl's crotch, or File:Jumping_Wikipe-tan.png, which some editors feel is overtly sexist. Finding an editor blocked in Commons for their pedophilia advocacy in the edit history of some of these Wikipe-tan files doesn't help. As a representation of Wikimedia projects, these images are a turn-off to many editors, alienating in particular female editors, of whom we have far too few as it is: Gendergap listCommons deletion discussionGendergap listGendergap list etc. Lots of editors rightly question whether such images are an appropriate representation of the Wikimedia vision of a gender-neutral educational project.
    • Personally, I would wish for more restraint in creating Wikipe-tan representations that fall in either of these categories, and more restraint in promoting Wikipe-tan images as a generic mascot for the project, especially those that are a real turn-off to many people who would otherwise be valuable contributors. --JN466 13:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The whole thing on how wikipe-tan drives women off is scapegoating, I have seen comments by women on wikipedia on how they cite other reasons, that and discussion after discussion about how women dont edit wikipedia have been going on with no solution in sight. Will getting rid of wikipe-tan get more women to edit? No Do most women know who wikipe-tan even is? Most likely No, so to say it drives off women is more of an opinion than fact (Yes you did provide examples I can just as easily provide comments that say the opposite here). As for images that runs into WP:OI you are not going to sit there and tell me that an image of wikipe-tan in cat ears and a tail does not fall under the term Catgirl, free use images are very hard if not impossible to find in some cases so we as editors have to rely on free use images. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I will sit here and tell you that. Wikipe-tan is an inappropriate image for that article. As for free images being hard to come by, it would have been just as easy for the artist to create an appropriate illustration in actual manga style as it was to create this one. --JN466 18:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
          • I've been making the non-notable, original-research argument at the page in question, but it's like dealing with a brick wall. The arguments they're using are every bit as lame as the article itself is (with or without illustrations). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Would this whole slug fest not gone this far had this image not been Wikipe-tan? Permit some editors to think so. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
              • Hard telling, but speaking for myself, I don't see any inherent problems with that cartoon character. What I see is someone in wikipedia inventing it and then trying to claim some kind of notability for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
                • Some editors in this discussion are already close to their 10th discussion within a month related one way or another to Wikipe-tan so please permit them to be in sort "low trust" mode. That make reaching a "sane" solution even more complicated. Had i been me i would have already concluded that no free image can do the job and would be looking a non free image of unquestionable relevance. Forcing the issue would only result mutual lost of trust between editors. Trust is arguably the most valuable currency in Wikipedia, the second being reliable sources. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
                • I for one am tired of hearing wikipe-tan come up in these discussions and it seems like it is always by the same editors, all this energy focused on how some call wikipe-tan "Pervy" can just as easily be used for better things. How many consensus and discussions does it have to take before this all ends? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
                  • Basically my point here. The editors can't seem to get their way with all but a couple of images being removed/deleted (those that have been are usually for technical reasons like a superior version of the same image out there). They've just been shopping around and have decided to claim now that OI cannot apply to wikipe-tan because she isn't notable.陣内_Jinnai 21:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
                    • Wikipe-tan is actully notable outside of wikipedia, her image has been featured in a newspaper, a gaming magazine, and has also been a mascot for wikimedia Hong Kong as well as cosplayed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
                      • If the character is verifiably notable external to wikipedia, then that could be a different story. The objection I have or had in that "fan-service" article was the conceit of using a wikipedia image as an example of something, based solely on the word of its creator. If wikipe-tan can be properly sourced as being valid for that article, then there should be no problem. If not, though, then it shouldn't be used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 10 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 [21] has gone in and inspite clear consensus both here, on the deletion discussion at at WP:Anime removed the image. Since its editprotected, and there is consensus to have that image in there, I would like an admin to restore that image; the dispute that caused the edit protection was not about that image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnai (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 April 2011
    • Te best approach here is to talk directly to OrangeMike; he shouldn't be removing the image because the article is under full protection (regardless of the merits of the removal or replacment). It could well have been a mistake, I am sure he will self-revert if you point it out :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• 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)

Perhaps those who cast aspersions on the hard-working editors at Commons might want to walk a mile in their shoes before hurling unwarranted insults? Powers ^T 17:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, actually. I don't think there is any need to be nasty about this. On the other hand a polite request along the lines of "hey, there is a problem here, can we work to fix it" would go a long way. Adrignola, I might be convinced to add re-creating the Bot to my to-do list (which is a bit long.... but this seems a pretty important issue). Would you be willing to clue me into Commons processes relevant to creating such a bot? --Errant ^(chat!) 20:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. There's no need to insult other people trying to improve either commons or wikipedia. Or is this another exception to acting civil/assuming good faith? If I'd seen these types of responses in 2006, I'd have run away from wikipedia and never looked back. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I, at least, have enough personal experience with commons to put conviction behind my words. They could easily transculde their deletion discussion to the local FfDs or find some other sort of work around. This becomes especially true for images used dozens or hundreds of times. Instrad, they say we should constantly watch their deletion discussions because it's more convenient that way. I'm sorry, but it may be convenient for them but it's not for us. If they want to insist on being an island, they can do so. More and more editors are choosing to upload locally only and some go as far as to use keeplocal tags. I don't trust commons, and I know I'm not alone. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Because we all know enwiki is a perfect online community. Juliancolton (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. Can an admin formally close it? elektrikSHOOS 19:19, 10 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)

If there were a line beyond which even the very frustrated may not cross, I would have thought that it would be a 650 word screed directed specifically at one other editor including such choice phrases as "group-think proto-nazi nerds" and "take your hypothetical light-saber and ram it out of sight" [22]. This oration was given after the editor was informed of the OTRS process; the editor was frustrated that zie was directed there, claiming that only people bloated with flatulence would care about copyright. [23] --Danger (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Other than a warning on their talk page, which I have now given to the editor, what administrative action where you looking for? SpinningSpark 22:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Had the user not directed that attack at me, but at another editor, I would have blocked them myself. I meant for my warning to be a final one. They had already been warned specifically for aggressive behavior by Jonathanwallace on their talk page [24] and by Orange Mike on EAR [25]. (NB: the notice that I posted on the editor's talk page did link to this subsection specifically. It just also provided a link to AN/I as a whole.) Danger (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The user also directed a few less severe attacks at me several times at Talk:Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler. They wrote: I now understand that Eisfbnore don't want people to see for themselves the real wording of Hamsun's obituary [26], Stop quibbling over four lines … Your limiting of what people can see for themselves in this case, contrary to what you claim, amounts to censorship. Stubbornly repeating that your censorship is not censoring, fails on its own unreasonableness … Don't get carried away in your personal preferences [27] and You're "Gaming the system" … Your stubborn denial of censoring … your demonstrated stubbornness against factual info on Wikipedia. [28]. Factlover1 aka 85.165.24.213 also wrote the following at wikiquote: Eisfbnore reveals his eagerness to censor Hamsun … This guy doesn't like facts … It's getting ridiculous not to conclude that the censorship by Eisfbnore it not a non-NPOV (Neutral Point-Of-View) violation based on negative bias towards Hamsun as an historical person [29] --Eisfbnore ^talk 23:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not want my comments to be taken in any way as restraining any other admin from blocking or taking any other action they feel appropriate in this case. SpinningSpark 08:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if the user has taken note of the warnings they have received. In this reply, Factlover1 stated that they had just replied to "unfactual personal attacks" by other editors …(!) Additionally, they directed another attack at me: "This issue is still about one person, Eisfbnore, vandalizing the entry Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler". Eisfbnore ^talk 17:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, rcvd, to other comments above. "Eisfbnore" is using selective quoting here to misrepresent my statements. The original issue is still to keep factual content at the Wikipedia-entry "Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler", which "Eisfbnore" continues to delete. Pls look it up. Discussion of this users comments aside, the focus should still be on the quality of the entry "Hamsun's obituary...". It appears that "Eisfbnore" is now using a complaint on tone to push aside attention to factual content at the "Hamsun's obituary..."- entry. Hope this improves the tone to refocus attention on the factual content on the "Hamsun's..."-entry. Factlover1 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Factlover1 aka 85.165.24.213 has just breached 3RR over at Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler, whilst accusing other editors of editwarring and patent nonsense – just check the hist and the talk. It also seems that they have revealed my conspiracy in the previous post.^(irony) Eisfbnore ^talk 19:54, 10 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)

The real and only issue at hand is whether or not we should included sourced but debunked and absurd rumors in a biographical article. However, in a classic case of bad faith editing, an editor wanted to blow up an initial mild rebuke to obfuscate the real issue - that an editor is trying to push unfounded, debunked, and ridiculous rumors into a biographical article. My response was tongue-in-cheek (note the edit summary), and ended up serving to illustrate only that the editor is obviously oversensitive and should be roundly ignored. As for Geronimo, that particular matter had already been covered and resolved a couple of years ago, but rather than bring up new citations or rationale, he or she drags up the same old citations - bah! Even if this AN/I turns out "against" me - there will be material affect, so the editor wasting everyone's time here. I suspect he or she is hoping to gain some "sympathy" votes. It's a classic case of gaming the system - a process in which at least one editor involved appears to be a pro. For some *really* interesting examples of Wikilawyering ad absurdum, check out the article's talk page where an editor cites an unrelated arb com comment to justify his ridiculous notion that removing any neutral text from an article is automatically disruptive. And frankly bullying people and Wikilawyering are far more disruptive than referring to a rumor as bullshit and an editor's attempt to reinsert it into an article via the "see also" section as "sneaky". Rklawton (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling it "a dirty, rotten, low-life, and yes - disruptive - trick" is a bit more than just "sneaky". It's really not the kind of comment that has a chance of being taken as "tongue in cheek" either - the edit summary certainly didn't say that to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The personal attacks continue, I see. It seems unlikely that Rklawton plans to stop that, or to moderate his ownership behavior over the article, either. Re the content assertions he makes above, that this "was resolved" in this 2006 thread, that these are "unfounded, debunked and ridiculous rumors", and that I've "dragged up the same old citations," I'd only ask that editors look at the archived 2006 thread, at the high-quality sources I've cited at the talk page, and that they please note that of the nine reliable sources I introduced there, the first seven were from 2009 or later.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the rumour has been debunked by everyone - even the attorney for the heirs did not say he thought there was a scintilla of truth to the tale. Clearly the tale has a place in Skull and Bones but is of essentially zero relevance to Prescott Bush at all. By the way, the tale has Bush being one of six or seven doing the digging of an (at the time) thoroughly unmarked grave which the Army officials did not even know the location of, and restoring it to an undisturbed state. By the way, the lawsuit was dismissed - not only against federal oppicials on sovereignty grouns, but also against Yale and Skull and Bones. It seems one must have some basis for a lawsuit. Collect (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here as I'm new to this page. There seems to be a preexisting conflict between editors that they insist on conflating with this editing dispute. The content issue in question is one that is widely discussed in many biographies, newspaper articles, and other RS sources. Whether or not the story is true or the lawsuit was successful is immaterial. It would be nice if some outside party could separate the editing dispute from the conflict dispute, because I don't think anything will get resolved if it keeps firing up this personality dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I've never interacted with Rklawton before that I can recall, although Collect has been pretty unhappy with me since I took part in a discussion last year that ended in his being blocked. With respect to the actual article, you can see from its revision history that my previous involvement has been limited to two instances: In one edit I objected to the discrediting of an article in The Guardian as the work of a "conspiracy theorist", and on another occasion I removed copyvio text and then improved the subsequently-added cite/ref for the fact it had documented.

I'm not surprised to see Collect here, though: He's the other user who has, in my opinion, been standing guard over this article with Rklawton to remove or discredit any critical content. Between the two of them, for example, they've restored the characterization of The Guardian's article, by journalist Duncan Campbell, How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler's Rise to Power, as "An article relying on conspiracy theorist John Buchanan's work" at least seven times since February of last year.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36] Since I first noticed this, I've thought it rather curious behavior on Collect's part, at least, given his perennial claims at articles for conservative politicians that BLP policy prohibits the addition of this or that critical content.

I've never studied the matter, although it's my guess that there might be more to the Nazi finance issue than is present in our article currently. But you're perfectly right, of course, that it's not our role to determine whether the reports in this instance or any other are true, but merely to summarize the allegations made in reliable sources that are relevant to the subject, especially when they're so broadly reported.

I'd like to strongly reiterate, though, I'm not requesting assistance here with the content dispute. Rather, I've asked for assistance only because the personal attacks, battleground conduct, and (most problematically) article ownership behavior seem nearly certain to continue without intervention, and just as certain to prevent any collaborative resolution of the content dispute until they are addressed and resolved.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, make a slur on another editor. People who just look at your claim that somehow I was blocked for improper behaviour will not note that the block was viewed as unsupportable and improper. But then again, yoiu would not note this when making asides about others. The material is covered in the relevant article. Which is sufficient for rumours. [37] shows OhioStandard soliciting the block. King of Hearts trusted your version of the edit history, blocking me for a single edit long before the block. [38] and one editor (who is now an arbitrator) said two edits in over two days did not seem like "edit war." But then again, your sole aim was to get me blocked because your friend Screwball23 (who has a long block history) was blocked for actual edit war. Now can you let all this drop? Your attempt to raise a non-existent charge of edit war here is a gorss violation of polity. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh anent cleansing articles -- look at [39], and wholesale removal of RS sources at [40] when it suits his fancy. And, fun of funs, removing [41] from Prescott Bush presumably becasue it was favourable to him. Cheere. Collect (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Diffs one and two remove material attributed to sources which arguably are unreliable, while the third diff removes a copyright violation. Do you propose that editors seeking to include material supported by many clearly reliable sources in articles must therefore refrain from challenging the quality of any reference more authoritative than someone's blog, or are required to let cut and paste copyright violations stand? Chester Markel (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who's interested is welcome to examine the edits that Collect objects to above under a microscope if it'll make Collect happy. I'm sorry to hear, though, that my mention of the occasion that seems to have motivated his antipathy sounded like "a slur" to him; I didn't mean it that way, and I didn't intend to insult him by referring to it.

But his statement that user Screwball23 is "my friend" and that I thought Collect's block called for because of that isn't supportable. I interacted with Screwball23 six or seven months ago, I've made only this edit to any article he's edited, and I haven't communicated with him since.

Any editor can form his own opinion as to the basis for Collect's block, though, by examining the blocking admin's comments in the second diff he provided above. If Collect wants to address my involvement in that process any further, or better still, wants to try to work out a more collegial relationship, he's welcome to initiate a discussion on my talk page. I'd also suggest that it would be more productive to stick closer to the particular issue at hand: that of resolving the battleground and ownership issues that are currently in evidence here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it'll probably be more productive if I refrain from responding to any further accusations from Collect, if I can reasonably do so. I'd appreciate it, though, if an administrator would take a look at a recent development (link/permalink) at another article. I normally enjoy editing here, but this kind of behavior is really beginning to impact that pretty seriously. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Fyi: Collect just posted a "Wikiquette alerts" complaint about me (link/permalink) citing, in part, comments I've made in this present thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And the primary basis of that post was your ongoing incivility, wherein you appear to blame the entire problems of the world on me.  :) Noting also your forumshopping here about whether an extensive quote verging on copyvio and vaguely related to the journal belongs in an article thereon. Now might you post somewhere without invoking my name or following me to various articles? Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, he apparently managed to completely misread Jclemens comment -- he stated that 2 reverts in 2 days was not "edit warring" in his opinion. But OS seems to relish digging through Wikipedia's search function in order to assuage his own incivility. I rather think digging through every edit a person has made indicates something of an obsession. Collect (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the amusing irony of apparently being characterized by Rklawton as a "clueless noob" at WQA, of all places, this really is getting old. I'd be really glad if anyone wants to take the time to carefully examine the allegations posted at WQA in their context, but to try to keep from fanning the flames I don't intend to reply to the substance of Collect's or Rklawton's accusations unless an admin wants to ask me about some specific point.

It's probably safe to say that if any ordinary editor had exhibited the same degree of article ownership and ongoing attacks toward an admin as Rklawton and now Collect have felt free to employ here and elsewhere, and had repeatedly demonstrated every intention of continuing the same behavior, that the problem would have been dealt with before things got to this point.

I've tried hard to remain civil, and to address this issue on a policy basis rather than a personal one, but that approach hasn't been working, and this just keeps going farther off the rails. Will someone with the authority to do so please step in here to prevent this behavior from continuing?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

1967 NFL Championship Game

Resolved

 – A new-ish IP editor and a slight rollback mistake, should be sorted --Errant ^(chat!) 22:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I get permission to start reediting 1967 NFL Championship Game again. An editor reverted my edits 2x but has not responded to my 2 requests. I asked on the help line and a third party tried to contact the editor. A quick look at the history of the article shows well over a hundred good faith edits by me. The editor in question is HJ Mitchell. I do not know how to do make sure he gets notified of this, but I will try. {{HJ Mitchell|Ani-notice}} Thanks in advance. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've notified HJ Mitchell properly for you - you do it by adding "{{subst:ANI-notice}}", exactly like that, to his Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

He's probably getting reverted due to throwing in excessive "hype" verbiage, as if he were writing for ESPN or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

66. I expect HJ Mitchell (who is usually fairly responsive) simply missed your post, with a bit of luck he will respond in more detail now this has notified him of the issue :) For what it is worth, the reason he is reverting you is almost certainly down to the language you're using; we call it weasel wording, which simply means words that "talk up" something. For example "destined" and "immortalized" are not appropriate words to use. Wikipedia policy suggests writing articles in a "neutral and off-hand tone". --Errant ^(chat!) 18:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't have rollback myself, but having just looked at Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When to use rollback, I can't see how rollback should have been used in this circumstance. Perhaps the IP was being excessively verbose or writing in a style unsuited to an encyclopaedia, but I still think it is wrong to call that vandalism. Jenks24 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, he didn't use rollback, he used Igloo ("Revert" doesn't necessarily mean "rollback") - though I'm not sure whether Igloo uses rollback to revert? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, but according to WP:IGLOO, the igloo script does use rollback, which is why igloo should not have been used in this circumstance, according to my reading of the policies. That being said, I'm sure it was just a mistake by HJ Mitchell and if he apologised to the IP, I think we could all move on :) Jenks24 (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

By what I've understood, the reason rollback shouldn't be used expect in uncontroversial cases is the lack of edit summary and minor edit flag, not the technical implementation. I'd assume this applies for other mechanisms of reverting as well - if it's not uncontroversial, the revert must not be marked as minor and a summary should be provided. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Rollback should be used only under very narrow circumstances, i.e. that the reason for the rollback is obvious just by looking at what was rolled back, which is not the case here. Edit summaries should be used for anything other than pure vandalism, which this is not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The excessive hype is just becomes I'm an inexperienced editor. Every citation in that article, about 90, is from me. The newbie help files clearly stipulate that editors are sometimes passionate about what they write. It just takes time to reign that in, IMHO. A quick look at the history of the article shows me decimating it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Lastly, the last edit I made I removed most the weasel words/peacock words. His revision put them back in :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Just while you're here, can I ask, have you ever edited the article Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that article's name would be too difficult for me to spell correctly :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wait maybe I did. I was kind of doing wikify stuff when I first started editing because I was afraid of adding edits to a real article. I think I was clicking on random article from the main page and then wikifying stuff. I do not know how many articles I might have screwed up but they were all start class articles I think. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Any edit by 66.234.33.7 or .8 is almost guaranteed to be me. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was a different sort of coincidence I was wondering about, but OK. The city you're in, the articles you've edited, and a few aspects of your writing style all coincide with a recently banned problematic editor. On the other hand, as that editor pointed out themselves, quite a lot of people live in that particular city (and I guess quite a lot of people have an interest in American football). So no need to worry. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I am sorry for using the term real article. I meant FA, GA, A, or B class articles. If that particular article is of great importance to you, then I apologize.

However, my disastrous edits are not my fault. Those Project Wikify people should have said that you should be an experienced editor before contributing to the project.

I know for a fact that I did some really stupid things in one article. But I have not the slightest clue in what article. 173.52.5.48 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure which IP you will be on to read this :) so adding a comment here... please do consider making an account, you seem like exactly the sort of person who would be a decent editor here, such things should always be encouraged (we simply can never have enough polite useful contributors) and so this is me encouraging you to "come onboard" :) Anyway; HJ Mitchell was wrong to use that sort of rollback on you, which is intended for vandalism. HJ is a decent guy though so I am sure it is a simple mistake or one-off misjudgement. I entirely understand your explanation behind the reason for the language used, I'm pretty sure I started my Wiki career by describing something as "glorious" :) As well as the "weasel words" link given previously another useful piece of policy is WP:NPOV which discusses how we try to approach topics with neutrality. That can be damned hard sometimes (and I defy any contributor to deny that they have fallen afoul of it at some point). Wikipedia policy can sometimes be a headache to pick up (drop me a note if you have specific problems), but you seem pretty clueful already (what with the reference to GA/FA etc.). I've marked this section "resolved" because I think the issues have been cleared up :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That being said, let me be perfectly clear. The reason I was reverted was because someone did not do due diligence.

Everyone says I need to get a name, but having no name means I get no tools that can hurt people.

The edit reverts will cost me 3 hours at least and I was hoping on getting this article up and in the ballgame so I can remove the peacock stuff from the Vince Lombardi article.

I have over 200 entries to the ice bowl article. The next person has 19.

I have over 80 citations to the ice bowl article. Someone looks to have sneaked in 1, REPEAT 1, citation and that citation will never last.

I have to be honest, the stuff that has transpired here hurts me because I thought the admin folks would spend AT LEAST 30 seconds on the history of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.5.48 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to get the ostentatious, flowery, espn-like, stuff out of the Vince Lombardi article. I have complained, like a broken record, on the discussion page on the Vince Lombardi article. But no one helps me there. No one gives me advice. The Green Bay Packer Portal is inactive on Wikipedia. I am not a GB packer fan, or American football, fan for that man.

What attracted me to all of this is VL's sense of humor, which has been documented over and over again. 173.52.5.48 (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo - lost complaint

Who at Wikipedia will consider the defamation of Palazzolo by Wikipedia?

I want Wikipedia to consider the defamation of Palazzolo, but the thread keeps getting removed.

See below, my messages to editors before.

Lost Palazzolo noticeboard thread On the 3rd April I posted my story regarding Palazzolo on the noticeboard at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vito_Palazzolo_and_Wikipedia.27s_unwitting_defamation_of_a_living_man but it seems to have disappeared. I was sharpening my pencil and drafting my version of the serious complaint we have regarding the defamation of Palazzolo, and it is no longer there. What shall I do? I have a long and very serious case to present to Wikipedia. Should I open up another complaint? Thanks - Alexander Fircks Fircks (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Lost Palazzolo complaint Whenever I post my case on Palazzolo, it disappears. See below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vito_Palazzolo_and_Wikipedia.27s_unwitting_defamation_of_a_living_man, Can you tell me what to do next? Wikipedia will not hear our case, it seems. Fircks (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Fircks (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fircks (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's disappearing because you are changing archived content. Archives are not meant to be edited (and hardly anyone will read what you've added, anyways). Suggest you go to WP:BLPN to present your issues. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Note the editing of archives is still occurring [42] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I believe Fircks is occasionally editing as an IP (perhaps through ignorance rather than bad faith). See here on the Palazzolo Talk page and here on the archive. He is getting no traction at BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignorance on my part, I'm afraid, isn't helping my cause at wikipedia. I log in and so have an account, though might sometimes forget. I will contact the Foundation directly with this cause because I believe it is more than an individual editor can deal with, being so complex, and there are too many different pages involved including my mistaken edits of archives. Thanks for the help and keep up the good work. Should I simply email the Foundation?

Fircks (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Foundation for legal issues but more likely WP:OTRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikivndlism1

Resolved: Blocked indef: vandalism only or bad user name - takes yer pick

This new account has already been blocked for 31 hours for "disruptive editing". I have been trying to submit a username report, as the namre (ie, Wiki vandalism") clearly indicates an intention to continue such behaviour. But my report is constantly being reverted by a bot, as the account is currently blocked. Please can someone advise how I can submit this report.RolandR (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've submitted a report using Twinkle. I'm not sure why you had a problem - are you autoconfirmed? You didn't sign your comment with four tildes ~~~~, which lets editors see who you are. Striking comment - user is autoconfirmed. --NellieBly (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign previously. NellieBly submitted a report, which has also been deleted by the bot. RolandR (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's what the bot does - it's on the assumption that the user was reported in order to be blocked, so once blocked it removes it. I'd suggest having a word with the blocking admin, User:LessHeard vanU, and express your concern that an indef block is needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The block will expire in a few hours from now, and they can then be reported to Username board - however, I would suggest that a report should be submitted only if the account reactivates; I did consider a username block, but decided to make it a "common vandalism" 31 hour block in respect of WP:DENY. If anyone wants the account blocked anyway, however, I would be prepared to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked him indef for his/her poor choice in user names, implied intent to vandalize, and history of disruptive edits. In my view, dragging this out any further would violate DENY. Rklawton (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Block of M.Hugo Windisch-Graetz

I have blocked M.Hugo Windisch-Graetz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), but I bring my block here for review.

He is a Prince of the Windisch-Graetz family, and has been editing for more than a year, but his edits are only about himself and his family, usually containing large blocks of German or Italian text or detailed tables of ancestry going back four generations. This version of his user page gives the flavour. His article about himself, Mariano Hugo of Windisch-Graetz was pruned by others, restored by him to this state, and has been heavily pruned and edited again. (Notability seems to me doubtful, but that is a separate question). He has also attempted to introduce articles about his mother (five times under different titles, four in Italian), his wife, his son and his great-grandfather, this last taking the tables of ancestry back a further three generations to show a Tsar of Russia and a King of Prussia among his great-to-the-fifth grandfathers.

His talk page shows a string of advice and warnings, but absolutely no response. On 1 April, Fram (talk) warned him that he would be blocked if he continued to post promotional articles about his family, but on 8 April he posted Princess Maria Luisa Serra di Gerace yet again.

I suspect that he does not speak English - this last English version of the article previously posted in Italian was a Google translation of the Italian text. He has also been active on :de (where his own article has been deleted), :it, :fr, :sl, :sv and :cs, similarly attempting to introduce articles about himself and his relations, and genealogical tables. On none of these has he responded to any comments or advice, or engaged in any discussion.

The complete absence of any response or dialogue suggest that he is not here to help build an encyclopedia, but only to promote himself and his family, and to use Wikipedia as a web-host for genealogical information.

JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, regarding lack of English, his user page says "He qualified in 1975 as economist and political science at the University of Buckingham UK". Although that sentence is not written as though he's fluent in English, presumably he must have been to get the degree! DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Impressive, since the University of Buckingham was founded in 1976. – iridescent 22:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Our article actually says it began as the university college in 1973 Nil Einne (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I trust their own official history (founded in 1976, in 2006 we celebrate our 30th anniversary, the start of the project in 1976) more than I trust a line slipped into a Wikipedia article by an IP and cited to a non-existent source, which itself disagrees with its own infobox. The University College of Buckingham was founded in 1976, and it became the University of Buckingham in 1983. – iridescent 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Er the IP didn't cite a non existent source. They didn't cite any source, probably because as I said in the EC below they weren't trying to slip something in but made an error (bearing in mind they made a number of subsequent changes, none of them showing any signs of being bad). Nil Einne (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Actually it gave both years. And this was introduced [43] I guess by accident, I presume the IP was re-writing and remembered the date wrong (since it received its royal charter in 1983). Whether this error in our article contributed to the er confusion on the part of M.Hugo Windisch-Graetz of when or where he got his degree, I can't say... Nil Einne (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

clean talk page environment

Background

See talk discussion. IMHO basically maybe the discussion on a controversial topic covered by a {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} got a little overheat, both sides appear to be more calm now, so maybe no action is needed. Though there is a disagreement among editors on WP:NPA and WP:TALK interpretation.

Due diligence

• I am following Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and edited their account user page.
• I'm not familiar with Owain the 1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which prima facie appear to be a new and productive account registered on Apr 04 author of a new article and many productive edits.

Disagreement

“ Your comment "sounds like a thing a Thai would do with a knife" is blatantly racist, just saying. ” — User:Sean.hoyland, [44]

“ If you continue to break the rules I will report you though. Personal insults are not allowed here.I suggest you read the rules.I am done with you now. ” — User:Owain the 1st, [45]

Personally prefer clean talk environment. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This has ended as I will not be replying to this person again in connection with this dispute.I do not believe it is right for someone to brand someone else a racist for stating what some Thai people do, actually it is against the rules of this board to personally insult other members.I have already told the other member that.Owain the 1st (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Will you not be making anymore blatantly racist statements because that was really the outcome I was hoping for ? I take the alternative view that it's right to tell people who make blatantly racist statements on Wikipedia talk pages to not do it again. Perhaps I should have done that on your talk page rather than the article talk page but really what seems more important is that you not do it again. Since you haven't agreed to that because apparently you still believe that saying "sounds like a thing a Thai would do with a knife" about the murder of 5 members of the Fogel family is just fine, I don't have any reason to believe that you won't do it again somewhere else. Your attempt to blame your behavior on my knowledge of the country I live in wasn't very helpful. Sean.hoyland - talk 23:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a blatantly racist comment to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not too bothered what it sounds like to you frankly. It was not and personal insults are not allowed on wikipedia(not you). As for Sean..he clearly has no idea about the country that he claims to live in, I guess he still thinks it is the land of smiles and believe the TAT adverts.I was going to let it lie but now I am not as he continues to insult me.One more thing I never attempted to blame my behavior on anything, that is just some fantasy you have made up.What I did do was question your knowledge of Thailand and its people, totally different altogether,Owain the 1st (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that Thai people aren't happy smiling people, they're murderers who slaughter innocent children? Insisting that your racist slur against the Thai people is accurate is not going to do you any favors here, you know (Disclaimer: I live in Thailand too, for about half of each year - have done for 25 years, and my family are Thai) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Making such such comments about a country/people is not appropriate here, so please do not do so again. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is what to do with the extant unproductive comments on the talk page. I'd personally favour simply chopping the thread in question just prior to Owain's first comment on it, and unless there's a good reason not to I'll go ahead and do that. Obviously Owain should consider this a warning that further inflammatory nonsense of that type won't be tolerated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I've just had a re-read of the thread, and I'd support removing from Owain's "Thai" comment onwards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Warning left with Owain admonishing him not to repeat this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 00:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So no warning for branding people racists for sean then? I see how this works, just a witch hunt by the pc crowd. I deleted your warning. Have fun with the bullying.Owain the 1st (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Besides, Sean called Owain the 1st's comment, not Owain the 1st himself, blatantly racist. I think that the difference is important.     ←   ZScarpia   00:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Same thing.00:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain the 1st (talk • contribs)

Actually it is not. Sean's comment falls within the realm of "comment on the content not the editor". --Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually in the real world it is the same thing.Saying someone made a racist comment is calling them a racist..no way around that how ever hard you might try.So no punishment for the guy who breaks the rules on here and and personally insults me.But hey witchhunts are great ..You should all feel proud of yourselves.Owain the 1st (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Then gotta have a good long look at your comment and think about whether it's racist or not. I know neither of you but even to a bystander like me, that's still a pretty insulting comment to make about a nationality and definitely inflammatory. Wasn't Giornorosso banned recently for something of a similar vein? --Blackmane (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

People frequently utter racist comments without actually being racist - sometimes it's cultural, sometimes it's a poor communication of their actual meaning, sometimes it's meant as humour, etc. Opining that a comment is racist is not the same as opining that the commentator is racist. Should the editor who first suggested that your comment was racist be punished? Well, no, partly because we do not apply sanctions as punishment (and you haven't been punished either), but as preventatives - and they're not currently doing anything that needs preventing. And partly because it looks like there is a consensus here that agrees that your comment was racist. I don't know whether *you* are racist, and I make no claims either way - I simply note that from that comment, and from your now-deleted follow-up comments, you were expressing a rather jaundiced view of Thai people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with my comment at all whatever you pc witchhunters think.I see what happens here you enforce a rule against one person and do nothing against the other person. Bit of a joke.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No one is "enforcing a rule" against you. We are simply asking you to consider whether something could cause insult to someone before you post it. Also, Sean.hoyland specifically says "Your comment...is blatantly racist...". And, as the other editors have said above, that is completely different to saying an editor is racist. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 13:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually you would be wrong as I have been given a warning and in the real world not cyber land if you said to someones face that they uttered a racist comment then you are calling them a racist.Try it in a pub someone time and see what reaction you get.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Using your own logic, if this was the real world and you made your comment to a group of Thai people, what do you think the reaction would be? Wikipedia is different to the real world. You were warned that if you continued to make inflammatory comments, a rule could be enforced on you. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 13:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes wikipedia is not the real world, I can see that from all the comments on here. Seems all the people live in some cyber world.I suggest they get out more into real people land.As for your bit about the Thais..I would give you an answer but do not want to be witchhunted over that as well by the pc crowd here.My statement was to do with the specific circumstances surrounding the story from the Palestinian media that a Thai person had been arrested for killing the family because they owed him money. I said it was something that a Thai person would do.As in a Thai person not the whole of Thailand and all you lot have jumped in for a witchhunt.I should post up scientific research into Thai emotional reactions, there have been studies but why bother.Owain the 1st (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is going nowhere. Why don't we stop beating this horse and walk away. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 14:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop accusing the admins and users here of engaging in a "witchhunt" because you got called out for making a racist comment or two. Also, this is Wikipedia, not the real world. Making comparisons as if Wikipedia is the real world is the main reason why so many POV-pushers, advertisers, and the like get indefinitely blocked in the first place. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Listen up, you do not tell me what to do.Got that? I do not care about your opinion of what is what.Got that? No interest to me whatsoever.Got that?Welcome to the witch hunt, guess you could not resist.YawnOwain the 1st (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD + 7 Days = expired PROD?

It is not any big deal, as I do not care whether this particular AFD is reopened, but I am a little concerned that Instruction Erosion (the antonym of Instruction Creep that I just made up) could be happening here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolinson Ferdinando. Or maybe it is Creep, because the users are applying PROD rationales to AFD procedures. I note in particular that the AFD was Relisted and then deleted the same day; not unusual in itself of course... Anyways, messy. Anarchangel (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems a bit odd. AFD's without sufficient commentary are relisted. If a prod tag is removed, it's not replaced and AFD is then required (unless speedy deletion can be applied). Am I missing something here - I can't see any way this is standard procedure. Was WP:IAR applied? Exxolon (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also notified the admin who deleted the article. Exxolon (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that this was a BLP PROD (which may not be removed without adding sources), not a normal PROD. The article was an unsourced BLP (though it did have two external links by the time it was deleted). Ucucha 01:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If no one opposed a deletion request in 7 days, it could very well have been a prod. So why not? Being at AfD only increases visibility. Prodego ^talk 01:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time getting my head around the sequence of events here as there is no article history. Can you restore the article & history so I can see exactly what the sequence of events was so I can comment knowing the facts rather than having to guess. Exxolon (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Created 3:04, 27 January 2011; BLP PROD added 3:10, 27 January 2011; removed 3:21, 27 January 2011; AFD nominated 18:16, 2 April 2011; deleted 5:53, 9 April 2011. Ucucha 01:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, without seeing the article & history I'm still a bit in the dark.The first question is did the two external links provide sufficient sourcing to satisfy the BLP-PROD policy requirements? Exxolon (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the BLPPROD was removed on 26 January, no links of any kind were added until 18 February, from what I can see. (I'm guessing I'm in a different time zone than Ucucha, but the basic point holds.)--joe decker^{talk to me} 02:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not quite what I was getting at - did they provide sufficient evidence of notability that if the BLP-PROD procedure had been correctly followed the article would NOT have been deleted? (Note - it would be far easier to temporarily restore the article so we can see exactly what happened rather than having to rely on admins who can see the deleted article & history to answer individual enquiries.) Exxolon (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, it's here, I'll redelete when we're done. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I would personally perform the delete on a BLPPROD if those ELs had been added either before or after tag placement, as neither source appears to mention the subject, and therefore does not verify any statement about the article subject. (At least in the simple case where the tag was never removed.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The sensible route would have been to redirect to La Bambas, this guy's band - something which I'm going to be bold and do now. GiantSnowman 02:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) - Thanks for restoring. Having looked through the articles history and checked the links neither of them would appear to be of sufficient quality to have averted a deletion under BLP-PROD had that have been followed correctly. This would seem to be then insufficiently clear explanation by the deleting admin who said "on AfD for a week with no comments, I'll consider it a prod then" and the closer of the AFD who said "The result was Deleted -BLP PROD was removed by author; AfD unnecessary. NAC by nom, housekeeping". What should have been said somewhere was somthing like "DELETED - Article previously nominated for deletion under BLP-PROD policy but process not completed due to premature ta wg removal by article author. Sourcing insufficient to satisfy BLP-PROD requirements and article would've been deleted had tag not been removed and not replaced. Relisting AFD not required as article should have already been deleted" or words to that effect - this would have negated this entire thread as it at least appeared that the admin was making policy on the fly by "converting" an AFDith no comments into an uncontested PROD. Exxolon (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Most welcome. And GiantSnowman is right about the redirect, without objection, I'll leave that be. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What you all should have done is taken advantage of the week long AfD to make these comments. But deciding on a redirect sounds reasonable. The deletion was done for the reason I gave. BLP PROD had nothing to do with it. I was indeed "making up policy on the fly" if you wish to call it that. The only reason the page wasn't already deleted was because of what tag was chosen to be transcluded on it. With no objections to deletion, I'll go ahead and delete, I don't see why the exact procedure will matter. Prodego ^talk 02:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I absolutely love you Prodego. An elegant solution attained with minimum fuss on personal initiative. Its a refreshing flashback to when we had a functioning community instead of endless rules and noticeboards. -- ۩ Mask 21:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Carrite (talk · contribs) has invited me to post here for a third-party opinion on whether posting notifications of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Conservatives of Texas to 19 individual members of WikiProject Conservatism is a violation of the WP:CANVASSing guidelines. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks fine to me - it's worded neutrally, merely asking for input, and not trying to sway opinion. GiantSnowman 01:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The notification itself is fine, in a vacuum, but invites for WP:CONSERVATISM appear to have been targeted mainly at editors who display a conservative POV in their editing, rather than at editors who simply edit on conservatism topics, so the audience is something of a problem (not necessarily through any fault of Carrite's). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats a pretty bold statement, and a tad insulting. - Haymaker (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Roscelese is just saying what other people are thinking, although I'd rush to say that my interpertation of "the audience is something of a problem" is that posting only to the conservative project means that the audience will be conservative. I think that Carrite is playing in a very grey area. Asking the neutrally worded question "What is the best country in the world" in France will get you a different answer than asking the same question in Spain. Same concept at play here. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true. It's certainly possible for a project on conservatism to attract non-conservative editors (perhaps those who are affected a great deal by conservative policies *waves*). And it's true that left to its own devices, the project might naturally have attracted more conservative users anyway, but there's probably not much can be done about it - I'm referring to the distribution of invitations to the project. But this is something of a digression. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that distributing individual notifications to the members of this project gives the impression of soliciting partisan opinions and should be avoided. The closing administrator may want to disregard opinions expressed by people so canvassed.  Sandstein  06:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What people are getting hung up on is that a neutral message was sent about a deletion discussion on a conservative group to WikiProject Conservatism and thinking that non-conservatives should have also been likewise contacted (who exactly, I wouldn't know). Such expectations are not consistent with expected deletion procedures, but given the omniscient left-right divide that exists in real life, perhaps this is more of a natural reaction. –MuZemike 08:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If he had posted that message to the WikiProject's talk page, I wouldn't have blinked twice -- it was sending the individual notices that I see as a violation of WP:CANVASS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that a great many projects on Wikipedia are populated by editors with a specific point of view. WP:CANVASS allows posting to any project, and those drafting the guideline were surely aware of this. As long as the post is neutrally worded, the guideline permits the posting. [46] shows how a non-neutral post to a project looks. I think the difference is substantially clear. Collect (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is much the same as notifying the article rescue squadron about an AfD - the message can be as neutral as possible, but it is not going to attract neutral comments or a balanced keep/delete vote ratio. I just to joke with suggesting a template to tag an article for annihilation to attract deletionist attention, similar to the flagged for rescue template used by the inclusionists. I don't think project conservaism is going to attract many delete votes either, and it also doesn't seem to have been the intent.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It might be useful to note that wp:WikiProject_Conservatism seems to have at least four locations of afd discussions. 1) the scrollbox on the project page (it is fed externally, so additions to it might not show up on watcher's watchlists), 2) wp:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politics (which feeds that scrollbox, but one would have to view the page source to know that), 3) the yet-to-be-created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conservatism, and finally 4) the project talk page. This could conceivably be one reason why the message wasn't simply posted to the project page, as would have been preferred. BitterGrey (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus. I don't think there was bad faith, but the odds are the recipients would be more disposed to one side than the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd like to think that members of a work project can address a notability question dispassionately. The fact is that WP Work Groups are often not being adequately notified of such challenges as this one and they should be — which I attempted to do. I have endeavored to provide a neutral phrasing in this case to the WP Conservatism Work Group. I do not believe this to have been a violation of either the spirit or the law of Wikipedia's CANVASSING prohibitions. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

IP evasion by User:Zoupan

• User:Zoupan lately has been edit-warring on many Balkans-related articles and misusing sources on many of them. Since April 1 many of his edits have been reverts[47], so when he was warned about edit-warring by User:Kebeta[48] and source misrepresentation by me [49] he stopped editing. Three days later he returned as an IP editor living in Stockholm[50] and continued with similar edits, which made me realize who he is since he had been using a similar IP before leaving [51].

• I assumed good faith and gave him the chance to admit his identity[52], but after my question he stopped editing again. Three days later he returned with another Stockholm-based IP[53] and continued the edit-warring[54] on all articles he had been editing as Zoupan. A block or a sanction should be imposed to make this user accept consensus or at least stop him from making edits like the redirection of a large article he considers OR[55][56].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit of yours is rather content dispute. You also precipitated yourself in removing all categories related to Serbia, when is clearly part of its history. Also, I fail to see any attempt of dialogue by any of you.

In all cases it´s rather about content dispute, and he is basically lone defending the Serbian point of view on those articles. From your recent edits I can observe you´re seaking some ethnically based association in order to block that user. I fail to see your so called "consensus" because no dialogue occured. WP:BRD has not been in use here, and you´re trying to block an user because you disagree with him. A good suggestion would be for some administrator to possibly intervene and obligate the editors involved to discuss the content instead of all editors edit warring without discussion, although the initiative can be donne without any administrative intervention, it simply requires good faith by the intervenients. FkpCascais (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Only a very small minority of the articles he edits are related to my edits so I'm not trying to block him because I disagree with him and as for Andrea Gropa he was deleting sources and trying to present him as Serbian and he was reverted not by me, but by someone else[57]. On Torlaks, Andrea Gropa, Vuk Kosača, House of Kosača, Zachlumia, . he's been edit-warring, deleting sources, redirecting whole articles without any kind of attempt to follow any wikipedia policy. When he got his final warning he decided to stop editing from his account and return once in a while only to revert others with IP evasion techniques. Kebeta showed good faith with the warning and I showed good faith again when he started using IPs for his reverts and not his account, but he decided to change the IP and continue the reverts.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In the edit war over Vuk Kosača (exemple: [58]) I´m having hard time to understand why was he edit wared. The other users are actually removing all Serbian related cats for no reason, adding Bosnian and Croatian language at lead without any reason, and the content dispute seems nothing too much dramatic. In House of Kosača the situation is similar, with him having expanded the article and being reverted for allegedly "unreliable sources". Torlaks debate is well known, because more than an real ethnic group, they are rather a linguistical one. The article however should exist and he was wrong there to simply create a redirect, however a discussion could/should be made. In Zachlumia its also a content dispute, with his additions being reverted. I honestly think that no real aproach of dialogue was never made in any case. I think that rather than punishement, a discussion would be much more productive. Regarding the IP, well, WP:SPI? FkpCascais (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a content dispute on all those articles, but because of the IP evasion there's no discussion. The Kosaca family for example could be classified as Serb, Bosniak and Croatian, but because non of the users involved is discussing all that's left is the edit-warring.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The same IP has also several times deleted the whole content from the article Torlaks, after Zoupan was no more active there. I am shure that is User:Zoupan. Jingby (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Torlaks are just speakers of Torlakian dialect, and the article Torlaks, claiming they are an ethnic group, seems to be simple WP:OR. In that case he is actually doing right, however a discussion should take place. FkpCascais (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not see such statement in the article. FkpCascais, can you please, point this sentence, where it is claimed, the Torlks are an ethnic group. Jingby (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In the categories... Anyway, the article could be merged into Torlakian dialect and all relevant information from the Torlak article moved there. The Torlak article looks like pretending to be about an ethnic group without actually being it, and in my view not worth a separate article. We could have a WP:3O on that. FkpCascais (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about a WP:3O on that. Jingby (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, nobody even notified User:Zoupan about this tread. I did just now. FkpCascais (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I notified him on his 84. talkpage and given the fact that immediately after returning he went back to blind reverting [59] something should be done.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the blind reverts from the same IP (i.e. IP evasion by User:Zoupan) are fact again. Jingby (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this and reporting it. Clearly Zhoupan is using IP's in order to edit war on numerous articles and a block is in order for this nonsense. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Speculative physics theories being promoted in Wikipedia and Wikiversity

This morning, I got forwarded a copy of an email signed by Sergey Fedosin and sent to physicists around the world, encouraging them to read Wikipedia's article Strong gravitational constant.

If you Google sergey fedosin gravity you see zero evidence of third-party interest in his gravitational theory but substantial indication that his very speculative theories now feature in Wikipedia and in Wikiversity as well. Wikiversity: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Nonstandard_physics/Gravitomagnetism http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Infinite_Hierarchical_Nesting_of_Matter

Also w:User:fedosin seems to be an SPA devoted to promoting theories of Sergey Fedosin in Wikipedia articles.

The AfD for Strong gravitational constant was withdrawn on a statement from fedosin that Nobel laureate Abdus Salam had written about the topic in 1993. I would like to re-open the AfD but am not sure how to proceed. I also think this speculative and non-notable material also should not be in Wikiversity. betsythedevine (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

We have nothing to do with Wikiversity, I suggest expressing your concern to them directly. Under the instructions at WP:DRV, it says that if significant new information that comes to light which wasn't there during the initial discussion, you should start a new AfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also external links from the "fedosin" userpage on Wikiversity cite 4 Wikipedia articles which I think should get a closer look here based on WP:COI:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_induction
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_gravitational_constant
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

If somebody here has a connection to Wikiversity, I would be grateful if you would look into it there. betsythedevine (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity permits original research; see Wikiversity:Original research. Adrignola (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of Fedosin's wikiversity material has already appeared on, and been deleted from, Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Selfconsistent_gravidynamic_constants and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infinite_Hierarchical_Nesting_of_Matter. Bm gub (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been notified about this, but I'm uncertain what you want me to do. You can see in my archives (User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 4#Ball lightning) that I tried to discourage him from linking to his own website after he asked me for help, but that is the only time I have ever seen him. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, which was very helpful. I have asked the closing admin about re-opening the Afd, as suggested, and also asked for advice at the COI noticeboard, which is probably where I should have raised this issue in the first place. If anybody wants to hat my query, I feel I already got the help that I asked for. betsythedevine (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Googling his name in cyrillic rather than romanised returns 6 or 7 editorally checked & published sources of material but no obvious third party cites of his theories. That's not to say they don't exist using some contraction of his name, but it might be better if a fluent russian reader or writer confirms they dont exist. There may be grounds for considering the material as fringe rather than non-notable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:ZjarriRrethues

The user has extensively vandalised Serbian- and Greek-related articles, and is known to have a history of prominent edit warring, reverts, OR, POV, etc. A brief look at this users talk page history is evidence enough for his personal feuds with User:Alexikoua, User:WhiteWriter, User:Athenean and his general resentment against non-Albanian history of Albania, the history of Greece (a majority in relation to Epirus) and Serbia (in majority in relation to Kosovo). He has been warned several times, and at times been subject of arbitration and bans. For recent reverts see Vojsava Tripalda (compare 1 and 2) --Zoupan (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, seems to me that all of you just jumped into reporting eachother rather than discussing content. Neither one of you actually did nothing worth administrators attention. No one broke any rule and what is happening is that all of you are edit warring insted of discussing content. There seems to be nothing sanctionable there. The only thing some administrator could do is to assist you in the discussions, but not allways admins are able to spare time for all divergencies. You could and should start discussing, and only when some of the rules is broke, you come here to report. I´ll try to see if I can spare some time to assist you in some content disputes. FkpCascais (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Zoupan obviously cannot understand that when there's a consensus on WP:RS reached on various discussions [60][61], we should stick to it and not use IP evasion in order to avoid the consensus. Apparently this report is a reaction to my report of his IP evasion and edit-warring [62] earlier today. After deciding to stop the IP evasion Zoupan went immediately back to edit-warring [63][64], even though he has been given too many final warnings about it[65][66].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

SchuminWeb and consensus in ref improve section

Please check User_talk:SchuminWeb#Refimprove.21.21.21. The editor denies to postpone mass edits with AWB and continues work based on unclear consensus. I revoked their access to AWB temporarily due to mass edits from a non-bot account with aren't that uncontroversial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I contacted the editor who marked {{Ref improve section}} is deprecated but they haven't been online after my comment. I also left a note in the template's talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that {{Ref improve section}} has 4177 transclusions at the moment after the editor did about a 1,000 edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Now let's discuss: See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 10#Template:Ref improve section. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Insulting India

In the article on Lakshmi (the Hindu godess of wealth and prosperity) the author has claimed that all Indians are money minded, materialistic and do't give importance to human values. The author has insulted the Indian people as a whole by proclaiming that all Indians are more interested in wealth than in knowledge. In doing so the author has not only hurt the feelings of Indian people but also made mockery of our ideals of secularism ( The author has presumed that India=Hindus by saying that Indians are money minded just because the Hindus worship goddess Lakshmi ) .The Hindus worship Lakshmi as a symbol of purity which makes us respect money and not to idle it away. Please make sure that the article is corrected as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.9.41 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. Please take such concerns to the relevant talkpage next time; also, if you mean to report a specific editor, you will have to notify him/her. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Velgean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is probably the one. He seems to be engaged in a bit of editorializing. I don't think this issue is quite "resolved" yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I notified the editor about this entry, but he only edits sporadically, so it's hard telling when or if he'll make another appearance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't see what is to be done beyond a warning, a quick correction if not already done, and eyes on the editor and the article for a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A warning from an admin would carry more weight. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, don't even start with "warning from an admin has more weight." He's been warned, period. Doesn't matter who issues warnings. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right, in theory. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What possible concerns would be resolved by taking obvious pure vandalism and racism to the article's Talk page? Corvus cornix_talk 19:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

IP's from Czech Rep.

85.162.96.197, 85.162.172.143, 85.162.62.139, 85.162.50.187 (maybe more) is involved in edit warring in the Chris Hani article (also other dubious edits in other articles). The fact that he/she found a source now which supports his/her claim about Umkhonto we sizwe doesn't entitle him/her to reinsert it, per Wikipedia:Designated terrorist organizations ,Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) and maybe other rules (we have admins to judge that).--Severino (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the used source doesn't seem to be WP:RS.--Severino (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP continues it's edit war and it seems that it has violated the 3RR MORE than once.--Severino (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

At least one more IP (Special:Contributions/85.162.27.170, obviously the same user) and one more article (Joe Slovo) is concerned by the POV-pushing/vandalism/edit warring.--Severino (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Unconventional editing by RaptorHunter

Following my edit, Swtpc6800 responded to my edit (one indent level in). User:RaptorHunter then edited against convention by injecting a response to my edit before Swtpc6800's edit. I fixed the edits to follow convention, and it is obvious to everyone who engages on talk pages that RaptorHunter's edit is still in response to mine. Unfortunately, RaptorHunter proceeded to revert my fix and in the process managed to delete my post, and then bizarrely ruin the ordering of posts altogether. Could an admin please have a look at this and restore the conventional chronological/indenting used on talk pages?  GFHandel.   23:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)