Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:29, 25 February 2010 editTarc (talk | contribs)24,217 edits →Lets add a self declared only condition to adding the LGB template to living people: - restoring comment that Cyclopia inexplicably removed← Previous edit Revision as of 22:31, 25 February 2010 edit undoDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →User talk:Brews ohare block review: close; misfiledNext edit →
Line 980: Line 980:


== ] block review == == ] block review ==
{{Resolved|Misfiled request. The community does not review arbitration actions.}} <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 22:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

{{archivetop|Appeals of arbitration enforcement rest with the Arbitration Committee}}
This user was blocked for a AE sanction violation. He was blocked by someone not in Arbcom and for reasons that seem to be trivial. He has requested unblock under the claim that he wasn't violating his sanctions. It hasn't been reviewed for 2 days. I '''Strongly recommend''' a lift of the block or a review by a impartial admin that will rule on the merits rather then let someone who was atempting to aact in good faith hanging. ] (]) 01:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC) This user was blocked for a AE sanction violation. He was blocked by someone not in Arbcom and for reasons that seem to be trivial. He has requested unblock under the claim that he wasn't violating his sanctions. It hasn't been reviewed for 2 days. I '''Strongly recommend''' a lift of the block or a review by a impartial admin that will rule on the merits rather then let someone who was atempting to aact in good faith hanging. ] (]) 01:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
: For the record, I am actively considering this block; but I am also awaiting comment by Sandstein, the blocking administrator. ] 01:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC) : For the record, I am actively considering this block; but I am also awaiting comment by Sandstein, the blocking administrator. ] 01:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,020: Line 1,021:
**I don't think so. I am not one of these accounts Jehochman. And I am surprised to hear this from you.I always considered you a thoughtful and fair admin. You have to admit this transgression is a light one. Blocking Brews for a week seems excessive. That's what drew me into this bitter mess. Rest assured I hate these conflicts with a passion. But I also hate persecution. So no. Please do not dismiss me as one of the Brews pack, whatever that may mean. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position: relative">]<span style="position:absolute; bottom: -1.5ex; *bottom: -0.55ex;left: 0px">]</span></sup></small> 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC) **I don't think so. I am not one of these accounts Jehochman. And I am surprised to hear this from you.I always considered you a thoughtful and fair admin. You have to admit this transgression is a light one. Blocking Brews for a week seems excessive. That's what drew me into this bitter mess. Rest assured I hate these conflicts with a passion. But I also hate persecution. So no. Please do not dismiss me as one of the Brews pack, whatever that may mean. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position: relative">]<span style="position:absolute; bottom: -1.5ex; *bottom: -0.55ex;left: 0px">]</span></sup></small> 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Support unblock. Count Iblis has spoken well.] (]) 16:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Support unblock. Count Iblis has spoken well.] (]) 16:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}


== The Blue Cross - COI and edit warring == == The Blue Cross - COI and edit warring ==

Revision as of 22:31, 25 February 2010


Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    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 Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy

    Resolved – User placed on an indefinite 1RR restriction. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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


    Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) George Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This user was placed on a 1rr restriction at 22:36, October 29, 2009 UTC for 6 months. They were also blacklisted from twinkle per their using it to edit war. They have since violated it several times, and have created maybe two ANI threads requesting it be rescinded, which were both declined. I will try to find and link said happenings if required. Those happenings, however, are not at what is at issue here. What is at issue, is his most recent behavior, where he violated his 1rr restriction, and even violated 3rr after being told by an admin and another user(not me) that he was at fault. The timeline is as follows(earliest at top):

    There is a bit more, but I don't believe that is needed. Per the above, I am asking that his 1rr restriction be reset back to 6 months instead of the 2 that are left.— Dædαlus 09:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

    Radiopathy's statement

    Your statement here

    • I meant a rise in my pay for the time I spend here. It was an attempt at humour, but I forgot I was at Misplaced Pages, where the whole concept is foreign. You can extend your 1RR for the rest of time for all I care. I wouldn't be surprised if I came back in six months to find a discussion about me still going on. It's obvious why Misplaced Pages is an international laughingstock. Get a fuckin' life already. Radiopathy •talk• 23:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


    Discussion

    Radiopathy = blocked for a week, so I don't think a statement from him will be swift in coming unless copied from his talk page. Ks0stm 09:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

    Double EC: Nevermind, Daedalus is a step ahead of me. Ks0stm 09:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    Already taken care of. A section from his talk page is transcluded here.— Dædαlus 09:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    Easy call, by the looks of it. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    What I don't get is that someone blocked the newbie who was most likely never aware of any of the policies. Too bad. May have just scared away a potential good editor. Oh well, damage is done now.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    I don't understand how Radiopathy missed the sundry inline (and handily online) citations eleven times. The edits he was reverting were straightforwardly not vandalism. This said, further down the article does say the LA County death certificate listed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer as the cause of death, although the source cited there, while mentioning lung cancer, says nothing about a death certificate. Hence, it looks to me as though Radiopathy, at least, truly believed the sources supported lung cancer as the cause of death but made a very big string of mistakes by reverting a good faith edit eleven times. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    Looks like User:Radiopathy is retired again. I guess he trying to break Brett Favre's record.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    Disregard it. His attempts to retire never stick. I don't know how MO regarding them, but discussion should continue.— Dædαlus 21:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    Indeed, he likely hasn't really retired, and is only using that tag as a way to halt discussion in lieu of oh, he's required, I guess the proposal is moot now. ..Especially considering that he posted his unblocked request(04:40, February 21, 2010 UTC) after he replaced his talk page content with a retired tag(03:49, February 21, 2010 UTC). Retired? I don't think so. Discussion, as said, should continue.— Dædαlus 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    Agree with Daedalus969, his "retirement" should be irrelevant to this discussion. He's done it before on several occasions when he gets frustrated with other editors. As for the other points, I have no doubt Radiopathy was doing what he thought was best. However, as shown before, Radiopathy doesn't care when his ideas cross with policy. I'd support the 1RR completely, as the edit warring line appears to be very blurry for him. Dayewalker (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


    Comment - The block of Timothy92834 was completely appropriate. I may be the editor who Daedalus969 is referring to when he wrote above, "and even violated 3rr after being told by an admin and another user(not me) that he was at fault". If so, that's not correct: I didn't tell Radiopathy he was at fault. I did say it was a content dispute, and not vandalism, and while I agree with the block of Radiopathy, Timothy92834 is more at fault than Radiopathy. Timothy92834 ignored messages from Radiopathy, me, and Zero0000 to stop reverting the page and discuss the issue on the talk page. He made no attempt to do so. I don't think he is a true newbie; he has few edits from his account, but his edits indicate someone who knows how wikicode works, WP policies, etc., more than a real newbie would. If he comes back after the block and repeats the revert, he should be blocked again.

    Both users were wrong to call each other's edits vandalism, and that is an ongoing issue with Radiopathy. In some cases, if he disagrees with a content change, he calls it vandalism, and then feels free to revert at will without regard to 3RR (and more recently, his 1RR restriction). It's too bad; he has made a lot of good edits and defends a lot of articles from real vandalism. In this case, I think he was correct to revert the original change(s) by Timothy9283. The sources are not air-tight either way and discussion was required. On the other hand, Radiopathy should have used other means to respond when Timothy92834 repeated the edits and refused to discuss the issue. Radiopathy did try ANI, and was told it was a content dispute, which was true, but not the whole story. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

    At first blush I did worry that the block of Timothy92834 might not have been called for, but when I looked into it, saw he hadn't heeded the messages and only fed the edit war with Radiopathy. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


    Radiopathy, please explain your position more clearly. As it is now, it is rather vague.— Dædαlus 03:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    • Some background: I first came across the editor while handling 3RR reports at WP:ANEW in Oct'09 and since then have had occasion to: (1) block the editor for 3RR violation; (2) lift the block early assuming good faith after emailed and on-wiki assurances that the editor would not edit war anymore; (3) apply a 6 month 1RR restriction after consultation at the 3RR board since the editor resumed edit-warring within hours of being unblocked! (4) caution the editor at least twice for subsequent violations of 1RR; (5) block the editor twice for violation of 1RR and 12(!) RR. What's amazing is that I have had to take so many admin actions w.r.t. Radiopathy even though I don't follow his/her contributions, nor do we have any apparent overlap in the articles we edit or watchlisted. All these actions were solely in response to occasional patrolling of the 3RR board, or complaints posted on my talk page by other editors - and thus possibly represent only a fraction of the infractions. Abecedare (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Support/Oppose reset of 1rr restriction back to 6 months

    This section is to make support or opposition of the proposal easier to follow.— Dædαlus 23:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

    To prevent premature close

    This is simply to prevent the bot from archiving this thread before an uninvolved admin has reviewed and closed it.— Dædαlus 05:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

    User:Dwanyewest

    The above mentioned user has done a number of questionable things associated with a flurry of recent AfD nominations:

    • Canvassing: He is inviting those who do not like these particular articles to the discussions. See also this request that someone who seems to be arguing to delete in one of the discussions come join two others Dwaynewest nominated.
    • Indiscriminate copying and pasting of comments: Regarding this reply, User:Dwanyewest has actually posted that exact same "It fails..." line across a host of Afds: see for example , (the MAIN villain in a series with multiple episode appearances and that was made into an action figure that appears on a top ten list), (one of the principal locations of the He-Man universe with appearances on television, in cartoon booklets, and as at least one playset that yes, I still have somewhere...), , , , etc. In fact, he nominated about THIRTY articles listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements from the C.O.P.S. and Masters of the Universe franchises with near copy and paste nominations. Writing the exact same worded nominations and subsequent comments for episodes, characters, and locations does not feel right. These are not the same things. Moreover, the characters and locations vary considerably one from the other, i.e. how could the same worded argument possibly apply to a henchman with no action figure and who appears in one episode versus the main villain with multiple episodes versus the main villain's headquarters that also appears in comics and as a playset and especially when checking Google Books, these same characters and locations get different amounts of sourcing? What is more, I am seeing no reason presented as to why many of these could not be merged or even redirected as they are not hoaxes, libelous, or copy vios and a clear redirect location exists. Additionally, the same "original research" line is being applied to even ones that actually do have out of universe information sourced from a secondary source or two. I do not see any reason why per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE merges and redirects are not being discussed and considered first and it does not even appear that sources are being looked for prior to the nominations or that the individual notability of each article is actually being considered. It looks more like as someone said in one of them, the nominator is just indiscriminately mass nominating from categories.
    • Double voting: See for example this in a discussion concerning an article he nominated.
    • Removing friendly notices from the talk page: See for example this.

    Warnings from other editors concerning AfD behavior include: from Jmcw37, from Janggeom, fromJJL, from DGG, from Dream Focus, from EEMIV, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

    Dalejenkins, possibly? –MuZemike 19:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    I share the concerns over Dwanyewest's flurry of inadequately considered AfDs and PRODs. He seems insufficiently familiar with the procedures and policies. See also the discussions at the Martial Arts project's page. JJL (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    He has been here for too long in my opinion to be Dale. I could be wrong though if Dale never edited his other socks on this IP, thus escaping the checkuser's attention. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I will grant that there have been a couple of them that were questionable, but by and large, many of the articles I've personally looked at were a bit questionable. First, making the big issue about PROD's is a tempest in a teacup. So what, it got PROD'D. PROD's are ridiculously easy to contest and they give you 7 days to do it. All prod's are listed at the prodsum page. I became involved in this when a number of martial arts related prods were removed, not by addressing the reason for the prod, but with a cut and paste message telling him to go to the martial arts project to discuss it. I expressed my disapproval of that at the MA Project page. But the end result was good. We all reached common ground, constructed a plan to methodically clean up articles in the project and so overall, the outcome was positive. The other thing that I've observed in the process is that some people are of the opinion that a trivial mention of something is enough to establish notability or that a couple of trivial mentions can be added together to equal significant coverage. Then they take that opinion and (sometimes rudely) begin making accusations of bad faith actions. Rubbish! The AfD discussion is where that can be debated. People can, in good faith, hold one opinion or the other and dabte it and see what the community decided. I've nominated things that I still, to this day, don't feel have significant coverage, but the community feels a one paragraph review is significant. Ok, I have to accept that the consensus opinion differs from mine. Likewise, I've nominated things that others argued hard hhad significant coverage, but the community disagreed with them. That doesn't mean that they were acting in bad faith to argue the keep. Let the process function and abide by the consensus. But this is a non-incident and my biggest fear is that Dwaynewest will end up with some ridiculous sanction over what he believes is good faith action and something I don't see as being that disruptive. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    I agree. Unless he is a sock acting in bad faith I would advise him to continue on. Most of the articles he has nominated shouldn't be here in the first place. ThemFromSpace 22:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    You advise him to continue double voting and spamming discussions with copy and pasted comments? Or how about in some cases, not even providing a reason? Nothing that he has nominated should be redlinked. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Mentioning in the edit summary that he is PRODding an article would be most welcome. He removed criticism in this regard from his Talk page. I missed some PRODs I would have wanted to have known about in this way. JJL (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Let's have a look at A Nobody's accusations one by one, shall we?
    • First the accusation of canvassing. Dwanyewest contacted two people, one whose advice he was asking, and one whom he'd had previous discussions with about the articles in question. You'd have to try pretty hard to assume bad faith to infer canvassing here.
    • Next is the claim of copy & paste comments at AfD. When you're nominating many articles which all suffer from very similar problems, it is only natural that the nominations will be similar. Insisting on original wording for each one seems to me to be an unnecessary and pointless restriction, especially since A Nobody has never shied from flooding AfD discussions with copy & paste comments himself.
    • I've seen many discussions where the nominator has cast a single "delete" vote themselves, and nobody has ever complained before to my knowledge. Not an issue.
    • Removing notices from your talk page is allowed. A Nobody does it on his own talk page quite regularly.
    • Dwanyewest corrected himself when it was pointed out that he hadn't provided a deletion rationale, and now the editor who objected agrees the article should be deleted. No need to whinge about it on ANI.
    • That brings us to the multitude of people complaining on Dwanyewest's talk page. I'll point out that EEMIV didn't object to the articles being nominated, just that the nominations weren't completed properly. Most of the other complainers were the usual suspects from the Article Rescue Squadron claiming D hadn't done enough searching for sources before nominating. And that brings me to the major issue. I've looked at a number of D's nominations and examined a good number of the "sources" being presented there as reasons to keep. They're mostly crap. Irrelevant fluff being presented to us as substantial coverage. I mean, just look at this load of rubbish sampled from several of the articles in question: a blog, a book that does not appear to contain the information claimed, an Amazon page where the DVD is for sale, a single paragraph advertisement on the Disney site, and two single-line snippets from TV guides , . Pretty feeble, if you ask me. And if anyone can tell me what this is supposed to prove I'll be eternally grateful. If this is the best the pro-keep side can do, then I think it's pretty clear that the subjects of these articles are pretty well non-notable and the fervent objections of the ARS ring pretty hollow.
    • So to sum up, not one of A Nobody's litany of bitter complaints against Dwanyewest has any merit. If anything D should be barnstarred forthwith, and the perpetrators of this attempt to mislead the Misplaced Pages community with bogus sources admonished very strongly. Reyk YO! 10:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Reyk's totally false comment above is deliberately misleading and consistent with his battleground distortions of reality to advance his biased agenda: "I'm off to fly the Deletionist flag over at AfD", "keepmongers," repeated use of WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT, etc. We are not naive. That is why no neutral observer does not correctly sees the problems of these indiscriminate nominations, as the carelessness is revealed in the double voting, not providing an edit summary until told to, copy and paste spamming, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Everything I have said is correct. Address the points instead of attacking the editor. Reyk YO! 18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
          • I cannot address distortions. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Yet this whole attack on Dwanyewest is a distortion. I have refuted all your points, you have failed to address a single one of mine. Oh, but wait, I used some snarky language in a discussion once so I must be wrong. Reyk YO! 18:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
              • You are attempting to defend the indefinsible. You have not refuted anything, just presented a bias and inaccurate distortion of what is pretty clearly indiscriminate nominations that violate WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
                • Whatever you think. I feel I have made some pretty convincing arguments, and drawn attention to the misuse of sources that's been happening lately, that I hope the closing admins here will take note of. You can continue to point your fingers at me and go "OMG an evil scary kitten-eating battleground deletionist" or you can actually argue the point. I won't be holding my breath. Reyk YO! 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
                    • I am happy to argue with objective and neutral points, not ones that are presented as part of "flying the Deletionist flag," i.e. that are inherently slanted. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
                • It's the violations of WP:BEFORE, the lack of informative edit summaries on PRODs/AfDs, the malformed AfDs, and the general lack of understanding of policies that's most problematic for me, though the volume of the flood of martial arts nominations is also an issue--there's only so much time and energy to keep refuting AfDs of notable pages. JJL (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
                  • WP:BEFORE is not policy, nor even a guidelines for that matter, and can be safely ignored if a user chooses to do so. The other issues seem more of a matter of unfamiliarity with the AfD process rather than a willful disregard. A bit of instruction from a wiki-veteran or two would be preferable to being dragged to an AN/I bludgeoning first. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    I propose that A Nobody be banned from raising new matters at AN/I or other similar venues until he has substantively, and constructively, addressed the myriad matters raised in his own RfC/U. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    • In response to Reyk's comment that "Most of the other complainers were the usual suspects from the Article Rescue Squadron claiming D hadn't done enough searching for sources before nominating." I'd like to point out that they were actually from the Martial Arts group first, others then pointing out the same thing as he kept nominating things elsewhere. The complaints are all valid, regardless of who gave them. You should always do some searching yourself BEFORE nominating anything at all. How many dozens or hundreds of AFD and prods should someone be able to do in a week's time? If most end in Keep, will the person stop mass nominating things, or keep on going? Dream Focus 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Let's put it this way, Dwaynewest has been sending multiple articles to AFD with the same rationales, despite the topics being entirely different, and when someone else makes a comment at one of the several AFDs, he copies and pastes his own version of that comment across every other AFD where he believes it is applicable. And he has copied and pasted directly aspects of policies and guidelines on notability to make it seem like he is making a point. Someone who has been on the site for this long should know how AFD and PROD and other deletion processes work. Why would a deletion rationale for a fictional character be the same for a television episode?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    • Whoa! Are you saying Dwanyewest should not cite policies and guidelines? I know those pesky things are inconvenient for people who write and defend the sorts of articles D has been nominating, but I think they're important. And I think given the way many of the AfD discussions are going, particularly on those execrable C.O.P.S character bios which are tending towards consistent consensus to delete, you'd be hard pressed to argue these are bad faith nominations. A few misfires early on, perhaps, but nothing to justify A Nobody going running to ANI over. This is a troublesome and insubstantial whinge from someone who is fast becoming ANI's version of a vexatious litigant. Reyk YO! 08:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment Although I have been one to warn him, I still assume good faith. I think he is a bit too passionate in his belief that any article without excellent sources should be immediately deleted. It is true that in the Martial Arts Project, we have had a simmering problem about article quality: both inclusionists and deletioninsts have been frustrated. As Nightshift mentioned above, we have a good solution now and Dwaynewest is working well within this group. I would not recommend any sanctions against him for his work on the Martial Arts articles. jmcw (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Second Thoughts Perhaps I have assumed too much good faith: jmcw (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I begin to expect him soon to demand the deletion of his own user page for lack of references. jmcw (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    What are you actually referring to with your link here? I may be dense, but I fail to see the involvement of DwanyeWest, or the problem. Fram (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    In this link, Dwanyewest is demanding the deletion of the articles about the more reliable sources in martial arts. I see this as lacking perspective and knowledge. jmcw (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Moreover, we are still seeing "delete votes" added by the nominator in discussions after someone else has argued to keep. Normally, if the nominator wants to include a bolded "delete", it is part of the nomination rather than added somewhere in the discussion after someone else comments, which whether intentional or not gives the appearance of a double vote as obviously the nomination is a "vote" to delete. Moreover, the wording of this bolded delete "vote" is a practical repeat of the nomination anyway. That example is also another good one for what we mean by the indscriminate nature of these nominations. The nominator claims there are "no reliable third person sources" and once again dismisses a character who is central to the plot of a theatrically released film and who subsequently was adapted as a toy, in comics, etc. as "non-notable." It took all of a minute on Google Books to find multi-page references in such publications as Cinefantastique that reveals who plays as the character, which character from the show this film character is based on, as well as who designed the character, a description of the character, and the character's relevance to the story, which I have incorporated throughout the article. There appear to be a couple dozen other published books we can use to further improve this article. And as pointed out above, this character is not just in the movie, but also as a toy as well as cover character of a publication. Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The deletion process requires that people be reasonable and give reasons in all aspects--otherwise it's a cross between a popularity contest and , not a discussion based of rational arguments. The most rational argument in this sort of question is sources, and sending multiple articles to be deleted because they are presently unsourced for notability, rather than unsourceable , is an abuse of process. 95% of Misplaced Pages articles are not really adequately sourced. I could nominate them all for deletion with that as the rationale, and although everything I said would be true, people would be very quick to judge me disruptive. I'm not going to go thru all of the nominations involved, but they seem as a class many of them thought out and reckless. Frankly, the solution is make WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE required, and reject any nomination that does not deliberately address those concerns. I think anyone who wants to delete properly would do this, and the only people who continue to oppose are those who want to delete everything that on its face looks a little inadequate. without caring whether or not it is done in appropriate cases.

    The issue of what is need for a fiction article is unresolved. It's agreed that the Misplaced Pages coverage of a work must not be entirely about plot, but it is not agreed whether it applies to individual articles about elements of the plot. In terms of sourcing to meet WP:V, everyone agrees it is essential. But the consistent decision at the RS noticeboard has been that the facts about a work can be taken from the work itself, and we do this routinely with all sorts of articles on media. The expressions of some of the people above are either representing unresolved questions as if they were resolved the way they would like them resolved, or trying to make resolved questions, like the nature of sourcing , quite opposite from the way it actually is. What truly distresses me is that some of these people have been closing AfD discussions in terms of their own erratic opinions, and refusing to restore histories on the basis that the material is based on a primary source only. What distresses me even more is the comment of three respected people above that A.N. should be prevented from defending articles. The example he gives directly above shows his remarkable ability to source them. This sort of attempt to eliminate a powerful and effective opponent looks like bias about either the issue or personally about the editor. No admin who thinks this way should be closing disputed AfD discussions in which he is involved . It is exactly the same as if I were to close disputed afds that have been brought by Dwanyewest. We can't help having our feelings about editors-- but we cannot express them in such a manner as administrators. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    This appears to be referring to User talk:Cirt#Highway (C.O.P.S.) (WP:Articles for deletion/Highway (C.O.P.S.)). If a user is not satisfied after discussion with the closing admin, the venue for appeal is WP:Deletion review. DGG, do you approve of A Nobody's merges and use of {{Copied}}? Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Involved admin using their powers in a BLP dispute

    Resolved – Issue has been handled via OTRS. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    A BLP concern has been expressed about the inclusion of WP:REDLINKs for amateur athlete on 2010 United States Women's Curling Championship. These women are private citizens, amateur athletes who are not competing at the highest level of their sport (which in curling would be the Olympics and World Champsionship) and per WP:ATHLETE do not qualify for an article much less a redlink with it shiny target for vandalism. Responding to these BLP concerns, I removed the names of most of these non-notable amateur athletes. One of the editors who reverts this was an admin, User:Earl Andrew. I then started a section on the talk page where the BLP concerns were clearly laid out. Earl Andrew not only ignored these BLP concerns and revert back but also protected the page under the auspices that my actions were vandalism. I know that at least one of the women involved has filed an OTRS so the BLP issue is being escalated on that avenue. What concerns me here, and the reason why I'm bringing this to AN/I, is an involved admin using his powers in a dispute involving BLP issues. At the very least Earl Andrews should have gotten an uninvolved admin to look at the matter. Can an uninvolve admin look into Earl Andrew's behavior and counsel him on how to handle these types of BLP issues in the future? Agne/ 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    A national championship is clearly the top level of a sport so that argument is fallacious. Also, almost all curlers are amateurs, even those competing now in the Olympics (only the Chinese teams and two of the British men are full-time curlers, the rest all have day jobs), so their amateur status is also irrelevant as an argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Incorrect. For US Woman's curling it is the Olympics and World's are the top levels. Nationals are distinctly the third rung down on the ladder. These woman only need to sign up for a spot to be one of the 10 teams that compete in nationals, except on the rare year when more than 10 teams sign up. This is not like Canadian curler where they have to go through club, region and provincial play downs. Agne/ 21:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    OK, I bow to your knowledge of the actual situation. I agree that there's no reason the names should be redlinked, as there's no reasonable certainty that an article on them will pass notability requirements (and an article can always be created if they move up in status), but I do think that having their names there is reasonable. My suggestion, then, is to leave the tables in place, but remove the redlinks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Admin is clearly involved, so I unprotected the page. They should use WP:RFPP if the content dispute persists.
    That being said, I'm not entirely sure I understand how this is a BLP concern. If the list of participants is sourced, it seems fine for inclusion (even if they don't have individual notability for their own articles - in this case, wouldn't simply delinking be a better choice?). –xeno 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    I believe that the objection is to the redlinks, not the names themselves. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Sure, but reporting user is deleting the names outright . –xeno 20:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Ah, yea I see that now, lopping off the 2nd, 3rd, etc... finishers. Well to Agne27 then, would you object to a non-linked entry for the others? Tarc (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    The OTRS ticket mentioned above: ticket:2010022210032133. Endorse Xeno's unprotection of the page. NW (Talk) 20:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    The BLP issue is both the redlinks (which per WP:REDLINK we shouldn't have for non-notable subjects like these amateur athletes) but also the prominence of Misplaced Pages pages showing up on Google searches. The presence of a redlink is an invitation for people to create an article with personal details or vandalism. Also, as I've been informed by some of these women (who contacted me because they know I'm a Wikipedian) there has been a rash of cyber stalking so having their names so prominently featured on Google searches is a concern in this regard. It is highly unusual for the Vices, 2nds and leads of a curling team to have their names published. Normally the teams are just known under the skip name. Agne/ 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    There is no BLP issue for simply listing the participants in the tournament when they are clearly listed on the USCA site. The listings here are merely the names, and don't include anything else (unlike the USCA site, which lists their hometowns). I do agree that removing the links for those unlikely to have articles created is a good thing, but I don't see how listing their names in any way violates the BLP policy.
    Also, please stop edit warring on that article. If you continue, you will likely be blocked for it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    The website of the organization that run the Collegiate Cheerleading Championships list the rosters for the events but would we ever dream of including the roster name of all the participants in those articles? What about the rosters for the Texas Football Classic? Neither of those events are the highest level in cheerleading or football, just as the woman's nationals are not the highest level for curling. We wouldn't make those edits because there would be valid BLP concerns to listing the name of non-notable athletes and no encyclopedic benefit--only the potential for harm to the subject whose name is being listed. Plus, as another editor astutely noted, there are no independent 3rd party sources that list the rosters only the organization-much like how local softball organization list the rosters of teams on their league. That doesn't give justification to invade the privacy of non-notable amateur athletes who are not competing at the highest level of their sport. Agne/ 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Any national championship is considered one of the highest levels of competition for any sport, and your attempts to change things to otherwise are disingenuous. The Olympics are a special event which happens only every four years, and are on-par with the annual world championships of any sport. Listing a name of a sporting event participant is not an invasion of privacy under any interpretation of the BLP or any other policy, especially when the official site of the organization sponsoring the event lists the participant publicly on their website. Your close connection with the complainant in the OTRS ticket is likely clouding your judgement here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    I strongly suspect that you are not familiar with curling, much less US women curling. If I want, I could ask 3 random US women Wikipedians on this board if they want to form a curling team with me. I could pay their membership dues at any club in the US and sign up for next years national championship. If less than 10 teams sign up....guess what! We get to go and participate in a national championship. We don't have to know a lick about curling or have ever step foot on the ice before. All we have to do is be members of a club and pay dues. Granted, we'll get our butts kicked but, still, we're competing in a "national championship" and would apparently warrant having our names featured in Misplaced Pages. If more than 10 teams sign up, we would only then have to play for the spot but that rarely happens (usually only during Olympic years-most years around 7 to 6 teams sign up). It is not like the United States Figure Skating Championships which you have to qualify to get into. Heck, it's harder to get into the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest than it is the Woman's US nationals most years. That is why the nationals are not considered the highest level in US curling. In the Olympics, you have to actually get through the Olympic trials and to get to the World's you have to actually compete and win something. Agne/ 22:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    As for my connection, yeah I belong to wine clubs with a few of the women listed on that page and have met others on that list at curling events. Several of them knew me as a Wikipedian because of my wine editing so I got to be the one trying to explain to them why Misplaced Pages is invading their privacy when they really haven't done anything to warrant being in an encyclopedia. They didn't participate in crime or notable event and they certainly haven't competed at the highest level of their sport--some of them even have no such interest to ever compete at that high level. They are just curling for the fun of it. They just signed up for a week away from work and the kids and now they are open up to their names being prominently featured on Google via Misplaced Pages. As someone who believes in the higher ideals of Misplaced Pages and its endeavor to be a responsible and credible encyclopedia, yeah it is a little embarrassing to have people you know ask you why your fellow editors are so unaware of the real life consequences that their edits have on the lives of regular, non-encyclopedic worthy people. Agne/ 22:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Having a person's name listed is not an invasion of privacy as no other identifiable information is listed about them, making it very difficult (if not impossible) for them to be personally identified. If they're really concerned, they should get the USCA to remove their names as that's where the information was likely taken from. There are no real life consequences to having a name listed as a participant in a tournament, no matter how you try to trump things up to be more than that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    I don't want to "out" one of the names who is dealing with a persistent stalker issue but if you search for her name in quotes with curling in Google, the Misplaced Pages entry for the Kalamazoo games is front and center while the USCA page is buried several pages back after non-related links about different people/things. So thanks to Misplaced Pages, this woman's stalker was able to figure where she was going to be next week MUCH easier than if the name of this non-notable amateur athlete was never added to the page. THAT is a very pertinent real world consequence. And for what encyclopedic benefit? What does Misplaced Pages gain in listing the non-notable participants of an event that is not even the highest level of their sport? Agne/ 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    I certainly have every sympathy for your friend. I certainly hope the authorities deal with this stalker like they should, and not like they usually do. But regardless of if the name should be there or not, the villain is the stalker. The name was put there in good faith. A desire to give a full roster of those competing. It was only added from info already publicly available and no other personal info was added. From what little experience I have with stalkers, once it's out there they find it. That's what makes them obsessive stalkers.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    I don't doubt the good faith of the editors who originally added the information or reverted my removal the first time. What is troubling is when editors are informed of concerns about content relating to real, living people and they either insist on re-adding it or, as Nihonjoe does above, dismiss those concerns are invalid. Several of the women are dealing with stalkers, with different levels of severity, and they understand the risk of the USCA website. But when they choose to curl in this event, they never expected Misplaced Pages would be compounding their risk because their participation, alone, was not notable. Misplaced Pages's presence on Google is much stronger than any other website which non-notable people are often listed on. There is more risk being listed here. We must be careful with what we feature here and we must respond when concerns are brought up. Making an innocent edit is fine but it is how you respond afterwards that is the most telling. I hope this is just an isolated incident but all editors should be mindful of the real life consequences of our edits and not dismiss them as casually as NihonJoe and Earl Andrews appear to have. Agne/ 00:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    (unindent) This is one of those matters where I wish we didn't have OTRS or BLP to begin with. Is the US National Curling Championship notable? Then the people who are essentially involved are notable -- & determining which are "essentially involved" is an issue for the article's Talk page. Can a hypothetical stalker find out where a person is through expected use of other sources? (There is such a thing called newspapers which have a sports section, & which contain the results of sporting events like this -- there are other ways of learning things than using the Internet.) Well, sure we can redact a person's name from Misplaced Pages, but that's only plugging one hole in a very leaky boat: the scumbag is going to find out what he wants some other way. The ugly truth is that every notable & semi-notable woman probably has a stalker out there; I've been told from a knowledgeable source that every woman newscaster in my home town has a stalker. (Which I freely admit is a creepy fact to know.) Removing their articles & names from Misplaced Pages is not going to much towards stopping them -- but will cripple our mission to provide information on all notable topics. -- llywrch (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    (EC) My concern is just the reality of the situation. If this stalker is already googling this persons name with curling then he's obsessed enough to scroll to page 2 or 3 of the google results. If it's as serious as you describe it's a false sense of security to think that a stalker won't find out about info that's there on the internet. I don't know who your friend is, but 3 or 4 names I picked at random all came up with USCA of the first page. If it was farther down for your friend, that was luck to be blunt. Right or wrong I just think you're overstating the wikipedia factor here. I wish I had the answers, but I think that's for law enforcement.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    We're missing the forest through the trees. Yes, a committed stalker will find information but there is no reason for Misplaced Pages to make it easier for them especially when (and these are the most important points) A.) The subject is non-notable and are participating in an event that does not make them notable per WP:ATHLETE since it is the not the highest level in their sport. The Boston Marathon is a notable event but we don't list all the marathon participants-only the winners or maybe those who go on to Olympic or World events. Neither do we list all the participating rosters of the Collegiate Cheerleading Championships. B.) There is no encyclopedic benefit to having information about non-notable team members in the article when curling teams are known by their skip name and, finally, C.) BLP concerns have been expressed by some of the real, living people who are impacted by their names being included in Misplaced Pages. We have WP:BLP1E and other policies that remove names of criminals and other people from articles for much less compelling reasons but ultimately we do it because it is the responsible thing to do. Given the very low encyclopedic notability of these women, it is a reasonable request that their names stay off the article. Agne/ 01:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I'd like to add my two cents here. I'm surprised Agne claims to be knowledgeable on the subject of curling. I don't know of any articles he's contributed to on the subject... I recall an AFD debate in the past that stated that allowed an article on a curler to be kept was that they were a competitive curler on the World Curling Tour, which is definitely the highest level curling tour in the world. I think most of the curlers in question play in the WCT. Also, we have articles with some red links and complete lists for the equivalent Canadian championships. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    First off, I'm female and just because I spend my time editing wine articles doesn't mean I can't respond to a BLP concern by an acquittance who knows I am a Wikipedian. It doesn't mean I'm not a curling fan who knows the sport and attended events. Please read this discussion and reconsider your actions. This blatant disregard for the BLP concerns of amateur women athletes is troubling. There is no valid reason for their inclusion. Agne/ 03:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Wait, Missing the forest through the trees? If by tree you mean a real life person with a real life stalker I believe I've expressed great concern about the reality of her situation. Are we talking about a real life situation or general theoretical notability concerns?--Cube lurker (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I mean getting caught up in the details of the stalker for this one person when their BLP concerns applying to all. The vast, vast majority of these women will never qualify for an article under WP:ATHLETE yet they are all subjected to having their names prominently featured in Google searches via a Misplaced Pages page. This does have real consequences that range from aiding and abetting stalking, to inviting vandalism to the page, to just the general sense of violated privacy that some of these women feel. These women signed up for a week of curling and Misplaced Pages is thrusting them into a spot lot beyond the scope of their accomplishments. They are not competing at the highest level of their sport that would warrant Misplaced Pages's notoriety. The forest through trees is the simple fact that we offer more WP:BLP1E consideration to criminals and internet memes than we do women curlers who never asked for their names and future locations to be published in Misplaced Pages. Agne/ 04:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    If we're not talking specifics than I think there are different levels. Not all people should have an article. We shouldn't add personal information. I have seen nothing here though to convince me that it's some great danger to take a name from a roster that's been published on the internet and to add it to an article. Google will find it either way. You are also mistaken on BL1E. Just because we don't write articles about those criminals you speak of doesn't mean we don't name them in related articles. This has drifted away from the original incident however.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I am all in favour of removing the redlinks to the non notable curlers listed on the page, but I think removing the names would take away from the encyclopedic integrity of the article. A curling team is a team of four individuals, and for encyclopedic purposes, they should be listed. I would argue playing in the US championship to be noteworthy enough for an article, but I would be satisfied with just having the WCT players having articles in this instance. Regardless, I think the stalking issue is a matter that should be dealt between law authorities and Misplaced Pages. As I was saying to Agne, I can't see how a would be stalker would use Misplaced Pages to help him in anyway. How pray tell would they do this? -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    (out) This whole megillah is quite silly. The USCA website has biographies of the curlers, complete with hometown and date of birth. This much more complete information is public, where anyone can find it, and all we're talking about here is simply listing names. There's no excuse for User:Agne27 to stand in the way of that quite reasonable compromise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    The biographies DO NOT mention where any of those curlers are going to be next week. Also, for many of these women's name (especially those with somewhat common names), their USCA page is buried several pages on Google. It doesn't show up as link #1 like a Misplaced Pages page. As anyone involved in SEO knows, Misplaced Pages is a whole other ballgame. As for compromised, I have have no problem including a separate section for notable curlers and leaving a USCA link for the full rosters. That way we have all the encyclopedic information that a curious reader could find but we avoid thrusting private citizen's name into Google's limelight by needless including the name of non-notable athletes on the page. Agne/ 05:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Listing some curlers, and not others is not very encyclopedic at all. Again, anyone who wants to know where these women are, are going to find out one way or another. They are listed on the USCA site, and they will all be listed on curlingzone that week. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    @Adne27: I'm sorry, your arguments are not convincing, and consensus here is clearly firmly against you. Please do not continue to edit war to force your preferred format against that consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Consensus is that the majority of these women are not notable--which I totally agree with. Even Nihonjoe has noted that consensus hasn't fully supported their inclusion. I, again, have no problem with leaving an external link to the USCA or even Curling Zone pages. Both of those sites are far less visible on Google and doesn't pose the type of harm that having the names of non-notable private citizens on Misplaced Pages can have. This can be an acceptable compromise since it maintains the encyclopedic information for the curious reader coming to that page but it keeps the names of these non-notable living people from being so prominent featured on Misplaced Pages. Agne/ 06:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Your understanding of notability is not correct. If someone tried to start an article on these people, on the sole basis of their participation in the event in question, then you would have a point, but everyone so far has agreed that the individual particpants are not per se notable for that reason. However, they are participants in a notable event, and, as such, it is completely legitimate to include their names, sans links, in an article about the championships. Regardless of the procedure used to qualify participants, these are the US National Championships of an Olympic sport, and that, in and of itself, confers notability. If the participants didn't want to be recognized, they should not have crossed the boundary between private behavior at the local curling club, and public behavior at a national championship. By their freely-made choice to participate, they left behind a certain degree of anonymity and stepped into the public arena. That doesn't mean that anything goes, but it does mean that their names are going to be listed on Misplaced Pages, on the curling association's website, and in any media coverage they should happen to get. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Please note that this, the source for the information on Misplaced Pages, is a press release. It ends with contact information for the publicist to talk to for more information. The USCA released these names into the public domain, with the intent of getting whatever publicity they can get to further the attendance and interest at the event. It's generally the case that participants in an event whose names are provided in this manner have signed a release which allows the information to be made public. In this case, more than likely, it was included in the application for participation in the event. If all that is the case, and all of that is entirely the usual course of business in these situations, then the person you're trying to protect needs to talk to the USCA about pulling back their name, in which case, more than likely, the USCA is going to decline to do so, saying that if you partiicpate, you do so under these conditions. But if the USCA should issue a revised press release without that person's name, then Misplaced Pages should, of course, present the most up-to-date facts and remove or replace the name.

    Until that happens, though, there's nothing that you can do about it. Your friend has apparently given her permission for her name to be used in a pres release, and it's not in any way reasonable to ask Misplaced Pages to suppress information that has been released publicly for the purpose of getting publicity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Agne is exactly right

    This is a sport whose presence in a country is so minor that the women's national championship accepts walk-ins. Any female can sign up, pay a fee, and compete. A few take that opportunity with the rational expectation that it would result in little more attention than a bottom tier result in the racquetball championship at the local YMCA.

    Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines for athletics were structured on very different assumptions that bear little resemblance to this situation, but its BLP policy exists to compensate. We hear choruses of BLP trumps all other policies; where is that chorus now that one of those minor competitors wants off our site because she has an actual real world stalker?

    If she had anticipated that signing up as a walk-in for that sports event would get her into Misplaced Pages then she wouldn't have done it, but she really didn't foresee that this website could be that dogmatic and nonsensical.

    Some of the posters assert that they don't see what harm could come of her inclusion here. For the last two and a half years I have been working with an editor who also has a stalker (the real kind) and who has been unable to get his biography deleted. I would not wish his wiki-problems onto anyone, and per WP:BEANS will not state onsite what they are. Any administrator who wants to ask is welcome to email me.

    Now please be reasonable and do what Amber is asking. Durova 19:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    She and you may be exactly right and I may just be dense. This is just the part I'm not comprehending. In this stalker situation how is it different for this roster to be published on the USCA site, easily accessed by google and to have that information duplicated here with no additional details. If I could see how this information wasn't already in the stalkers hands the second it hit the internet I'd eagerly hop to your side of the issue.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    The BLP policy trumps the notability guideline. Obviously the notability guideline wasn't intended for situations where a national championship accepts walk-in registrations. BLP has clear relevance here. Anyone who wants to know specifics about the actual BLP/stalking problem needs to inquire by email; those details will not be forthcoming onsite for obvious reasons. Durova 19:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I'm sorry I don't buy the beans for this reason. You type any of those names and curling together and the USCA site comes up. Game over for the stalker. Now we can talk about the value of the information, but the safety issue makes no sense. The stalker already knows the info before it was coppied to wikipedia. If we were talking about information that wasn't already press released on the web I'm on your side. If someone added home adresses and phone numbers I'm on your side. But once the USCA released the names publically they're public no matter if they're in the article or not. I really don't care if the names are there or not because without ANI I'd never have ever wandered to that article. I just think there's no logic in thinking it was all fine untill the info ended up here.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Add me to list of dense people right after to Cube lurker: I still don't see the problem here. Not only is the information available elsewhere in the Internet (as well as in newspapers, periodicals, etc.), but I don't see how this tells anyone where a given person will be in the future. If this event hasn't happened yet, then providing the names of any participants is looking into a crystal ball & making predictions -- it shouldn't appear, period. If it has happened in the past, then just because someone was a sports meet in Frostbite Falls, Minnesota or South Succotash, Indiana last week does not provide necessarily useful information where she or he will be next week. (Unless the given stalker is so well informed about the person that they can make accurate predictions with that information -- in which case, Misplaced Pages still can't help matters by suppressing information.) Invoking BLP or complaining about stalkers here only makes the matter more murky, it does not help any of us to agree to a solution. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Three times is the charm: if you don't already see the problem, email and ask. It's about real stalking; it's sensitive and can't be discussed onsite. Closure of this thread may consider all responses that disregard this invitation as invalid by default. Durova 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Checked the inbox: zero inquiries. Durova 19:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC) This needs trout.
    Something's come up and I'll be afk for an hour or more. Durova 19:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Cube/Llywrch, to answer your question, I think the claimed difference is, if you Google the names without including "curling", the fact that Misplaced Pages ranks so highly in Google brings these pages to the fore. Otherwise, the USCA pages are buried a few pages back. Now, I actually agree that it seems far-fetched that anyone is being stalked IRL, but their stalker is relying solely on Misplaced Pages to gather info. But I'm sympathetic in this case to the fact that this is not like the National Championship of, say, figure skating, and these people have a reasonable expectation that their names aren't going to show up in a top-ten website, and they are suddenly the at the top of the Google list.

      In other words, neither opinion is unreasonable, neither side is being insensitive/unintelligent, it's simply a close call. And in a close call like this, I suggest Agne27' compromise, because it's the decent thing to do when someone asks. Remove all but the skips (which is how teams are identified), and at the bottom include an "other notable participants" list for anyone bluelinked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    If that's the case I see the concept, However that's not the conversation I walked into. I don't want to "out" one of the names who is dealing with a persistent stalker issue but if you search for her name in quotes with curling in Google, the Misplaced Pages entry for the Kalamazoo games is front and center while the USCA page is buried several pages back after non-related links about different people/things. was the post at 23:38UTC above and the first post here I replied too. I think my position is where it first was. If the situation is what was described. That there's a persistant stalker who knows her name, and knows she curls then the information was already there for him. If we're taking curling out of the search I think a persistant stalker means someone who does more than glances at the top couple results, but what do I know. I really have no desire to ram someones name into an article I'll never look at. I'm just unconvinved that the danger factor dramaticaly changed. I know I sound like a cliche but I seriously wouldn't wish that situation on anyone and i hope law enforcement can intervene.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    FYI, the article in question is the 2010 United States Women's Curling Championship, which has yet to take place. This has nothing to do with WP:ATHLETE, because that's a guideline about individual biographies. Pcap ping 20:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    I just want to express that I agree entirely with Agne and Durova that the names should be removed, and I'm somewhat baffled as to why Misplaced Pages's prevailing philosophy has suddenly become "if the information is published anywhere, it belongs in an article here." Even without anyone raising BLP concerns, it seems like in many cases, this information could be removed simply because the names of entrants in a contest that's open to virtually anybody is not notable information. Even if the names were published in a reliable source, the coverage would probably be considered trivial. This is not a hill for "right-to-publish" advocates to die on. Propaniac (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Then leave the article as a stub until it has happened. After it has happened, discuss who should be mentioned in the article. End of problem, no need to invoke WP:BLP or to send Durova an email -- & I couldn't do the latter since I was out shopping at the grocery store until ten minutes ago. (And I'm tempted to stubbify the article then protect it until the Championship has taken place, just to solve this problem without giving the BLP fanatics a precedent to steamroll over everyone else in future cases.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Uh, fine with me. (You seem to think I've played some part in this dispute -- all I've done is read about it here an hour ago. I'm not remotely a BLP fanatic, but in this case I think people are going much too far in the other direction.) Propaniac (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry Propaniac: my comment was addressed to the general readership, not to you. I'm just grouchy because people are treating WP:BLP as a magic passkey which will allow them to do whatever they want to a given article. Had Agne, Durova & everyone else concerned about this person's privacy mentioned that simple fact -- this event has not happened yet -- long before you did (instead of shouting "BLP! BLP!"), the most likely reaction they'd get to removing names from this article would have been a disinterested shrug & a murmur of consent. (Even if there wasn't a stalker involved, I think it's overkill to put the names of every player who will be involved in a future event like this; speaking as an inclusionist, there are times some of my fellow inclusionists go too far.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    We do sometimes leave out information that may harm an individual's privacy, though this decision is done on a case-by-case basis. The classic example is Star Wars Kid (specifically Talk:Star Wars Kid#Why Not Named, where the real name of the subject is avoided in the article even though it is mentioned in the first source used in the article. -- Atama頭 20:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Where's the proof that they are accepting write-ins? I don't believe this is true. Every curler in the national championship has a profile page on the USCA website. Curling is an Olympic sport, and we shouldn't favour one sport over another, especially if they are both Olympic sports. We would include a full list of the figure skaters in the US national championships, the same should go for curlers. It's not fair to pick and choose sports. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    It happens most every year in US women curling except for, on occasion, during Olympic qualifying years. Here is one of the competitors' own blog which talks about just signing up an go. (Note: This is a skip, who to my knowledge, doesn't have a BLP issue and obviously puts herself out her on the web) The "sign and go" is how it is most years and often the 10 team limit is not even met with 6 to 7 teams going. US women curling is not like how it is in Canada or even US Men's which usually does have qualify events. While some of these women have Olympic aspirations, a lot of them are just regular women signing up for a week of curling away from work and the kids. These are the type of people that do not belong on Misplaced Pages, and obviously, quite a few of them don't want to be. Agne/ 03:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Also further proof is even in the article itself with the USCA press release (FN#7) which says, quote, "The 10 women's teams advanced directly to the National Championships as they were the only 10 to sign up for the national playdowns in a season one year removed from the 2010 U.S. Olympic Team Trials for Curling." (emphasis mine). Agne/ 03:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Checklist

    A simple three step checklist would solve this situation.

    1. Notability: Is WP:ATHLETE inapplicable to walk-in registrants who do not place in a competition?

    a. If yes, then delete.
    b. If no, move to point 2.

    2. BLP: Does WP:BLP allow for courtesy deletion per subject's request?

    a. If yes, then delete.
    b. If no, move to point 3.

    3. Harassment: does a real life stalking problem merit consideration per Misplaced Pages:Harassment or Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules?

    a. If yes, then delete.
    b. If unsure, email Durova.
    c. If no, play this audio file and return to the top of the checklist.

    So far nobody has emailed me, which means either people are convinced or they're cycling through the checklist. ;) Durova 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    I have to agree with durova in this instance. Some common sense needs to prevail. This person is all but barely notable and is in my eyes inhereted purely from her playing once in the nationals not that she is a notable athlete herself. On top of this she has harrassment concerns. Lets stop playing games and take this RL issue seriously. There is no need for the list to exist. Remove and move along please people. Seddon | 23:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    No, common sense dictates that somebody should have mentioned that this is an event in the future which, as Agne27 points out, is not as notable as other "National"-level events, & that someone is trying to add a complete list of all of the people who might play in it. Misplaced Pages does not predict events, nor should Misplaced Pages try to cover every notable event exhaustively. (Quick -- what happened 28 hours & 25 minutes into the 1968 Democratic Party National Convention? Okay then, can you recite more than 10 people who were delegates to that convention? If your answer to both questions is no, then why should we list everyone who has signed up for this curling championship meet?) What Durova is not considering by using the BLP argument is, at best, she is creating another divisive issue for Wikipedians which will lead to the frustration & WikiDrama that attended the Free Image/Fair Use conflict not so long ago; at worst, BLP is being strengthened into a tool which will be wielded by public relations flacks to sanitize articles about unethical, if not criminal, individuals. If people continue to cut-&-paste slabs from the "BLP" policy to force edits they advcate, I will start replying with "But think of the children! We must remove all of that bad material from Wikiepdia!" -- llywrch (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    This proposal aims to help real world stalking victims on a no questions asked basis and it's as simple as that. Llyrwich has made no attempt to substantiate his wild speculations. Please withdraw the scurrilous personal attack. Durova 01:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    What scurrilous attacks? That is, if you are referring to me; there is no "i" in my user name. And if you mean me, as for "wild speculations", maybe you'd like to peek at my Talk page where a well-known WikiDrama-monger made hostile & emotional attacks for my comments about the importance of WP:BLP policy: I still remain unconvinced that this is important, & comments like yours aren't going to persuade me otherwise. -- llywrch (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Discussion has moved here. Durova 04:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    "No questions asked" is a horrible attitude to take, and leaves us open to WP:GAMING. If someone is a stalking victim, I'm sure OTRS can help much better than the drama you get on ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    One really ought to have one's facts in hand before writing those words. All it takes is a scroll upward to see that OTRS was already tried before this thread started and that the thread was underway for half a day before I found out about this situation. OTRS failed this person. Durova 16:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC) See correction below; OTRS did handle it properly but the information got restored afterward. Durova 21:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    As a close to my twisted path in this discussion let me back away with this. I've probably repeated too many times the arguments that I have trouble with. That said I have gotten a tad sidetracked because when it comes down to it I'm not really bothered if this page doesn't have every member of every team listed. I can't speak for others, but to quote Frank Pentangeli I want everyone here to know -- there's not gonna be no trouble from me!--Cube lurker (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    OTRS ticket 2010022210032133

    Extended content

    I've got the full story now on the circumstances behind this thread. This is very serious. And there are two options for dealing with it neither of which I like: try to find out the name of the OTRS volunteer who handled this ticket, or go over that person's head straight to the Foundation.

    This much can be said onsite: the Misplaced Pages listing has had a direct nontrivial effect on this stalking victim and if OTRS had corrected the problem before it had gotten into the mirrors the harm could have been undone.

    This isn't "drama" I detest that word it's the real deal. Situations like this are why the BLP policy exists; they're why OTRS exists.

    Last night I spoke with an OTRS volunteer and it took about ten minutes to communicate the seriousness. He wasn't at liberty tell me the name of the volunteer who handled this ticket; I want to speak to that person. If you are that person please email me. I've got the followup; I can tell OTRS volunteers from the right queue what an impact it has had. You can correlate that to the ticket and see how closely the facts dovetail. This isn't about pointing fingers; we need to make sure that mistakes as serious as this don't happen in the future. Durova 16:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    This issue has been resolved. All revisions of the article containing the BLP violations have been removed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I should also note that the first message received by OTRS was more than two weeks after the article had been initially created. The mirrors would have had the problem long before anyone contacted OTRS. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I should also, also note that I have submitted a request to Google to update their cache of the page to remove the offending information from any search results. This usually takes care of it within just a day or two, though no guarantees on that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Good news: a chain of good faith miscommunications have gotten straightened out and the OTRS ticket was handled correctly. Several hours afterward information was readded into the article, and that sequence wasn't clear to the people who followed up on the problem. Durova 21:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Creation of new biographical articles introducing BLP and sourcing issues

    Following the removal of red links from List of male performers in gay porn films, user:Ash has begun creating biographical articles for male porn performers, in some cases recreating previously deleted articles. Ash appears to be working through an alphabetical list, and rather creating stubs for award winning performers, they are attempting to create full BLPs. I identified a number of common problems with these articles related to sourcing and BLP issues:

    • use of unreliable sources for birth dates, birth names, alternate names, etc
    • introduction of red links which identify the linked name as a porn performer
    • inclusion of "filmographies" which are lists of direct links to porn retailers
    • inclusion of an excessive number of links to porn sites as sources or external links
    • undue promotion of studios in performer biographies

    I proposed a number of common sense "guidelines" (for lack of a better word) for discussion. My hope is that we can avoid both BLP problems and friction between editors by following some simple set of agreed "guidelines", which are based on a review of female porn performer BLPs and the underlying policies and guidelines of WP:BLP, WP:EL, and WP:RS. Thus far, the discussion has been highly polarised.

    For some months now I have been trying to bring more attention to the area of gay porn BLPs, with little success. Even what should be a simple discussion of the reliability of a source has become farcical: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gay Erotic Video Index (relist). At this point, any suggestion I make is taken as an attempt to delete or minimize gay porn content, which is not at all my intention. Even my suggestion that stubs be created for every award-winning performer was perversely characterised as an attempt to delete content. We don't appear to have these problem with BLPs of female porn performers, which I suspect is due to the larger pool of editors active in this area. If editors and admins familiar with WP:BLP could take a look at the suggestions referred to above and the recent creations by Ash, it may help to reduce the drama becoming associated with this area. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    I have been creating articles in good faith for pornographic actors with reliable sources to demonstrate they have won awards in accordance with PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle has failed to raise any of the above article-specific issues on a single article I have created. If there are any questions about information included in an article then flagging these for attention in the article or the article talk page should be the first step, not raising an incident report on ANI. I would particularly like to see some diffs for birth dates (I have added none) or pointing to concensus that "outlaws" redlinks, or disallows links to "porn sites" (how are these defined?) or links in filmographies to directly to "porn retailers" (IAFD or GEVI are not direct retailers, they are film databases) or "undue promotion of studios" (I have mentioned studios where they have produced the films performers have acted in). Anyone reviewing Delicious carbuncle's lengthy campaign (which started a long time before I contributed to this area) can easily verify who is the centre of all the drama around this topic. Resorting to ANI is unnecessary forum shopping. Ash (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Um, reliable sources? Perhaps not. I suggest a trip to WP:RSN to determine which are and which are not. Hint: virtually every site connected to porn is unreliable by virtue of repeating at face value the PR claims of performers. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Sites such as avn.com, grabbys.com or gayporntimes.com are not considered controversial. These sources have not been challenged in any article created. These sites may be about pornographic films but the description "porn sites" is probably misleading, these are sites about the adult entertainment business. I recommend you examine one of the articles such as Rod Barry rather than expressing your opinions in the abstract. Ash (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    By you, maybe. AVN publishes "vital statistics" which are cited as if they were in some way independent but clearly are not, and in any case the porn fan community is not exactly known for the strength of its critical faculties. These should only be considered as supporting sources for the most banal and uncontroversial of facts. As for Rod Barry, as with virtually al porn performers the total budget of all his films is probably not enough to buy a single day's filming of a real film. I am grudgingly impressed by the lengths to which the masturbation community will go to self-justify its hobby but I remain entirely unconvinced by awards handed out by what are, basically, a bunch of wankers — in the strict technical sense of the word. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    I am not sure who the "masturbation community" is. I use these sites to support the inclusion of banal and uncontroversial facts such as the awards and nominations for an actor. Is ANI the right place to have this discussion or to be calling people wankers? I'm not sure why this is an admin issue. Discussion about sources is already on RSN and PORNBIO and Delicious carbuncle has raised his/her views in great detail on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films‎ in an attempt to lobby for support. Using ANI is unnecessary forum shopping. Ash (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    It's an admin issue because it appears DC is alleging that his attempts to resolve this BLP matter through more specific BLP channels have failed. While I agree that various and sundry porn awards are "banal" (or was that "anal"?) I'm not sure you've at all adequately made the case that receipt of such awards automatically confers notability on the receipent. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    As the articles in question have not any BLP issues raised on them, then I fail to see how other channels that do not require admin intervention have failed. The articles meet PORNBIO and RS. No sources have been raised into question in advance of this non-specific ANI being raised. It takes no assistance from another admin for Delicious carbuncle to raise AfDs on all the articles I have created (in some instances this would be for a second or third time), as they pass PORNBIO and there is little reality to these vague complaints I see little point. Ash (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    I am not asking for deletion of any articles, so AfD is not appropriate. I want the articles to be in line with existing policies and guidelines. I do not know why this is so hard to grasp. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Ash, I'm not suggesting that you are not acting in good faith, simply that there are issues with your editing which need to be addressed. I brought it here because it relates to an ongoing effort to create a number of articles, not any single article and my attempts to resolve it through proposed guidelines have failed. I don't want to repeat discussions here that we've already had elsewhere, but to offer one example of a site that is likely unacceptable under WP:ELNO, look at the use of radvideo.com, which you were linking to in your filmographies and continue to use as a source. Their primary business is clearly selling DVDs, as evidenced by the "Gay DVDs! Gay videos! Pornstar news! Gay gossip" which appears in the title bar of every page. If you go to the main page, you are presented with a consent form which warns "NOTICE - THIS IS AN ADULT SITE If you are offended by sex-related topics, or you are not 21 years old, please do not proceed - you must disconnect from our site now. You must be 21 years of age or older to proceed or purchase. By clicking to enter this site, I agree that I have read the "Website Terms and Conditions" and agree with all of them." I think the same would go for this link which is clearly intended to sell a product rather than provide information. I don't know if there are more examples, but you added a birth date, sourced to radvideo.com here. The question of what constitutes a "porn site" is a topic for discussion and consensus, I think. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    ANI is not the right forum to discuss the detail of sources, in what way is this an admin issue? In the example you quote I am using this as a rare source that reproduces full lists of GayVN Awards nominations. By forum shopping you appear to be deliberately attempting to bypass the normal consensus building process. Raise your specific question on RSN or the article talk pages. Getting a couple of opinions about "porn sites" on this forum (where one admin has already resorted to labelling the adult entertainment business as "a bunch of wankers") is not the way to reach a consensus or have an informed discussion about these sources. Within hours of saying you were waiting for other comments on the list talk page, you have resorted to complaining about me in an ANI. Nothing you have raised in this ANI requires an admin to intervene. Your action appears an obvious attempt to stir up drama and try to block me from creating articles that meet the PORNBIO requirements you were demanding. You have done nothing constructive to resolve these issues. You appear to be on a mission. Think of something else to occupy your time rather than harrassing me. Ash (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    You do know Merridew's Law, right?
    “ “Merridew’s Law: As a discussion about an inclusionist or a deletionist grows longer, the probability of a claim of harassment by adherents of the opposite philosophy approaches 1.” ”
    Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (who did not coin it;)
    Ash, I'm not attempting to have a discussion or reach consensus here - I was merely responding to your post. The discussion should properly go on where it originated. Your accusations of harassment are without any merit whatsoever. I have brought this here in an attempt to reduce the drama that seems to go along with any criticism of gay porn articles. I do not wish to block you from creating gay porn-related articles, but I do want you to abide by the appropriate policies and guidelines when you do so. I am not demanding that the articles meet WP:PORNBIO - that is a consensus reached by the larger community. Perhaps it would be more productive for you to listen to the points I have raised and take them into consideration rather than tossing out frivolous accusations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    DC, I responded in detail on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films, you refused to discuss this with me any further on the basis that you wanted to wait for comments from other editors (see diff). You found a reason to refuse to discuss the points you raised and now you accuse me of not discussing them. Raising the same issues on ANI is contradictory and obvious forum shopping as there have been no new replies to support your suggestions for "special" controls on gay pornography topics in the original forum. You have said you are not expecting a block, so presumably you are not asking for a block against creation of all new articles relating to pornography that may have BLP elements. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators. Could you please clarify what specific administrator action you are expecting? Ash (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Ash, your comments in that discussion had strayed from discussing the specific suggestions to a diatribe about "persistent deletionists". I saw no point in participating any further. Now, 48 hours later, there have been no new comments so I brought this here with the aim of getting more eyes on both the discussion and on the BLPs you have recently created. It should be clear from the discussion here that admin action is likely required to alleviate the battleground mentality that seems to have been established around BLPs of gay porn performers. You appear, by your own comments, to view this as an attempt at censorship rather than as a desire to ensure that the spirit and wording of BLP policies are being followed. I'm sorry you have taken it that way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I have always been prepared to discuss your problems in the appropriate forum. You have refused to discuss any further and chosen to agressively escalated the matter to ANI when you were not getting any replies that supported your case. "Alleviate the battleground mentality" is vague; could you please clarify what specific administrator action you are expecting? Ash (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I think this discussion about the thread itself is distracting from the issues - admins can decide for themselves what specific actions are necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Okay, to summarize, I am ready to discuss the matter but you have halted discussion in the original forum while you wait for replies from other editors (there have been none within the last 48 hours) and do not expect me to discuss any further in this forum either. You are expecting admin action of some sort to stop me from creating any more articles. The articles I have already created may or may not have BLP issues but you are not prepared to discuss these articles in any specific way and to date have not identified any specific failures in any particular article. You are expecting admin action but are not prepared to ask for any specific action. Ash (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Your summary is flawed and self-serving. I have not "halted" discussion. I am attempting to involve more people in the discussion. You are free to discuss the guidelines I proposed, but do not expect that I will necessarily respond if I think your comments are off-topic or unhelpful. As already stated, I am not trying to prevent you from creating articles. You have been creating BLPs of gay porn performers at a rate of one or two per day. I see no point in having discussions about the specifics of each article until we can agree a set of guidelines to prevent the issues in the first place. If that effort fails, I will start fixing BLP and sourcing issues in individual articles if I feel like I can weather the acrimony and false accusations that will doubtlessly accompany those actions. (Feel free to remove that poorly sourced birth date I pointed out earlier.) To repeat myself, "admin action is likely required to alleviate the battleground mentality that seems to have been established around BLPs of gay porn performers". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    The one example you have raised of a birth date (you originally implied there were many) is supported by a transcript of an original interview with the actor the article is about, hence it meets WP:SPS. The interview is dated, has a recognized author who regularly reports for RAD Video. The website source is the original home of the Adams Report and these reports as well as other industry news are available on the site. Obviously this ANI is not the correct forum to discuss this source further, however I am responding to your specific challenge here. As for your statement that I am "free to discuss" your proposal for special rules on top of BLP, RS, N etc., you made it clear that you were not going to reply to any more of my comments on the original talk page and as nobody else has made any later comment I cannot see the point of talking in an empty room. I used the word "halted" in this context, what word would you feel is more accurate to describe you refusing to collaborate on reaching any consensus? As for your speculation that you will be attacked with acrimony and false allegations, you appear to be attempting to appear to be a victim of something that, by definition, has not happened. Unsourced speculation about me attacking you are hardly appropriate for an ANI. Ash (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Ash, I apologise if you thought that I was specifically referring to you when I said that "acrimony and false accusations" will doubtlessly accompany any attempts by me to address issues in the gay porn performer BLPs recently created by you, although I would certainly characterise this and this as such. It is exactly the type of unnecessarily inflammatory rhetoric shown in this thread that has caused by to bring this to ANI with the hope of getting some admin involvement to calm the situation. You appear to have adopted the shopworn tactics used by another editor in this area, one of which is to deflect valid criticism by endlessly talking about the motivations of the critic or the choice of forum rather than dealing with the substance of the criticism. I have no desire to cry victim in this mess - I'll leave that to others. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you for your apology. However it seems rather shallow when you immediately follow it by pointing on an example of my comments that you say say characterizes acrimony and false accusations and claim I am employing "shopworn tactics". You have given two diffs that point to the same comment which was revised. The comment is highlighting that this ANI was raised in preference to attempting to reach a consensus on the talk page and describes your action as forum shopping. My comment seems accurate and not particularly acrimonious in phrasing so I disagree with your summary. You are appear to be obliquely criticising another editor rather than me, I suggest you follow a dispute resolution process against them rather than making indirect allegations here.
    There seems to be nothing for an admin to take action on, I am at a loss to understand what outcome you are expecting from this request for admin attention or how you expect this inappropriate complaint against me will help better collaboration in the future. Ash (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Sourcing standards

    In the case of articles or lists about living people, the standard of sourcing needs to be very high. Pretty much all the sources I've seen used on this list are shite. The proper meaning of the word 'independent' in WP:NOTE is that the source should not be making its money off the topic in question. It is not significant when someone profiting from a topic makes some commentary (that's self-serving;). It *is* significant when someone genuinely independent comments (assuming they comment in significant detail). Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    In the adult entertainment business, sources by their nature must cover pornography topics. In the above examples AVN (magazine) is an internationally recognized standard trade journal, gayporntimes.com is run by an independent journalist (JC Adams) and grabbys.com runs GRAB Magazine (grabchicago.com), a fortnightly LGBT news magazine. Your description of "shite" is inflammatory and inaccurate. If you want to discuss these sources further then you are welcome to do so at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films as this is not a suitable forum. Ash (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Hello people - this belongs in RfC - not AN/I. Rklawton (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Hello Rklawton, how are you? Will Rfc do anything to mitigate the battleground mentality that has arisen in this area? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    It can help, by directing people's statements into a structured format, it does lessen some of the back-and-forth bickering. It's no magic wand but it might get a better result than an open discussion like ANI. It's also one step in dispute resolution in case you need to escalate it later (to ArbCom, I guess). -- Atama頭 18:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Arbcom? Surely that's unnecessary? I would rather not start down the usually fruitless and highly bureaucratic Rfc route if it can be avoided. And it can. What we're talking about here, and I encourage you to look for yourself, is a straightforward set of common-sense guidelines about creating BLPs of gay porn performers which I put forward for discussion. Somehow even that attempt to reduce conflict has been met with stonewalling and bluster. There are many gay admins here who are far more familiar with this topic area than I am. If a few admins would dig their heads out of the sand and look at the situation in this area -- which is entirely unlike the fairly well maintained female porn performer area -- this entire conflict could easily be resolved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment. This is roughly the 12th or so admin board thread Delicious carbuncle has started about this list/subject area in the last few months all, IMHO, in attempt to subdue/frustrate/scare off those who don't agree with them. Delicious carbuncle claims concern that unless their version/views on what this list should be - a list article they seem only interested in because of my editing there - that their will be disruption on the list. Well, it had been generally quite peaceful until they started "helping", all the disruption there stems from one user frustrating any collegial and academic discussion that could improve our coverage in this area. There is also again the assertion that merely stating which notable pornographic companies a subject has worked for is greatly worrisome. It could be but we use primary sources often to indicate that indeed a performer does work for them. This is different than an external link simply promoting a specific site(s); Delicious carbunkle is, in effect, again trying for a few end runs against our current policies which seemingly cover every concern raised. This has been pointed out to them many times but they just don't seem to want to hear it. Gay male porn is not a subject many editors are terribly interested in but for those who are willing to endure the personal barbs and attacks should be supported in producing content up to the same standards of all our other articles - not continually harassed and bullied by someone with a rather poor track record of civility and drama. The first wave was an edit war over an image, then an edit war over redlinks in which they insisted no entry could be on a list unless it already had an article regardless of notability asserted. They cloud all these issue with BLP concerns which while at times valid don't provide for harassing other editors. Delicious carbuncle even started a sock investigation on me and has variously accused me of being a paid advocate, working for some porn stars, company, etc. The only reason I got involved in fully vetting and sourcing the list is because it was at AfD. Instead of Delicious carbuncle civilly and maturely discussing issues without personal attacks, innuendo and the like they continually suggest that editors in this area have nothing but the worst motives and practices, etc. dragging them into one admin discussion after the next when the tide of their expunging this subject area seems to not be going their way. Having less emotionally involved editors involved who are working to ensure that we dispassionately and encyclopedically cover this topic would be a lot less WP:Dramatic. Without Delicious carbuncle's involvement the very same results likely would have taken place without the tsuris and waste of community energies. Unfortunately Delicious carbuncle has repeatedly shown not only a strong desire to delete content in this subgenre of pornography regardless of notability - Aaron Lawrence (entrepreneur) is a good example of this - but also a lack of knowledge in this area coupled with arguably a personal agenda to target this content for reasons of their own. People with a "cause" are often naively blind to the effect it has on their ability to approach a subject in a disinterested, neutral and academic manner. -- Banjeboi 23:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I am quite open that I have been attempting to get more eyes on this subject area for months. The fact that I have been only minimally successful has not stopped me from trying. Benjiboi has neglected to mention that he personally removed the agreed upon editing guidelines from List of male performers in gay porn films and that he personally edited the hidden comments in the article itself to remove the warning that editors should not add entries which did not already have articles. Benjiboi neglected to mention that the closure of the AfD which he above says got him involved was "The result was no consensus. Clean it up to valid bluelinks only, ansure BLP is not violated". Benjiboi took this list from what was a fairly reasonable list in July 2009 to this BLP nightmare in November 2009 (the last version before I became involved). Please compare the two versions. Take a close look at that later version - there are numerous links to the wrong people; porn sites such as backroom.hothouse.com, randyblue.com, justusboys.com used as sources (which is what I believe Jack Merridew is referring to earlier in this thread); red links galore; and IMDB used frequently as a reference. Since I got involved with this list, the red links are finally gone, many of the unacceptable sources went with the red links, articles which were deleted at AfD (most because they were completely unsourced) have been removed, and all the links point to the correct article. I am not solely responsible for any of this. In fact, I have tried to do all little direct editing as possible. I would hope that Benjiboi's fictions have been adequately dispelled by the diffs I presented here. I ask Benjiboi to provide diffs for the accusations he makes about me. I'm not sure why any admin who reads this would allow Benjiboi to continue editing BLPs, but I am generally puzzled by the lack of concern shown in this area. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Creating and spreading drama disrupts and harms Misplaced Pages – and it may get you blocked.
    I invite anyone to examine my actions here as well as Delicious carbuncle's as well as my efforts to clean-up BLP's in general. Repeatedly claiming BLP, forum shopping and edit-warring until you get your way are not collegial or mature ways for experienced editors to behave regardless of their personal beliefs or attitudes towards other editors. I was in the middle of a massive overhaul of a very large list when Delicious carbuncle's disruption stalled that process. Then they did a sky-is-falling routine on several admin boards about.. wait for it ... WP:Redlinks; luckily myself and several other editors cleaned them up without any drama. That is what we hope for if someone maturely posits what they see as a problem. Instead this editor insists on personalizing each problem as if other editors were maliciously editing. Many articles have been deleted, some restored and others simply improved. In almost every case Delicious carbuncle hasd shown they no nearly nothing about the subject matter but are purely interested in deleting content in this area. Topic banning Delicious carbuncle out of this area, I can't speak for the other porn topics or the AFD areas as I really haven't watched their interactions there, may make sense. Do we really need to wait for the 20th or 30th thread from them claiming how other editors don't agree with their approaches? Delicious carbuncle has caused immense and needless drama in this one area while simultaneously working to smear other editors, mainly me but now also Ash. After several months of turning a list article into a battleground and churning up one excuse after the next to drag others and the list in front of admins it smells like they are simply angling to get the entire list deleted as causing too much trouble - all of which they are responsible for causing. -- Banjeboi 00:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    "I invite anyone to examine my actions here as well as Delicious carbuncle's" OK, I accept your invitation. Your actions are out of line and if a topic ban is called for, it should be enacted against you, not DC. DC is trying to clean up messes, many of which have been, in my personal view, caused by you. ++Lar: t/c 01:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    That's a unique and interesting interpretation of reality but despite our differences in the past respect your right to make your opinion known. -- Banjeboi 01:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Unique? No. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Really? I have worked to source and improve a list that had no sourcing and the list was by any reading quiet peacefully being cleaned up. The very battleground mentality that Delicious carbunkle is so very concerned about was caused by them. They shown no knowledge in the subject area and have used every excuse to cause more disruption, more tsersis, more drama and more admin board threads while other editors have simply set about to improve the content and address concerns raised. Sorry but I think reality may actually support my view a bit more. -- Banjeboi 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Um, you claimed it was "unique". I'm inferring that when Guy said "no" what he means is... it's not unique. Did you want to try to prove no one else holds the view, or did you want to admit that in fact, it's not a unique view. Those would be the choices. Your response did neither, although it certainly provided more evidence of why you're a problematic editor. When concerns are raised, you often lash out at the messenger or a third party. That's disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Gee sorry, when personally attacked i tend to take it personal, both you and Guy should know better but as my statement spells out i have worked to improve content whereas Delicious carbunkle has worked to disrupt and assail other editors. I think there is a clear pattern here but the facts rather speak for themselves. -- Banjeboi 17:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Interesting morph. You "invite" comment. When it's not to your liking, you claim it's "unique". When it's shown not to be unique, you claim that the comment, which you invited, is an "attack". Playing the victim card won't fly with me, sorry. ++Lar: t/c 17:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I invite scrutiny into the actions involving the list article in question and indeed the entire subject area, any reasonable editor can easily see who is doing what by overviewing the activity there. -- Banjeboi 17:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Background refresher

    I have temporarily hidden the above comments that revealed unnecessary personal information for this ANI. Ash (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    I am deleting them, a second time, but to forestall any complaints I will not revert further here. I strongly urge anybody who would like to restore them to first conclude the discussion on whether they are in fact outing, and whether they are worth fighting over. The editor who is linked the material tries to link to the gay porn industry has strongly objected and denied the connection, and I see no legitimate end to be served by rubbing his nose in a series of off-Misplaced Pages local news articles that seems to connect the dots between him and some participation in the industry. The dots are out there, but at some point connecting dots that are not widely known or readily apparent does become outing, and whether it's outing or not that is not the way, nor is this the place, to allege that someone is in the industry or that they in the industry shouldn't be writing about it. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I'll state for the record, again, I'm not in the industry nor am I a paid editor as i have been accused of repeatedly. -- Banjeboi 17:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Unlike, say, a charge against me, or anyone else who has disclosed their true identity, that might be levied that I have a COI about something, we have only your assertion on that. There is no way to prove it is true. We have to take your statement on faith, and we have to evaluate it against the circumstantial evidence that we do have access to. And that evidence does indeed make a strong, circumstantial as it may be, case that you have a COI. Stop protesting differently, and change your focus and manner of editing. ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Stop your vagueries and start a COIN thread that will likewise be dismissed as needless badgering. You accuse of a COI and demand a "focus and manner of editing" yet show zero evidence I have or intend to do anything counter to Misplaced Pages policies. Whereas Delicious carbuncle continually disrupts this subject area to carry on some from of vengence based on their misplaced gay porn cabal theories. I'm glad we have your judgement on record though. -- Banjeboi 17:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    OUTING

    For Delicious carbunkle's outing above, he should be blocked until he learns that deleting articles because you hate gays is not appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.185.1 (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

    Lest anyone take this trolling seriously, let me make it clear - although this concerns gay porn performers, it has nothing to do with the sexuality of the editors or the subjects of the articles. It has to do with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines on biographies of living persons, sources, and external links. There is also some fairly overt promotional activity on behalf of certain gay porn studios and performers which muddies the waters a bit, but that is not the issue under discussion here. The concerns and actions that I have presented here and on the talk page of the main list are based on violations of Misplaced Pages's norms. My feelings about gays are irrelevant. Having said that, I am not homophobic nor do I "hate gays", but it's nice to have the charges clearly stated for a change. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has assembled an extensive list of off-wiki sources in order to reveal unnecessary information about the sexual orientation and personal life of another editor which has not been revealed (or linked to) by that editor on Misplaced Pages. This appears to be the result of obsessive stalking and a deliberate and unambiguous violation of OUTING. That this information was posted by Delicious carbuncle in a previous ANI thread does not stop it being a policy violation in this thread. This information should be removed from this notice board edit history with follow-up removal in the earlier archived thread and appropriate action taken to ensure Delicious carbuncle recognizes such disruptive editing and personal attacks are unacceptable behaviour. Ash (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    What rubbish. Benjiboi has a conflict of interest with the gay porn industry. He created two autobiographys about himself on wikipedia that made his identity clear as well as exposing his extensive business and personal ties to the porn industry. He's also a political activist who seeks to use wikipedia to further his agenda. That wikipedia tolerates all this is disheartening, but par for the course. But if you think you're going to convince many people that it's "outing" (what a good choice of words given benji's activism) well, good luck.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    You appear to be repeating these claims unnecessarily. This information is not posted on the editor's user pages or elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. I am have no intention of convincing anyone of anything, I am not making a case for a defence here. COI was not demonstrated (or claimed) in the previous thread or this one. If you wish to make allegations against another editor then follow the normal dispute resolution processes. Making unfounded claims of COI amounts to a personal attack. Ash (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Again, the fact that benjiboi made his glaring conflict of interest and personal identity known through his own activities on wikipedia is inconvenient for him, but not something that can be swept under the rug with false claims of outing, stalking, harrasment, homophobia, etc... (though i understand these tactics often work). As long as we're here, Ash: What is your connection to the porn industry?Bali ultimate (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    If you are attempting to make a personal attack against me, I suggest that you try it somewhere other than on the Administrator's Noticeboard. If you have some evidence, then create a new thread or follow one of the dispute resolution processes and make the claims formally. Ash (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Trust me: If I was trying to personally attack you, you'd know it. In fact, I'm asking a reasonable question. Most of your content creation appears to be pr-like articles on minor porn figures that don't pass the general notability guidelines but do seem to pass Wikiproject:Porn Marketting's special guideline. So the question is, why are you doing this? The most plausible supposition is that you have a connection to the porn industry. Do you?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    No, it is not a reasonable question as there is no evidence to suggest I have a COI. Selecting my contributions over the last couple of weeks and ignoring my edits over the previous 3+ years is not indicative. Characterizing the PORNBIO guidelines as "Wikiproject:Porn Marketting" is inflammatory. You are off-topic and repeated accusations of this sort will be treated as harassment in an attempt to stop me from contributing to this genre of article which, according to your user page, you have a clear bias against. If you wish make a claim that I have a COI then follow one of the dispute resolution processes. Ash (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Ah i have no evidence. Well, i have the evidence of your behavior and I ask the question. Your response? To accuse me of harrassment and personal attacks and refuse to address the question. Over and out.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    For what it is worth, I believe Ash's interest in this topic area is purely personal and it is unfair to insinuate that they have a conflict of interest simply beacause they are editing gay porn performer BLPs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    NB: Please see this ANI thread which is contemporaneous with the posting of the information that Ash has "temporarily" hidden. Short version - I was blocked, everyone had a good talk, decided it was not outing, and I was unblocked. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    The point remains the same. You even admit that you are weaving together a flimsy web and by all accounts it amounts to nothing but yet another attempt to out another editor needlessly. Why? Because you have only COI accusations to work with when policy and consensus don't go your preferred way. It's tiring and disruptive and Ash and I are simply the latest targets of your personal vendetta parade. You obviously seek attention or drama. I don't know which and I don't care. You escalate and drag one dramafest after the next to admin boards yet take no responsibility for actually causing the drama and disruption. Sorry but all your chest-bleating concern for BLPs rings quite hollow when you so willfully bite in to other editors and attack their character rather than actually working to collegially improve content. That myself and other editors who have been working in this area are actually working to improve the content despite your venom is a reason to see if those who actually know - or have bothered to research sourcing - more about it may actually be right. Instead you prefer to wikilawyer applying BLP to people who are dead; apply the same PORNBIO guideline to people when clearly it won't cover porn stars who worked before any awards were even created, etc. etc. No, this is simply the latest admin board thread to dismay, disrupt, disparage and otherwise overwhelm your opposition in a continuing battleground mentality that has no place on Misplaced Pages. You may feel some editors deserve your wrath, but Misplaced Pages does not operate on vengence. Misplaced Pages is not group therapy and other editors are not your personal punching bag. What you do on other websites is between you and your comrades but on this website WP:Civility remains a core pillar. -- Banjeboi 15:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Benjiboi, ignoring your usual fabrications and distortions, how about we get back to the topic here - I have proposed guidelines for BLPs of gay porn performers, which will reduce much of the friction that you believe I am responsible for. It would be simple enough to adopt these or similar guidelines and then I would have nothing to complain about. Why would you want to prolong something which you find so upsetting when you could very easily take away my main points of argument? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    No, now that you have again dragged the issue onto yet another admin board let's discuss your history of creating drama then offering your solutions to preventing future drama. In your pursuit of dogging and outing me you suggested that if I simply agreed to your list of articles that I can't edit that you'd leave me alone - or more precisely likely all the problems that seemed to be mysteriously following me around would go away. This was coupled with the baseless accusations that I was a Paid editor because y'know, I had greatly helped create WP:Paid so I simply must have been. Then you weaved together a tin hat narrative that I must be some leader in the gay porn cabal and you then started on what is now a 3-4 month campaign of harassment and disruption on the list in question which I am the main author. Previously it was merely an unsourced list of articles but per the AfD was being turned into a more annotated and sourced list explaining who and why these actors were considered notable. You then edit warred there and tellingly suggested that unless your preferred version, rules were adopted that likely the list would be a constant source of battle. Well, it wasn't up to then but with you there it has become so. Now you want to impose special rules, your rules, just for this list on content area - all of which you show a complete lack of knowledge, respect or interest for. You then edit war over redlinks not removing just the links which were already fixed but the entire entries insisting that dozens of article be created, then you complained that thos e same article that you insisted were created, were created coupled with ... personal invective and character assassinations of that editor. In the disingenuous stated concept that will again "reduce much of the friction", which from you I simply have zero confidence, you want to enact some new novel synthesis. No, no and no. If you can't get your way on the talk page you canvass offsite and stir up another dramafest on admin boards only to distress your opposition. It's tired, it's old. You are the cause of all the drama there, conscientious editors who actually are somewhat knowledgible on the subject, or at least bothering to see if sources exist, are working to improve content and you are, again, in the way of article improvement. This nonsense has been going on for months and you show no sign of improving your interactions with other editors. Laughably you throw around BLP as if a porn performer under their own stage name is a violation of anything. If you have nothing but emnity for the editors in this area and evidence supports you have no interest but deleting this content perhaps you should leave well-enough alone and avoid this subject area - you seem to show incredibly poor judgment and eager breach civility policies just to make a point. And for the record I wish personal information about me kept private, whoever you think I am, likely all those people you also listed in the tin hat parade of gay porn cabal wish the same. -- Banjeboi 17:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Benjiboi, most of what you write is fiction and I think a lot of editors now recognize that. Can you provide some diffs for the things you accuse me of? Or even just one of them? Why are you so opposed to discussing "guidelines" for BLPs of gay porn performers? Do you enjoy this extremely tedious threads at ANI? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Well the tin hat gay porn cabal narrative has been removed by someone else but provides a good example of what I refer. Instead of showing an actual COI exists you work to out someone weaving together the most absurd line of thinking - all Z has some association with X, Y has some association with Z therefore this editor simply must have a COI. I've been editing here for years and didn't really bother with porn articles as they were relatively stable and drama-free, then you came along. Enough said. -- Banjeboi 18:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    No, seriously, let's see some diffs. I'm happy to put back the information that shows the connections between you, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, and the gay porn industry, if that's what it takes to get you to produce some diffs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Sadly I have little doubt you would gladly reinsert material you have been told unambiguously is inappropriate and unhelpful and i believe you when you state you would do so simply to make a point. This again illustrates your battle mentality. For evidence of how the talkpage has been any editor can easily see how absolutely calm it was prior to your involvement there. There was, and still is a lot of work to do to improve the article but everything was put on hold because you simply had to dictate your way in a subject area you demonstratably have no interest or knowledge. You accuse of COI yet fail to demonstrate - everytime you throw up needless person information and accusations - that any exist. You started a sock investigation that even one of your comrades confirmed I was clear of, etc. Would you care to now deny that you have been following my edits and talking about me/my editing anywhere offsite of Misplaced Pages? I think that would go along way to explaining your circular arguing of characterization of editors and forum shopping rather than collegially either avoiding this topic area that causes you so much worry and distress and editors who you seem to personally disapprove. Perhaps you could focus on sourcing some unsourced BLPs? You seem keen on BLP policy so perhaps you could help out in that issue area and thus find something constructive to focus on. -- Banjeboi 18:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I'm still not seeing any diffs, Benjiboi. Can you please produce them or strike your many accusations about me in this thread? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Here's one that shows a compendium of Delicious carbuncle's greatest hits on ANI and AN. If you wish we can all waste a good time and energy sorting through your edit history to see one editor after the next you sink your teeth into. Here's another situation where Delicious carbuncle didn't get their way and had to be topic banned to leave an editor alone. Perhaps we need to look into this more? -- Banjeboi 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Benjiboi, you made some very specific charges here that you have provided no evidence for whatsoever. Please provide diffs or strike your comments. Please don't bother to respond unless you are doing so to provide diffs to support your specific allegations. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Sockpuppet accusations rather sums it up nicely:
    “ I hope that Benjiboi does not cease his diligent work with LGBT subjects, but if he could stop editing the small number of articles where he does have a conflict, it would probably make the drama go away entirely. I'm not asking for a ban of any kind, just a voluntary action for the sake of peace. ”

    This was noted by another of Delicious carbuncle's targets - "I agree with Benjiboi's assessment. In my case, the same person--User:Delicious carbuncle--that was raising a fuss was the same person saying that 'all this will go away if you do what I think you should do' despite everyone on the board telling DC, to the point of exasperation, that he was unable to show any problems. It's similar to how the mafia operates; they create problems that you must then bend to their will to have solved. He targets people who have completely stuck within policy simply because he doesn't like them or feels they should do what he thinks they should do. Instead, he maligns the people (including Benjiboi and Peteforsyth) who pointed this out to him. He nominates a very notable foreign film for deletion (Ping Pong Playa) as "unremarkable", templates User:Ynotswim, upsetting him, all because he Googled the wrong phrase. I spend five second Googling the correct phrase, and when he closes the AfD says "I'm sure someone will be along in 6 or 7 months to add references". He created a situation, was in the wrong, and doesn't do anything to actually improve the article nor apologize to Ynotswim. Over on Outlaw motorcycle club he tells User:Dbratland that his word is no good (despite that user providing in good faith six sources to back himself up, with links DC could easily check for himself). Here he is going at Benjiboi. Only on ass-backward Misplaced Pages can I undertake routine linkspam removal and have it presented by Carbuncle on Misplaced Pages Review as an attempt to "strongarm the competition", have him enter a delicate discussion with personal attacks, and then have nobody do anything about it on this board except for Manning Bartlett to characterize it as a "misunderstanding" despite all evidence to the contrary. And people wonder why content contributors get fed up? All of this just in the law few weeks."

    We can spin our wheels digging up your history of harassment and uncivil conduct as well as teh many admin board threads or you can voluntarily disengage, it's really your choice. -- Banjeboi 19:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I don't understand what you're accusing me of here - I was attempting to broker a deal between you and the editors who were at that time accusing you of COI. The fact that User:David Shankbone had his own axe to grind seems unrelated to your accusations, although it would be interesting to revisit the discussions of his COI in light of later events. I suggest we split off this thread if you intend to pursue it, and that you come up with something better than a quote where I praise your "diligent work". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Discussion

    • Comment - I cannot speak to Delicious carbuncle's actions here or whether that editor is pursuing an agenda, but I have noticed from time to time a dismissive approach here towards articles, notability, and sources on adult entertainment and sexuality. I've only had marginal involvement with the porn articles but I've already seen this several times. It's not unique, some people don't take popular culture seriously, or manga, video games, robot wars, trainspotting, free software, etc. Whether intentional or not I think that the standard being applied here towards gay porn, and the aggressiveness of questioning and dismissing sources, goes beyond the norm. AVN as a source is just fine, and as reliable as any industry trade publication whether that's Nation's Restaurant News, the ABA journal, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association studies, or the California Avocado Commission newsletter. It's a for-profit magazine with its own offices, reporters, editorial staff, awards, subscribers, and so on. As the main player in town, it has a vested interest in getting things right - statistics, catalogs, bios, and so on, because if it doesn't, it's readership is within the industry and they will hear about it. Of course it promotes its own industry and is made up of industry participants and veterans. How many avocado farmers do you think are on the Avocado Commission? How many lawyers in the Bar Association? To some extent that may affect the neutrality and trustworthiness of certain facts they claim, but on things like performer names, dates, or filmographies, they are the most reliable information out there, far more than the popular press, which seems to apply very sloppy fact checking in its coverage of porn. I'll also note that videos are self-sourcing. A claim that person X appeared in video Y is implicitly sourced to video Y, just like a claim of book authorship. Unless there's a bona fide doubt as to accuracy, I don't see any legitimate sourcing concern here. The fact that this comes up here on AN/I as supposed misbehavior by an article editor is telling. This is a content matter, and my guess is that as a content matter there would be no consensus for dismissing AVN and other porn trade publications as reliable sources, or for large-scale removal of uncited but verifiable information from porn articles. Our entire encyclopedia is full of uncited filmographies and performer bios that are sourced to their studios, fan sites, or personal pages, if at all. What makes gay porn different? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Wikidemon, you have asked the key question: "What makes gay porn different?". Unfortunately you seem to have misunderstood most of what has been said here. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that AVN (or GayVN) is not a reliable source for BLPs of porn performers, or at least I am certainly not suggesting that.(My objections have been to sources that were IMDB, porn DVD retailers, such as www.radvideo.com, unreliable sources, or just plain porn sites as I listed earlier in this discussion.) Your position on "uncited but verifiable material" is completely at odds with WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Guy is claiming in the above discussion that AVN is unreliable, and there are claims that people who are somehow connected to the awards shouldn't be writing about their own industry. If that's not your position then please forgive me if I seemed to include you in that camp. My position on "uncited but verifiable material" is straight from BLP, RS, and a series of recent threads and RfCs all over Misplaced Pages at the moment. Information must be verifiable, not sourced. Campaigns to delete fimographies for being uncited, and to try to turn it into a behavioral matter when people object, are not going to go anywhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I proposed guidelines for discussion and started this thread to get more people involved - why not add your opinion in that discussion? There is a behavioural component to this, if you just take the time to look at the diffs I posted showing how Benjiboi almost singlehandedly created the problems that I have been highlighting for months now, but that's a side issue. Please, although I disagree with your opinion, please add it to the discussion here. And what makes you think that AVN is not-for-profit? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    This is what Delicious carbuncle does when their version of the ways things should go doesn't. They raise a fuss on one or more admin boards and flail about the horrible BLP violations - whether or not any exist - and fear-monger about all the damage that an anon could cause if only we'd all cave in to their idea of how to remove content and prevent it from ever seeing the light of day. Regardless of sourcing and notability. After a few rides on their drama rollercoster the thrill is gone. -- Banjeboi 17:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I actually took the time to read most of this thread and I still can't figure out what this is really about. Who outed who where? And who do I go to to get my 30 minutes back? I feel like I've been robbed of them. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    It's a bit like the MP's expenses; once redacted the text loses significant meaning or excitement. Sorry about that 30 minutes off your lifespan, there probably should be a health warning at the beginning. The thumbnail sketch version: someone may or may not have outed someone else who may or may not have some COI which may or may not matter anyway with the conclusion that this ANI appears to be pointless drama, nothing to do with me (I was originally the person vaguely accused of something) and the wrong forum for any of these issues. Hm, I'll probably be criticised for being sarcastic but this seems a reasonably factual summary. Ash (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Proposing immediate close

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

    "closing my request - obviously the thread is not closed at this point, and there was no other actionable matter discussed here" - Wikidemon
    I propose an immediate close to this thread. It has gotten quite nasty and uncivil, with repeated attempts at outing one participant, including edit warring over the same. I think that pretty much kills anything constructive that could have happened here. I suggest we close this because nothing constructive is likely to come of it, nor any administrative action over the initial complaint (though adminsitrative action may become necessary with respect to the behavior of those participating here). I also suggest we delete the above outing so that it doesn't get preserved in the records (that's why I'm not providing diffs). If anybody wishes to file a COI report against another editor, this is not the place. I also note that the target of the outing here has objected to it, which is rather important. Except in rare cases outing is not divulging information that's not out there. It's taking bits and pieces from here and there and putting the story together to identify someone. Here we are digging through old off-Misplaced Pages local news articles to weave together a thread that connects an editor with the gay porn industry that is the subject of these articles, to suggest that someone who is in the industry shouldn't be writing about it. Whatever the technical distinction, it looks like a smear campaign of guilt by association befitting a local political election, not a reasonable discussion on Misplaced Pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Except it's not actually outing, or so it seems per Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive584#Attempted_WP:Outing, and there continue to be valid conflict of interest matters of serious concern that remain unresolved. Whether this thread is the place or not is a valid question, but I don't see the need for deletion of the collapsed material that you do. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    That brief thread among a few participants established that Delicious carbuncle would be unblocked - I don't think that's a full hearing on whether it constitutes an outing or not, and it certainly doesn't give DC a license to keep doing it every time they get into a dispute with Benjiboi. Even if it falls outside of the strict limits of outing as a technical matter, it is near the border, and I'm pretty sure we don't want to encourage people to behave that way here on AN/I. The point is that Benjiboi does not wish to be identified here on Misplaced Pages in connection with that aspect of his off-Misplaced Pages identity (if it's even true, which is not immediately apparent), at least not in connection with attempts to disparage his editing. The information is not readily or easily available, not unless DC keeps reminding people. The on-Misplaced Pages record of this is 99% DC's doing. I won't edit war, and I'm not going to delete it a third time, but I really don't think it's a fit subject. It's in the edit history so not deleted, but I don't think people looking over the history of AN/I reports into perpetuity should see as a basepoint who Benjiboi is if that's not how Benjiboi identifies himself on Misplaced Pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    If there is any actual COI then please start a thread at COIN, as you and Delicious carbuncle very well know. Instead this again smells of distraction, forum shopping (because there is no COI) and assailing another editors character for the sake of it. -- Banjeboi 17:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Absent your voluntary self identification, which I surmise won't be forthcoming, the only way to evaluate COI is to evaluate your contributions, and the voluntary disclosures you made. There is an excellent circumstantial case for COI on your part to be had using just those things, and you know it. Tossing around accusations won't divert attention as well as you would hope. ++Lar: t/c 17:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    So we're going to have an AN/I thread on whether Benjiboi is lying when he says he is not in the gay porn industry? And we're going to have that thread every time Delicious carbuncle and Benjiboi get into a dispute over inclusionism versus deletionism? To what end? Let's suppose that Bejiboi is in fact lying in an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle as far as Misplaced Pages anonymity, having made some stray comments here or there that damn him as a gay porn insider. What possible point is there anywhere on the encyclopedia to investigating that? Unless there is a specific allegation that he's writing about himself or his own company, there is no relevance at all. It's not a valid argument to cast aspersions about his editing or his viewpoint with respect to sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    You seem to have bought into Benjiboi's fabrication that I trying to delete gay porn articles - I am not. I am simply trying to hold them to the same standard we use for other BLPs, with the recognition that there is special care required on BLPs delaing with both sexuality and appearances in pornography. I did nominate several unsourced BLPs for deletion, but I don't think that most editors would think it wise to have unsourced BLPs claiming that someone was a performer in gay porn movies - do you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Actually you are trying, again, to impose special rules - your view - which has been dismissed regularly in the past. And similar to your pattern of involvement in this subject area you are canvassing to "alert" everyone to how you are simply trying to save Misplaced Pages from this dangerous subject area. -- Banjeboi 17:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I have obviously misoverestimated the community's interest in gay porn-related BLP issues and ways to avoid them. I'm going to let this thread die. Feel free to carry on without me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    DC, I suspect it's not that no one cares about the problems, its rather that most folk despair of any effective way of dealing with the problems in the face of pretty clear ownership tendencies (for whatever reason). It's draining to repeat the same arguments over and over and make no forward progress. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Lar, this ANI was raised in order for an admin to take action against me. The burden of proof is on the originator to provide evidence that I have done something against policy. I created articles in good faith (as DC recognized above) and in compliance with current policy. Please remember who it was that raised this ANI in an apparent attempt to create more drama and forum-shopping when the proposal for a consensus on new "special" guidelines failed on the list talk page. I was criticised for calling this action against me harassment, perhaps you could suggest a more appropriate term for DC's behaviour here? As for ownership, I am a late-comer to this list, as my edit history shows, so I assume that you are not referring to me. Ash (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I've uncollapsed this into a normal archive so that I can respond to Ash's last comment above. I have already clearly stated that I am not seeking any action against Ash and I am not seeking to prevent the creation of gay porn-related content. Nothing I have written in this thread or elsewhere should lead anyone to that conclusion. It is bad faith at its worst to assume that my intentions are the exact opposite of what I say. It is utter nonsense like this that lead me to start this thread in the first place. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Personal and entirely unsolicited view by Bastique

    Near as I can tell, Benjiboi has an abundant enthusiasm for gay porn, something that I believe you'll find a lot of among gay men. Additionally, I happen to know a few gay porn starts, as I live in a large city in California, and have some considerable (albeit generally outdated) knowledge about gay porn. Does this give me a COI?
    I read once a bit on some site that I generally don't read, about someone who may or may not be Benji giving a talk along with a few other individuals, two of whom I know in real life independently from one another. I don't know Benjiboi and I can't seem to tell that either of those people (neither of whom are porn stars, by the way) know Benjiboi, or really know each other (they don't seem to be Facebook friends with each other) and the only commonality is that all of them are LGBT individuals who are active in Web 2.0 culture.
    Now, while I think Benjiboi is a bit overenthusiastic about keeping these articles, and might by some definition own List of male performers in gay porn films, a page that I've seen has been a high abuse target and should probably be relegated to the annals of delete pages; I think any accusations of Benjiboi having some kind of COI based on some people he may have worked with in whatever it is he might do for a living.
    Judge the articles on their own merits, and delete if they go against our policies and criteria on notability; but stop distracting from the issue with accusations that Benjiboi has some kind of conflict of interest. COI is only a guideline anyway (for good reason--Conflicts of interests are not easy to define and often not even remotely evidence of misbehavior). Bastique 18:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    FWIW, I do not have any enthusiasm for gay porn, if I did would only likely make me more in-the-know but as is I've rarely even heard of most of these folks except some of the more famous ones who have entered into mainstream LGBT media. Also I think I show about the same enthusiasm for saving any articles that likely meet or exceed our guidelines at the time. As to WP:Own I have prevented no one from editing there and actually object to the longterm semi protection as needlessly restrictive but others simply disagree so there we are. -- Banjeboi 18:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Bastique, you are right. While I wasn't the editor who first brought up conflict of interest in this thread, my posting of the now-removed information proved to be just another distraction here. I don't agree that the list in question necessarily needs to be deleted, but it really shouldn't be allowed to return to the state it was in recently. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Good day to you all! I'm sorry I've not been around on the Wiki for a while - been pretty busy in the old real life; me and my wife drove about 400 miles to pick up an injured pug the other weekend, and the little scamp's been taking up our time a lot. But I was talking about this issue over a light lunch with my wife and our friends Artie and Wanda the other afternoon, and we figured that a lot of this is just going round the same issue over and over again. My wife is of the view that these articles should stick to the same BLP standards that every other article on Misplaced Pages sticks to, and that there shouldn't be a problem - if there isn't a reliable source, then the claims shouldn't be made, and the article shouldn't exist (other than a basic stub if they are shown to be notable but no ohter sources exist). Artie was saying that reliable sources may be harder to come by in the porn industry, but Wanda then said this is why this is a much more touchy issue. If wikipedia is going to say that someone is a porn star, then it needs to be pretty darn sure that they are - can you imagine if Misplaced Pages was alleging you were a porn star, when in fact it was someone else with a similar name! the fact that some entries on that list were linking to people who were not porn stars makes it a very dangerous issue for the BLP! Artie was saying how that even if someone is a porn star, they should still have an article if they are notable. I don't think it matters if they are gay or straight, and I don't think it should. The important thing is that the articles are reliably sourced, and if they're not, no-one should have the right to make such assertions about them. I don't really see what the discussion is going round in circles for! If Benji has a conflict (and it sounds like he does) then people should keep an eye on him, but the most important thing is that these articles MUST BE SOURCED! And sourced properly, not from clearly non-notable sites. Anyway, good to be back, and I'll see ya all around. Got to go, my wife's just cooking me a lovely poached egg. Bye! Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Hi HOGHOS, good to hear from you again, it's always a pleasure. You and yours give exceedingly sound advice. Hope you enjoyed your egg. Give my regards to Art and Wanda, and your wife too! 15:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    User:DBaba

    DBaba (talk · contribs) is again pushing his POV at Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, and disregards my objections stated at length on the talk page. He has admitted in clear words to having a POV against Goldstein in and . I have recommended him to refrain from editing this article because of that. He states himself that he insists on editing against my reasonable objections. In the past he has accused me of being racist here on wp:ani I see no option but to ban this user from this specific article, because in contrast to other editors involved, he does not care for consensus seeking. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Debresser has been obstructing progress at that page. I have tried to reason with him. It is not my intention to edit war, I only thought that, if treated with cool reason and legitimate edits, he would let it go. His interest in the page stems from his association with the Chabad movement, which has often sympathized with the motive of the killer in question, and proffered revisionist historical views in defense of the massacre; Debresser has stated in the past that his role of rabbi in the movement gives him a "POV towards Chabad". I think his edits bear this out quite clearly. The intensity of his emotional involvement with the page his caused him in some cases to misread edits and difs and statements by me, including some he is referencing here (e.g., I "admitted in clear words to having a POV").
    I didn't quite call him a racist, despite his introducing sources associated with the racist Kach party ( see hyperlinks on page of that ref), and his suggestion that I must be an Arab. It is a damned tragedy, Misplaced Pages's treatment of these murders, and the shame of it is that Debresser is only the most prominent obstacle to doing justice to the events...
    We do need help. Thanks, DBaba (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Why DBaba hammers on about my "association with the Chabad movement" I have no idea. I find that quite discriminatory. My religion has nothing to do with this. I demand action against this discriminatory editor.
    I have not suggested that DBaba is Arab. I have asked him. It would be a possible explanation for his strong POV.
    DBaba's edits are POV and disregard reasonable objections presently under discussion on the talk page. That is called edit warring and POV pushing. In view of this I see no other option but to (temporarily) ban this editor from this article. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    He has "no idea", I must just be discriminatory. DBaba (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Debresser, your diffs do not support your accusations that DBaba has "admitted in clear words to having a POV"; very much the opposite. I see DBaba appealing to sources and asking that the text accurately reflect the sources. It reflects very poorly on you to yet again dig up that old ANI thread where DBaba called you an "ethnonationalist". He apologized, and you accepted. For you to bring that up again shows that you hold grudges and can't let things go, and want to stir the pot. I very strongly suggest you drop this. Also, if you insist that DBaba would have a strong POV because he is an Arab, you're just giving strength to the idea that you might be a racist, so I'd suggest dropping that line of reasoning as well.
    As to DBaba, the Chabad Movement arbitration ended with no proposed remedies, and nothing actionable; in essence it was a non-issue. Bringing that up to paint editors in a poor light is counter-productive, it's like calling someone a criminal for going to trial when a judge dismissed the case as having no merit. -- Atama頭 18:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Since you don't see DBaba's POV in the diffs I provided I shall quote (from those same diffs): 1. And as far as "putting Goldstein in a bad light", well, wow, I guess I did not know there was a neutral alternative. 2. it is important to articulate vividly this difference, as many extremists, including some affiliated with your own Chabad movement, have promoted and held sympathetic views of the killer. Which implies that DBaba sees it as imperative to prevent readers from forming a positive opinion about Goldstein. BTW, the reference to Chabad is unsourced and was made only to insinuate I have a POV myself.
    As to my grudge. I was only showing you a pattern of POV and agressive/discriminatory edits by DBaba, without implying any personal grudge. It is precisely this which I come to show here, and therefore the link to that old discussion was relevant. In addition, technically, although he appologised initially, he continued later in the same discussion with other insulting remarks in the same vein. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I never said DBaba doesn't use sources. I explained on the talk page at length that he copies them too much, in fact. We don't have to copy every phrase written or spoken about a subject into that subject's article. Only what is relevant to make the point. Just like we don't need to quote every positive/negative review of a movie e.g. And we should definitely not blindly use the same words these sources do, which 1. may be written with a certain POV in the back (or front) of the writer's (journalist's) mind, and 2. is more often than not not encyclopedical (news items e.g.) This is explicitely in my talk page posts and should be obvious to any editor on Misplaced Pages. Debresser (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    DBaba should remember that WP:NPOV is one of the most important policies on Misplaced Pages. I do agree that statements like "I guess I did not know there was a neutral alternative" are troubling. Neutrality isn't something to laugh off or dismiss, it's a cornerstone of the project, and people who don't make every effort to treat subjects with neutrality can't edit here. I still think that questioning a person's motives because of ethnicity (being Arab) or religion (following Chabad) is very wrong and both of you are admonished on that point. Focus on improving the content of the articles, not each other. You'll never get anywhere if you continue down that path, and the both of you may end up with topic bans or even site bans if this escalates. -- Atama頭 19:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Yes of course. It was only a question, and came in the process of a civil conversation on my talk page. Nothing offensive or accusing. At least I did not intend it that way, and I think and hope DBaba understood that. It is the POV pushing issue and the evident decision to ignore a consensus seeking process on the article talk page (called more straightforeward "edit warring") which worry me here. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    The statement that I made indicates that the neutral depiction of a mass murderer is necessarily a 'bad light' (unless you really really hate Arabs, of course). I stated that to depict a mass murderer in a 'good light' would necessitate the violation of neutrality. I was defending Misplaced Pages's standard of neutrality in that statement, not deprecating it.
    Is there anyone who wants to take the initiative to examine Debresser's behavior at Cave of the Patriarchs massacre? It's quite something. All of this exchange is a cloak for his violation of the spirit of Misplaced Pages in pursuit of nationalist ends. The conflict between Debresser and I is a result of me adding cited material, and him blanking it and claiming it is unimportant or irrelevant, or POV despite the fact I only ever use the language from the sources themselves. His taking me here to ANI is only part of the project of obstruction he is engaging in at that page; he resorted to this only because he realized how doomed he was on the talk page. DBaba (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    You are kindly requested to not make assumptions as to what I realise. So far, I am quite content with the measure I have been able to refute your arguments. Debresser (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Eyes requested

    It appears that this article on a California company may be part of that company's pre-IPO publicity blitz. The company's website, linked from the article, shows a countdown clock for tomorrow at 9:00 am local time. Given that just a few contributors wrote most of the article over the past few days, is this cause for concern? User:LeadSongDog come howl 21:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    It has some POV issues. I tagged it and I plan on letting it sit until they forget about it and just go to work. I'm going to notify the editors of neutrality though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    This was interesting. A tech startup about to roll out an energy product, very hush-hush about what it is. They've already raised $400 million in venture capital but haven't offered stock yet. The company article was created 3 days ago with cherry picked quotes and a coatracked mention of NASA in relation to the CEO. Only a single sentence of criticism at the very end. Possible astroturfing campaign: actual press coverage was mixed; each time I added a source that mentioned skepticism an IP editor shuffled or added material so each paragraph ended in warm glowing praise. Managed to get it balanced though. It turns out a writer from Wired located a 2009 patent award which names the possible secret ingredient...now nominated at DYK as Template_talk:Did_you_know#Bloom_Energy:

    Created/expanded by Tri400, 58.179.137.71, and Durova. Nominated by Durova. Durova 07:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    The great big press conference with The Governator is scheduled for 9am tomorrow. It might be kinda fun if this DYK runs on the main page to coincide. ;) Durova 07:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC) whistles innocently

    Here is an article about the product. Definitely timely to have the DYK, because that's either going to be a revolutionary product, or a famous bust. -- Atama頭 19:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    The hook is already approved. Just needs an admin to put it into the queue. Durova 23:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    And it's in, although I personally think that having it occur in the DYK loop at exactly the same time as the announcement would be pretty cool. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Actually the press conference happened about nine hours ago. Still quite close. Thanks for the help; it also yielded a very fun blog post. Probably no need to block the SPA IP that was POV pushing and making personal attacks; the DYK notice plus summary about page view statistics seems more eloquent. ;) Cheers, Durova 02:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and his disrespectul comments

    Hello, the subject is long so I will sumarize. We had a long discussion on the Spanish empire talk page (very long, no need to read it all over, talk:Spanish Empire) in which The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick was positioned against depicting "claims" as parts of the empire maps. My personal opinion is that Patagonia should be included in another colour as part of the Spanish empire, while The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick thinks that only fully-controlled areas should be included. Well, I thought that it should then be the standard for him so I made a map for the British empire page, which is very good anyways. In the British empire map, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick depicted Antartica as part of the British empire, while it is an unrecognised claim with no direct control (numerous countries have bases on British claims). Based on his own opinion, this area should not be included, but my surprise comes when I try to to discuss about it and change it ( talk:British Empire ), and I only receive disrespectful comments like my country being 3rd world, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick constantly labelling me as a troll, and what is more offensive, he claims that I am a blocked user using another account Cosialscastells without any kind of evidence, qualifies my edits as "pure rambling", and has even posted this image File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg to try to ridiculise my edits labelling me as a troll. Probably because he knows he has no other arguments or any kind of source. I am not saying that my edits should be done at all costs. I am saying that if an editor has an opinion in one article and then he has the opposite oppinion in another article, then he seems to be biased depending on what the article is about. And on top of this, being disrespectful. I was very offended by him and by Wiki-Ed who said that my country was a 3rd world country without being provoked. That is why I request some kind of help so that The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and Wiki-Ed mantain a respectful stance. Fireinthegol (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    An SPI request has indeed been filed on this editor, who displays a curiously similar level of Spanish Empire map-based obsession (not to mention curiously identical internet provider) as a permanently banned sockpuppeteer. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, the sockmaster you've tried to link this person to hasn't edited for more than a year. Even their latest confirmed sock was blocked almost a year ago. The information that checkusers could use to technically link this editor to a past editor isn't kept around forever, so if it has been too long they can no longer check. I am reasonably certain that Fireinthegol is not a new editor, based on their initial edits, but I'd have to do some more checking around later when I had more time before I was certain enough to do anything about it. -- Atama頭 04:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Having Telefonica as the same provider is not any kind of evidence, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. It is as accusing me because I am using "Windows" the same OS as a blocked user. I have another account which is Enriquegoni, but I was not blocked or anything. What The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick should do is stop accusing and labelling other users in the European empires to push his POV. Fireinthegol (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Please see WP:SOCK#Alternate account notification. You should make the connections between those two accounts clear, and any other accounts you may be using or have used in the past. Doing otherwise may result in a block, or at the very least a large amount of suspicion (as you've already seen). The more open you are about such things, the more trust others will place in you. -- Atama頭 18:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Ok, sorry I didn't know about that, but The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick has accused me without any kind of evidence, only taking a look at my IP, as Telefonica (my ISP) provides internet service to around 47 million users. Indeed, everytime an editor opens a discussion about an empire map, he accuses him of being a blocked user without evidence, like in this respectful edit: "Fireinthegol (AKA Cosialscastells) - your ramblings above are pure original research. The map is fine, leave it alone.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 14:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)" (Cosialscastells is the blocked user). Also, I would like to know, please, if comments like this by Wiki-Ed are allowed on talk pages: I'm not sure that it is really necessary to change the colour of disputed territories - it would mean we would have to change and accept alterations for the Falklands and Gibraltar and presumably anywhere else where the government of the nearest neighbouring 2nd or 3rd world country has domestic problems If they are allowed, then I did wrong opening this thread, sorry. Fireinthegol (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    I said before that I was going to do some checking around before. I think that I have enough behavioral evidence to confirm sockpuppetry. I'll explain what I found.
    The most recent confirmed sockpuppets of Cosialscastells, per the SPI, are Resvoluci and Emiliojcp. Cosialcastells was focused very much on maps of the Spanish Empire, even going so far as to leave this message on RHPF's talk page. Resvoluci made this edit to push a particular map of the Spanish Empire on the article, and it was the last act before they were blocked. A bit more than a week after that block, Emiliojcp came out of many months of activity to make the same edit before being blocked. Enriquegoni, who Fireinthegol has admitted to being a prior account, made this edit to the talk page of that same article as one of their earliest edits, yet again trying to push the same map onto the same article. I had my suspicions from the beginning, and that seems to confirm it for me, per WP:DUCK. -- Atama頭 21:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I've now blocked Fireinthegol and their older account as sockpuppets. -- Atama頭 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks for spending the time to investigate - I know how long this detective work can take. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Herostratus

    Herostratus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an administrator who, according to their userpage, is no longer allowed to have access to the internet, and has given the password of their admin account to someone else to edit on their behalf "UPDATE: Rather than improving, my situation has deteriorated. Now I am no longer allowed access to the internet, amd am forbidden to watch television or listen to the radio. Nor am I allowed to view any periodicals published before 1960. The only way I can make edits is to mark up a printout and pass it to my majordomo to be typed into Misplaced Pages. Frustrating!" diff. Not realising they were an admin, I blocked them as arrangements like that are not allowed. They have just unblocked themselves, so rather than slipping into a possible wheel war, I am asking for some advice from others. Viridae 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    I don't think that arrangement is allowable. Who exactly is doing the editing and more specifically who is controlling the admin bit? JodyB talk 03:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I support the block. Compromised account = bad, compromised admin account = worse, and while I'm not sure why he's not allowed access to the internet, it can only be for ill. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I've heard of admins being de-sysopped and indef'd. Never heard of one being "grounded" before. Is this on the level? What "incident"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Not sure, but review his edit history. I have my suspicions, as do others. I have just emailed arbcom. Viridae 03:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Looking further at his talk page, it seems like (1) it was a couple of years ago and (2) possibly involved something illegal. Not good. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Oops, he got us - hook, line and sinker. See below. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    His response to the block was awfully quick for someone who purportedly has to go through the tedious process of reviewing print-outs, annotating them, and then giving them to someone else to perform the edit. However, I would like to see Herostratus explain his situation in enough detail that we can make a reasonable decision about what to do here. Everyking (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    For goodness sake, can't you people recognize a joke when you see one? Under what conditions on this planet is a person "not allowed to view periodicals published after 1960", for crying out loud. Good grief. How about a note to the talk page before a block, hmm? Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    That's what initially raised my doubts. If you were being held on some kind of morals charge, it's likely they wouldn't let you read anything published since 1960. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Totally agree with Herostratus. This is nonsense. Please think before you act. Woogee (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Sure, it's a joke. That said, should an admin be joking about someone else operating his account? Not wise, in my view. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Despite my support for Herostartus in this, Herostratus should not have unblocked himself. Woogee (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    If that was a joke, it was a pretty irresponsible one, and you can hardly blame people for reacting as they did, Herostratus. Please edit your userpage to clarify matters. At the same time, I hope that no one will pursue penalties at this point. Everyking (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    (ec)If this was all a joke, it was in extremely poor taste and not exactly what I'd like to see in terms of maturity and common sense in an administrator. Tarc (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    That joke was about as funny as telling people in an airport that you're carrying a bomb. You should really know better. -- Atama頭 04:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Loosely quoted from some things Eddie Murphy once said "Ha, Ha. Very funny, m----r f----r." "See, a joke's supposed to be funny." —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Trouts, anyone? —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I dont know, I just read thru this thread, and laughed my ass off. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Shady. Ks0stm 05:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Oh, very droll. You know what would fit right in with such stylish japery? If a steward were asked by Arbcom to pull his sysop bit and have him blocked until he could prove he was always in control of his account, since he actually said he wasn't. --StaniStani  05:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Oh, please. Woogee (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think that's unreasonable. And I thought we had a pretty much zero tolerance toward admins unblocking themselves? RxS (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Herostratus unblocked himself. Should the block be reimposed? I thought you were not allowed to unblock yourself, even if you'd blocked yourself accidentally. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    • The Arbitration Committee is indeed aware of this situation. No, the block should not be reinstated. We will look at the behaviour of all parties involved in this situation. Risker (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Damn, I found an admin account on eBay and was hoping it was Herostratus' so I could claim bragging rights on all his content contributions. Now I'll just have to write my own. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Had to comment here, as this is quite possibly the most ridiculous ANI thread I have seen in a long time.

    First, regarding the joke:

    "Ever since The Incident — you probably read about it in the papers — they have greatly restricted my computer access, therefore I have not been and will not be as active as I would like. For a while. After a certain period of good behavior the Local Council may restore my computer privileges. Thank you for your patience.

    UPDATE: Rather than improving, my situation has deteriorated. Now I am no longer allowed access to the internet, amd am forbidden to watch television or listen to the radio. Nor am I allowed to view any periodicals published before 1960. The only way I can make edits is to mark up a printout and pass it to my majordomo to be typed into Misplaced Pages. Frustrating!"

    — (links added and tags added)

    I'm not quite sure how one could take that seriously, even when apprroaching with pure logic and no humour. "The Incident"? What kind of Local Council deals with computer privleges? No periodicals before 1960? Plus, how would he know what changes to make to Misplaced Pages, and where in the article to make the changes, if he cannot view Misplaced Pages to begin with?

    The fact that this thread is even here right now astonishes me.

    However, there is something I am concerned about. Why is ArbCom wasting time looking at "the behavior of all parties" in this situation? That's not very productive.

    And last: Don't worry Herostratus, at least I got it :) (although you should make sure your future jokes don't contradict themselves)

    Inferno, Lord of Penguins 20:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Sometimes you just have to read ANI for the lulz. Woogee (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Sam (koala)

    The subject of this article is related to a legal dispute. The article is being edited by Mary-ann martinek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who may have a conflict of interest in the matter. Although most edits are cited and could be broadly acceptable, I am concerned there might still be WP:NPOV issues and possible undue WP:WEIGHT to the "controversy" (excessive detail on the legal filings and such for example) as a result of significant editing by an apparent party to the topic's controversy.

    Also views please on the use of the user page for self-promotion, given the user's few-ish edits seem to relate to promoting of own interests.

    Disclosure: I was asked by User:DragonflySixtyseven, who created the page, to look at the history of Sam (koala). Having done so I agree there is a concern needing more eyeballs. FT2  06:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I'd say there is a serious COI issue and NPOV issue. Specifically everything in that section pertains to Mary-Ann Martinek's side of the legal matter and is not giving due weight to the other side of the legal matter. Rgoodermote  06:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Shouldn't this be at WP:COIN? Woogee (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    (ec)Another thought accorded to me, she is looking to be a single purpose editor. Her interest seems to be only that article and the legal part of that article. Although they are cited (and some what properly actually) it doesn't take away from the fact that she is putting too much weight and interest in that part of the article. The issue is only made worse given that the part of the article in which she is fixated on pertains to her and a legal case in which she has been/is involved in and that she is placing the view primarily from her vantage without considering the other view in question. However she is using proper sources and should be congratulated for attempting to follow the rules. My suggestion is that the user's edits be kept, but edited heavily with newer sources that remove the slant. The user in question should be banned from the article or watched carefully while making edits to the article. The user should also be made aware of our policies on COI and citing sources in order to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. The user also should be given a strong suggestion to change her user page or action should be taken if it violates any policies. The user should be given a rather warm welcome and should be monitored for a little while and we should all hit the watch tab. Addition: Woogee I'd say that this fits incidents as it has many layers that aren't just related to COI but also to POV. Rgoodermote  06:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm leaning towards deleting the section myself. The sources in that section are questionable at best - I'd regard the Australian Journal of Herpetology as self published and unreliable, and the two statutory declarations, (if we are inclined to accept them at all), are housed on the site of the main protagonist. As far as I can tell, the only parts that are or can be reliably sourced are the first three sentences. - Bilby (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • In any case, citing direct to the filings is WP:OR. This either needs to be rewritten from reliable independent secondary sources or removed as WP:UNDUE. And as I say the user should be topic banned fomr the article itself though allowing them to post on the talk page is probably OK at present. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree about the OR - I've removed the most questionable portions and raised it on the article's talk. The topic ban is a different issue. However, it does seem that the the original account of the trademark dispute was incorrect, which would possibly justify the editor's initial involvement. That's not the same as justifying the OR, of course, nor the COI. - Bilby (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    based on the above I've trimmed down most of the rest. Concerns over the user page remain. Thoughts? FT2  15:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I'd say bring the page to MfD. There's nothing at CSD that would apply, but that userpage is almost 3 years old, if they were legitimately using it as a sandbox they should have turned it into an article by now. It's also acting somewhat as an ad for Slouch Hat Chocolates. -- Atama頭 18:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Posted a note to that effect, to the user . FT2  19:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Speedy Delete nominating a large number of articles indiscriminately

    User:Srikantkedia has been Speedy Deleting a large number of articles indiscriminately using Twinkle; see his Special:Contributions/Srikantkedia. This is out of hand, he has not or will not respond to notices on his talk page. Some are legit speedy deletes; but things like this and this are a bit much. Please help. Thank you. Outback the koala (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    He isn't speedy deleting anything, he is nominating them for deletion. Woogee (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Amended header. –xeno 18:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    And you haven't notified him of this discussion, which you are required to do. Woogee (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Notified. It does seem somewhat strange to me as well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't know I needed to notify him. Thank you for doing so Seb. Outback the koala (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    For the future, if you discuss any active editor on this board, you must always notify them. It is sufficient to leave {{subst:ani-notice}} on their talk page, if you don't want to do anything else - but you must leave some notification. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    A possible exception would be if the editor has firmly instructed you not to post on the editor's talk page: then one must decide which is worse, posting against their clearly stated wishes or failing to notify. In the latter case, saying here that you have not notified them, so that someone else can, seems to be the Done Thing. That being said, nominating large numbers of articles for speedy deletion is unkind, as it clots the queue, even if the nominations are reasonable. In this case, that doesn't seem to be a huge number, and mostly are already done or look ok on short review.- Sinneed 16:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC) The editor has since been warned about the (or some of the) ones that were not, also. - Sinneed 16:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Some of the speedy tags are appropriate, and I see that most are being deleted properly. The AFD noms linked above, though, are problematic, and the user has been warned by WereSpielChequers. If the editor continues to nominate and tag, without discussing these issues or acknowledging their understanding of the Deletion process, then a block would probably be appropriate. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 18:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Just an aside, I see 21 articles nominated for deletion either through CSD or AfD. Of those 21, 11 are now deleted. Certainly not a "good" ratio, but it shows that it's not all disruption. Then again, looking through even the deleted ones I see that often the wrong tag was used, such as Borders of Kaliningrad Oblast which had a C1 tag applied, but was deleted as A10. Or Kelate.net, which was given an A1 tag but deleted per A7. It seems like even their successes are accidents, so this person really needs to learn more about the deletion policy or at least be more careful before trying to get more articles deleted. -- Atama頭 18:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    User:Newman Luke

    Newman Luke (talk · contribs) is a it again. In disregard of previous discussions here and on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#User:Newman_Luke and the warning on his talk page, he made 89 (!) edits to Jewish views on marriage today, completely rewriting the article, with no prior discussion. Debresser (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    An RfC has been filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Newman Luke. -- Avi (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    In view of that it is probable best to close this thread. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    A block may be needed to protect the project

    Despite being discussed many times here, on wikiproject talk pages, on his own talk page, and despite being the subject of an RfC, Newman Luke (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is at it again making unilateral massive changes to articles and disregarding the consensus of AfDs. Can an uninvolved admin please look at his contributions and see if measures need to be taken to maintain the projects integrity? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I subscribe to this. He seems to be on some kind of attack... , , Debresser (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Possible use of userpage for some sort of attack in Serbian

    User:Иван Богданов has just blanked User:Иван Богданов/Sandbox of information that he has had on it for around a month. I am extremely concerned about this blanked text. I did not want to alert the user of this and I did not know who to go to for a translation. Putting the text into google translate it looks like it may have been some sort of threatening attack page in Serbian, possibly even for use externally to wikipedia. I may be wrong but I think this needs attention. Polargeo (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    I have notified the user since posting here of course . Polargeo (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Some highlights are that it includes an address (which is not good), some information about sexuality and some nationalistic stuff including Nazism and Hitler. Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    A machine translation suggests he is anti-Nazi ("This garbage is burnt along with Hitler and his whore Eva Braun") and that the address is his own; it also looks as though the address is his and either he is generally talking about gays or he is stating he is gay himself. I sure would love it checked out by a native speaker, though. Blood Red Sandman 16:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Yes anti nazi would fit in very well with a Serb nationalist editor attacking a Croat for example. Polargeo (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    See Ustaše and Ustaše#Modern usage of term "Ustaša" exactly the sort of anti-nazi stuff that is used to defame Croats and other opponents for that matter. Polargeo (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I wrote that text myself, in my own sandbox. I didn't send that text to anyone, nor I planned to use it in some "attacks". I wrote it just for fun; I had no other bussines at that time. Text contain my address, and some of my personal beliefs (I am firm anti-Nazi). I'm not gay, if you really must know that! I never expressed any form of hate aganist Croats or any other people. That text, wich I deleted today, was totally private toughts written in my sandbox. --Иван Богданов (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Unfortunately your sandbox is not private and can be accessed internationally. I think this is still worth a better look by another native speaker to make sure it is not a threat and maybe it should be permanently deleted by Misplaced Pages:Oversight. Polargeo (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    (ec)FYI, anything written on Misplaced Pages, including user space, is not private, whatever the writer's intentions. Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Believe me, its not any kind of threat. I myself deleted that text from my sandbox. If anyone wants to delete it permanently by Misplaced Pages:Oversight, it's fine with me. --Иван Богданов (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Nationalistic beliefs are not banned here. I saw no obvious attacks in the page either. Blood Red Sandman 18:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    First paragraph (although one of the natives should provide a better translation): My address is . As you can see, I'm not afraid of you! If I was a faggot and I was scared, I would never give you my address. Obviously, this means that you're obligated to come and attack me, that is, that you try to. I can hardly wait! But you should know: my deceased uncle, who worked in the Army and was privately a hunter , left me a few little things which I'd readily like to "try out" on you when you come! But, I'm telling you this in vain: Faggots like you are only brave in words! You'll never have the guts to show up!!
    As it was in the sandbox, I doubt it was aimed at anyone in particular. The choice of language is obviously troubling though. As is the denial above that "it's not a threat". It quite clearly is.--Thewanderer (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    That is a better, cleaerer translation than the one I got. It is certainly more troubling. Blood Red Sandman 19:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    It's a monologue that I wrote for no particular reason. As I already said, I had no other bussines at that time. Remember, I deleted that from my sandbox myself. As Thewanderer said, it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. I understand that choice of language is troubling, so it's OK to be deleted permanently by Misplaced Pages:Oversight. --Иван Богданов (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I think we can probably close this. Иван Богданов, just to be clear, you understand now that the language wasn't appropriate and why even pages in your userspace can be a problem? If you realise where you went wrong, then we can forget it and move on. Blood Red Sandman 21:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    "you know what you did was wrong"...? I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say it incorporates probably the worst language available to mankind, sandwiched with open threats with actual firearms. imho its pretty damn naïve to assume the target of this "monologue" was nonexistent. Its likely that the unforntunate user involved in a content dispute with User:Иван Богданов got the message. Threats of sniper fire are not funny in the Balkans. --DIREKTOR 11:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


    Full translation :

    My adress is , as you can see I am not afraid of you, abomination! If I were a faggot and afriad I would not have given you my adress. Of course, this means you are now obliged to come over and fight me, that is, to try. I can't wait. Just so you know: my late uncle, who worked for in the military and hunted privately, left me a thing or two I'll be more than happy to try out on you when you show up! But I'm talking for nothing: faggots are only brave in their words, you won't have the guts to show up.

    Of course, you were fucked by your faggot doctor of ONO, Šešelj, and don't you dare ever to set my king HRM Alexander II Karađorđević in your filthy mouth you radical piece of shit.

    COME ON DOWN I'll BE WAITING.

    LONG LIVE THE KING, LONG LIVE THE FATHERLAND, LONG LIVE THE SERBIAN PEOPLE! DEATH TO THE REPUBLIC, DEATH TO ŠEŠELJ, DEATH TO THE RADICALS!

    You piece of shit, you play the great Serb but you advocate national socialism!!! YOU SAY: NO I'M NOT A RADICAL, I'M A NAZI???!! If you had anything in your empty head you would know that Hitler draped our people in black! GO TO KRAGUJEVAC AND KRALJEVO WHERE HITLER'S MURDERERS KILLED 7,000 PEOPLE AND GO PRAISE NATIONAL SOCIALISM THERE! THE PEOPLE THERE WOULD SLAUGHTER YOU LIKE AN OX, YOU FILTHY WHORE! No, you degenerate, nazism is a thing of the past! That garbage burnt down with Hitler and Eva Braun in the ruins of their hole, Berlin, just as your Fuhrer Goran Davidović will burn. AS HE IS BEING BURNED, OUR KING HRM ALEXANDER KARAĐORĐEVIĆ SHALL SIT UPON HIS THRONE, WITH A CROWN ON HIS HEAD THAT SHALL BE PLACED BY OUR PATRIARCH IRINEJ!

    LONG LIVE THE KING, LONG LIVE THE FATHERLAND, LONG LIVE THE SERBIAN PEOPLE! DEATH TO THE REPUBLIC, DEATH TO ŠEŠELJ, DEATH TO THE RADICALS!

    P.S.

    Rather, stop acting brave and come on down here to Zvezdara that I may "tell" you live and in person what I think of Hitler, Šešelj, and Davidović.

    As you can see, half-breed, your blocks aren't helping. You have two choices in front of you: to let me voice my thoughts as I please, and to stop deleting my opinions, or to go on forever with the blocks. YOU WILL TIRE OF BLOCKING BUT I WILL NEVER TIRE OF BREAKING YOUR BLOCKS. The choice is yours, retard.

    This is honestly, without competition, the single most repulsive post I've seen thus far on Misplaced Pages. Open threats of violence with firearms, the worst insults that could possibly be used, and a taunt to top it off.

    It may also be useful to note that User:Иван Богданов responsible for this (rather cleverly hidden) display, is currently blocked for one week, having created a malicious sockpuppet User:DIREKTOR SPLIT (a mock-account apparently directed at me) , and has recently been revert-warring for days in blatant violation of policy (WP:MoS, WP:CFORK). --DIREKTOR 09:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    The translation shows that he is wishing death upon a specific (but off-wiki) named individual—namely Vojislav Šešelj—and is also making personal attacks against unnamed Misplaced Pages editors involved in blocks. It's hard to tell whether the attacks are against the administrator who blocked him (User:Rettetast) or against some other editor who was blocked and whose edits he doesn't like. Does wishing death upon someone count as a death threat? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    It does when you taunt them to come to your house where they would only come if they were not a gay/faggot and you have "sniper" type tactics waiting for them. None of us know for sure who this is aimed at. Anyway, when it comes to this sort of stuff we have to realise that despite our usual wikipedia feelings this is beyond assume good faith. We cannot afford to assume good faith with such a serious situation and I am afraid that with threats like this bad faith has to be assumed unless conclusively proven otherwise. I assumed potential good faith and that I may have been wrong even when posting this ANI. Now I am convinced that it is more serious than I guessed. Polargeo (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Not that I'm particularly defending him, but I don't see any "unnamed Misplaced Pages editors involved in blocks" explicit or implied in that text. It's a youngster's rant against someone in particular, who is probably not an en-Misplaced Pages editor (maybe sr:?), and who is perceived to be a Neo-Nazi by Ivan. I think that last paragraph in Direktor's translation is not accurate: the original text reads As you can see, Krizan, which is more likely a person's surname or nickname (indicated by title case, probably Križan in Serbo-Croatian), and certainly not a "half-breed". In any case, it was an extremely stupid thing to keep here.
    Ah, I see what blocks are you referring to: I don't think it's "blocks" in Misplaced Pages sense. Instead, the original "blokade" means "obstacles" or "blockages". No such user (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    The real threats are in the first paragraph though and in a way interpretation of the last paragraph does not alter this. Polargeo (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Indeed. My point was just that they weren't directed to anyone on-wiki, if it makes a mitigating factor. Most likely, it was prepared for someone on another Internet forum who pissed him off. Keeping it in your own sandbox here deserves a Misplaced Pages equivalent of Darwin Award though. No such user (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I would have said that the last paragraph - including the epithet 'half-breed' is aimed specifically at User:Rettetast - and I do not understand why we are still talking about this, rather than blocking indefinitely until the threats of continued disruption and (it would appear) socking are withdrawn. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I have blocked indef, with rationale left at their talk page. As a summary, I do not feel that a user engaging in impersonation of other editors, attack pages such as those discussed above, and an edit warrior is here to help build an encyclopedia. Personally I don't think it really matters if that attack page was targetting an admin, a user, a person off-wiki, or a group in general. It is simply not tolerable by our policies. I have informed the user that they make an unblock request if there is truely a good explanation for this, or misunderstanding. --Taelus (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)No it is not, for Christ's sake. 1) As I said, the translation is inaccurate, and neither "half-breed" nor "block" exist in the original text 2) Even if it were accurate, the edit in question is made on January 26 and Retteast's block was on 12 November; ranting in the sandbox 3 months after the fact does not make any sense at all. I don't necessarily oppose indef-blocking, but at least get your facts straight before doing it. No such user (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Just to note, when I was considering my block, I assumed that no specific user was being targetted. Either way it struck me as unacceptable, an attack is an attack whether it targets a Wikipedian, an off-wiki person, or even a generalised group. --Taelus (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    In case any of you were wondering, his page translates as User:Ivan Bogdanov. RM (Be my friend)

    Good block, notwithstanding my initial response to this. As all the details have come out, it became very apparant this user needed to go. Blood Red Sandman 19:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Security concern at Qp10qp

    Qp10qp (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since November 2009, but his e-mail account may have been compromised. Does any preventative action need to be taken on his Wiki account? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    I don't think so but it does bear watching. A compromised email account, which is separate from the wiki account, does not necessarily suggest a forthcoming problem. But if odd edits resume we might think twice. JodyB talk 18:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Actually, he can reset the password from in there. Blood Red Sandman 18:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I have no indication that he's aware that his e-mail may be compromised; if others will remember to watch his account, it may help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Exactly. Blood Red Sandman 19:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Disruptive refusal to sign at the reference desks

    Resolved – A rangeblock was agreed to, and it's now in place. EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    There is an anonymous user (from the 82.43.89.x range) that has stubbornly refused to sign his posts, pretty much 100% of the time, for months now. Sinebot has warned them probably dozens of times. However, their IP address jumps around every few weeks (because of his ISP, I think). His most recent IPs have been 82.43.89.27, 82.43.89.90, and 82.43.89.14. It really shouldn't be that big a deal, but it has unfortunately become disruptive on more than one occasion, so I feel something needs to be done. He doesn't vandalize, but on several occasions things have gotten ugly:

    In these three discussions, while most editors simply ignore them, one editor (a different one for each incident) have gotten fed up and called him on it, though they unfortunately took the form of ad hominem attacks in the midst of the rest of the discussion. 82.43.89.x got defensive, and things become incivil (almost identically each time). After the first two incidents, I tried to resolve it, but didn't get anywhere:

    Even though I tried to address these concerns outside of the conflicts that they had already had, people were still bitter, and he remained defensive and irreconcilable. His IP then changed to the current one, and I forgot about it for a while, but after I saw the most recent incident I thought it should be dealt with.

    I didn't want to go ahead and directly ask for an IP range ban (because of the tag here), so I wanted to see if we could use SineBot to enact a sort of conditional topic ban, by automatically removing any unsigned post made to the reference desks from this IP range, instead of enabling them by continuing to just sign their posts. I posted this proposal at slakr's talk page, but I have since learned that he hasn't been active on Misplaced Pages for over a month (I guess you could say slakng off ), so I decided to bring it here. —Akrabbim 17:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    For me it is just not that big a deal, and is best dealt with by ignoring it. Penalising people - especially those unfamiliar with wikipedia or who just do not parse helpful information we push their way, is not the way to go. Given that SineBot signs unsigned posts, is there actually a problem worth our time to consider? And whether there is or not, is AN/I the right place to discuss it? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    These are not newbies. It's basically one guy who jumps from IP to IP and consistently takes an "up yours" attitude toward registered users. He knows he can't be indef'd, which is why he sticks with an IP address. He knows that IP's get special treatment that's not afforded to registered users. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Anon editors get a special treatment, true, but it's both good and bad. They can "get away" with more because it's difficult to track their edits, and they are less likely to be indefinitely blocked for even the worst offenses because of collateral damage with shared IPs and because it's usually easy to just get another IP so it has less effect. But they are also restricted from certain things, they have no input at RfA, their arguments are given little weight or outright ignored at AfDs, they can't edit semiprotected pages or create new articles, they may have years of unrecognized contributions (the downside of being unable to track edit history) and are often treated with suspicion in general. As I see it, the benefits and penalties of anonymous editing have a reasonable balance and it's really their choice whether they want to register or not. -- Atama頭 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Correct. There is a double-standard. If you have an account and refuse to sign your posts, you get blocked. If you are an anon-IP and try to start fights by refusing to sign your posts, everyone says it isn't a big deal and praises you for being an asshole. So, I'm using civil disobedience by refusing to sign my own posts. Perhaps I'll eventually be regarded as a praised editor like the 82.43.* pest. Replacing this post from User:Kainaw, inadvertantly removed when I posted elsewhere on the page. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 18:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Seriously? If you don't sign you'll get blocked? Does that really happen? WP:SIGN is a guideline, not a policy, and it certainly doesn't say anything about blocks as a penalty for not signing. Do you block people for not signing? Staecker (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    They were threatening to block Docu indefinitely because he wouldn't sign the "prescribed" way, even though he always ended his comments with "Docu" in plain text. The poor depraved dears had to make a couple of extra keystrokes to be able to link back to him. But the IP's? Oh, that's different. They can do anything they want. Except to vote in AFD's and the like. Big freakin' deal. They get treated special. And they know it. And that's why they don't create user ID's, because they know they can get away with trolling, and unlike a registered user, they can't be stopped. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    User:Kainaw, above, has decided to stop signing his posts in protest of 82.43.*'s behavior. In addition to being a clear violation of WP:POINT, Kainaw's refusal to sign is considerably more disruptive, because his posts are not auto-signed by SineBot (cf. Atama's post about downsides to IP's). Kainaw also persists, despite correction, in claiming that his Reference Desk colleagues "praise" 82.43.* for not signing his posts. Most of us have criticized 82.43.* for his failure to sign, and simply feel that the response by Kainaw et al. is disproportionate and unhelpful. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    His pointiness is a good point, though. The user Docu, who actually did sign his posts, was about ready to be court-martialed for not doing it the prescribed way. IP's? No problem! They can leave it unsigned, and even if Sinebot signs it, you still don't have a clue if it's the same guy that refused to sign earlier. Every IP could be a different user every time, yet they demand to be respected at the same level as if they were registered and identifiable in some sense. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Docu signed his posts in an unlinked manner, and in so doing, prevented SineBot from automagically adding links. Kainaw is apparently unsigning his posts entirely (I'd been assuming thus far that it was some kind of glitch). 82.x is skipping the signing functionality, but is not inhibiting identification or linkage. One of these things is not like the others. — Lomn 19:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    But you knew immediately that it was Docu. With the IP's, there's a delay, and also there's no way to know if it's the same guy or a different guy - or if another IP is a different guy or the same guy who was just on another IP - because IP's in general never provide anything resembling an identifier. Yet they complain when they're treated like the drive-by trolls that they often are. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    SineBot doesn't act on users with over 800 edits, which is why Kainaw's are not getting signed by SineBot. Also, I doubt Slakr is going to modify SineBot as proposed above. Even if he had the time, I doubt he has the inclination. –xeno 20:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Bugs, I think your commentary on this matter would improve if you'd drop "drive-by" and "troll" from your responses, as they're an unnecessary prejudice to the discussion. In particular, 82.x is unquestionably acknowledged as a single editor, thus "drive-by" is entirely wrong. A good portion of his contribs have been perfectly reasonable apart from signing, and what bad behavior exists is largely being matched by registered users in this thread, so I dispute "troll" as well. If you prefer, I'll grant that trolling behavior exists -- though as noted, it exists on both sides.
    That said, I don't see this drastic difference. I'm inclined to recognize 82.x as being this particular personality. I'm well-versed in other individuals who I might identify as 69.y or 327.z. I'm aware that this may lead to a mistake in identity, but (a) that's part of the risk of being an IP editor and (b) user text signatures are no guarantee of identity, either.
    I'll try to reach a conclusion: content is the primary driver. If 82.x posts good content, allow it to stand. If the content is bad, consider stripping it out. At the same time, though, I strongly advocate removing the deliberately baiting responses that show up around 82.x. I imagine a good thorough removal of both sides would largely end the drama. — Lomn 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    So you agree that if 82* posts a baiting comment, we can zap it as trolling and put the brakes on it? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    If and only if we also zap your baiting comments. — Lomn 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    You could do that. Or you could ask me about it. Unlike the IP family in question, I actually respond to questions. Maybe it would be better to line through the IP's comments or alter them to small print when they're irrelevant, just as many of us have taken to small-printing side comments. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→
    82.43.89.x should not be compared to Kainaw or this Docu guy. The main point of WP:SIGN is that it is good practice and polite, which is why we have come up with this guideline. Now we have someone who intentionally ignores this guideline, and people are offended, because it has been agreed on that it is impolite. 82.43.89.x knows this, but continues anyway. This is the nature of the disruption. I am certainly not condoning Kainaw's actions, but he isn't the root of the problem here. He is just responding very poorly to the original problem. —Akrabbim 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    The links I saw here indicated not only did he refuse to sign in some way, he didn't even acknowledge the request. I recall another case (maybe the same guy, maybe not) who objected to being called a "drive-by" and said he would start signing if I would stop calling him a drive-by. As if his signing were about me somehow. That's the kind of arrogance we have to put up with from some of the IP's. You can talk to me. You can't talk to an IP. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    That was the same individual. See the first discussion that I linked to in my first post. —Akrabbim 20:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Surprise, surprise. It may sound hard to believe, but names are distinctive, and IP addresses are not. From my viewpoint, they are at once all one guy and each one a different guy. There's literally no way to know, unless they say, "Hey, I'm the same guy as earlier", and even then you would have to take their word for it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    This is not an "overall general problem" at the RD - it is one specific person, covering a specific IP range, that has consistently refused to sign his posts, and so has on several occasions provoked incivility in his own as well as other editors' conduct. He has so far acted with impunity, because, as Kainaw is so impolitely demonstrating, every time he is called on it, it is overshadowed by the misconduct of the other editors. Note: I have switched from "they" to the less gender-ambiguous "he" to clear up the possibility of people thinking that this is a general anon-IP problem, and not the behavior of a single person. —Akrabbim 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    If the admins won't impose a long-term range block, the best solution might be to delete any posts from that IP range. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    The double-standard is very clear. If an IP makes a point of not signing his posts, he is just impolite. If I don't sign my posts, I am being disruptive. I have made it clear that this is merely civil disobedience. I am not attempting to get anyone to argue with me about signing my posts. I am only trying to bring attention to the fact that we have this double-standard firmly in place. 82.43.* is highly protected and will continue to try to lure others into arguments that disrupt any conversation he joins. I feel that is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainaw (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Maybe the better solution would be to simply stop using the registered user name and start using IP addresses. Don't bother signing or indicating who you are, as IP's in general can do whatever they want. And then instead of being hassled by certain users, they'll defend us against those mean old registered users. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→
    Civil disobedience is a blockable offense, Misplaced Pages doesn't have any Bill of Rights giving you a right to protest. I hope you know that you can be blocked for this. I'm not going to do so, at this point, but someone else might. -- Atama頭 22:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Really? It's come to this? I'm extremely disappointed. For what it's worth, here's my advice for dealing with the problem. When 82.43.* doesn't sign his posts, ignore it. When Kainaw doesn't sign his posts, ignore it. When someone makes a comment during a discussion of another topic about either one not signing their posts, ignore it (or if multiple comments, maybe collapse them so they doesn't clutter up the discussion). I think that if we don't make such a big deal about it, it will cease to be a problem. Buddy431 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    You are demonstrating what is frustrating with this user. It isn't about the fact that he doesn't sign his posts. If you are stuck on that, then you simply don't understand the problem. He complains and chastises other users for not doing things that he decides are necessary - and then refuses to sign his posts as he does so. It is painfully obvious that he is attempting to bait others into an argument with his "You need to do X while I refuse to do Y" tactic. The big problem is that people do take the bait. They do argue with him. The simple solution is not to ignore him. The simple solution is to remove his baiting arguments. However, that cannot be done because there will always be someone who doesn't know the entire situation and makes the claim that a few users are ganging up on some anon IP just to pick on him. Hence - we have a double-standard. A well-known anon-IP can act in a manner that purposely disrupts the reference desk and users run to his protection. If a user with an account simply decides that he doesn't want to sign his posts, he is threatened with being blocked or banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainaw (talk • contribs) 23:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Then you need to explain the problem better. If it's not about signing, then don't call this section "Disruptive refusal to sign". If 86.* is guilty of other offenses, then enumerate them. When does he say "you need to do X"? I don't see him making any demands in the links you gave, other than demanding that people not edit other people's posts, which is pretty uncontroversial. I'm a regular reader of the RD talk page and I have nothing to complain about 86.*. He's certainly no more demanding than other RD regulars when it comes to the way people act at the RD. Staecker (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    (EC) (@ Kainaw, mostly) You're absolutely right. The biggest problem is that people do take the bait... Hence my post above.
    (@ Everyone) And honostly, it doesn't matter at all to me whether it's an IP or a user account who doesn't sign, as long as sinebot gets them. I realize that my view may not be the majority one, but I have no more problem with Kainaw not signing (providing the post does get signed by someone) than an IP or new user not signing. It's hard to make a point if you can't get a rise out of others... Buddy431 (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    "The big problem is that people do take the bait." And this is, of course, the problem with any troll. Over many painful years we've learned how to, and how not to, deal with trolls, but the lessons are hard ones that we keep forgetting, like when we let a troll work us up into a lather like this, attacking each other and all. WP:RBI, or if r and b are for whatever reason problematic, then please, just i. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Or delete. Or collapse. Or range-block. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Semi-protection prevents editing by unregistered contributions. It can be applied by an admin to the Ref. Desk discussion page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    And then unregistered and new users can't ask questions. Sort of semi defeats the purpose of the reference desk, doesn't it? —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    It would amount to mass-punishment resulting from the belligerence of one guy. It might be worth trying, though. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    It would not be worth trying. If the suggestion is serious, then we have lost all sight of what the reference desk (and discussion page) is really for (here's a hint, it's not a clubhouse with a "no gurls" sign hanging on the front). Buddy431 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, it's for hit-and-run IP's to post anything they bloody well feel like, because anybody who stands up to them will get yelled at. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    That's right. In my opinion (which may not reflect the consensus), the ref desk is (in part) for new users, or even people who have never edited Misplaced Pages and never gotten an account, or people who have edited Misplaced Pages but don't have an account (basically, anyone, including Bugs' "hit-and-run IPs") to post questions about anything they are wondering about. Semi-protecting the desk or discussion may take care of this particular problem, but at the cost that this 'solution', as DoRD puts it, "semi defeats the purpose of the reference desk". Buddy431 (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I've been wondering for a while since this whole not-signing started whether I should bring this up or not. I presume I'm not the only one who is aware of this. But for what it's worth, 82.43/82.44... is the former Avril Lavigne troll who has been back under several names including User:Avrillyria and been semi constructive under those names but been blocked for various reason. I'm not going to bother to provide any evidence other then since from previous discussions with them they don't deny it. Personally I feel that 82.43/44 is resonably reformed but the occasionally do silly things, this signing example is one however poorly it's been handled. They also have rather strong views on various issues which many find problematic for a variety of reasons. I left a very, very long comment to User talk:82.43.89.27. While directed at this user, this paragraph "Your views are clearly on the extreme side..." somewhat explains my views of this user and the rest of the paragraphs after that is my suggestion to the user of a course of action from here Nil Einne (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    A rangeblock of 82.43.89.0/25 (anon-only) would cover the recent IPs that were causing trouble at the reference desk. I am willing to enact this rangeblock unless people think it's unwise. There would be little or no collateral damage. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Please give it a try. He can still edit his talk page(s) if he wants, right? In case he feels like actually talking about it. Then we could archive this megillah. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I was about to state that when a similar block against Freewayguy's use of a range of IP addresses came up, there was a very loud opposition. Then, I realized that the opposition came from 82.43.*. My opinion from the start (which was long before the recent rash of problems) is that this user purposely tries to see how close he can get to retribution for his behaviour and then sticks right at the line. My further opinion is that those who purposely toe the line over and over should be treated more harshly than those who accidentally bump it now and then. Therefore, I suggested a while back that this user be blocked for a very short time - not long enough to really stop anyone from using Misplaced Pages, but just a block. It would be a notice to the user that nudging too close to the line will result in a block - so stay away from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainaw (talk • contribs) 02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think it's unwise. What I think is unwise is Kainaw's repeated and loud taking of the bait that keeps getting laid out. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    My suggestion to semi-protect the Ref. Desk discussion page is a serious one (@Buddy431). The main Ref. Desk pages would not be affected and questioners there would notice no change. (@DoRD). The collateral damage is that very new or unregistered users would not be able to post on the discussion page but they can still pursue any subject on the main Ref. Desk pages or contact an individual responder. This is damage reduction not a panacea. (@Baseball Bugs) It is worth trying because we can expect an immediate cleansing of the present situation, the semi-protection can be applied for a limited time and it will preserve the usefulness of the discussion page as a unique forum for working responders (gurls too, @Buddy431). @Kainaw, what do you think of my suggestion?Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Ooops a range block resolved this while I wrote the above. It's good that admins don't waste time. I am still happy to hear any thoughts from Kainaw. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I feel that a semi-protect will stop persistent vandalism. It is a good tool for that. This particular case is not persistent vandalism. The user is not dumb enough to do that. His method of operation is very simple, but hard to recognize. He scans the talk page. He finds a way to make a comment that follows the basic pattern: You aren't doing XXX. For example, he chastised one user for not providing diffs. At the same time, he doesn't sign. So, it is bait. He wants someone to say, "You told him to XXX and you didn't sign." Then, he follows a very basic trollish argument method of ignoring what the other user said and making baiting comments to continue the argument. A semi-protect will keep him from extending an argument, but not for laying the bait in the first place.
    My opinion is that the bait should be deleted. There is a big problem though. Most users do not recognize it as bait. It looks like a simple request to add a diff or post a message or use a template... It does not look like bait. So, deleting one of his comments will look like users unjustly ganging up on someone just because he uses an anon IP.
    Further, there are some very good editors who purposely use anon IP accounts. The most common one (who I think is gone) is the one who used 74.something. I discussed it with him and he feels that having an account is counter-productive to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. So, he refused to create an account. I disagreed with all of his arguments that he based his opinion on, but it was his opinion and choice to use an IP. I don't like the idea of blocking someone from him from using the talk page. -- kainaw™ 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    WP:OWN on song article

    Politics, Religion and Her (song) is being WP:OWNed by Wikibones (talk · contribs). I have tried several times to redirect this to the album per WP:NSONGS which dictates that such a redirect is acceptable. Every time, he undoes my redirect, basically saying that "it charted so it's notable" and saying that the article's content is "lost" — even though the album article and discography articles clearly state every single fact in the song article. I have tried to prove to him that there are no secondary sources which discuss the song at length, so it is therefore a permanent stub — but he still argues that redirecting will "lose" the info in the permastub.

    Since he stubbornly REFUSES to let the redirect stand, and is WP:OWNing and edit warring, I am strongly suggesting that the article be redirected and locked. (What's even stranger is he came out of a 20-day pause JUST TO UNDO THE REDIRECT.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Use the proposed merge process. –xeno 19:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    If I recally correctly, I already tried that before with If I Was a Drinkin' Man, now deleted. Even though there was a clear consensus to merge (most likely from Caldorwards4, Eric444 and BravesFan2006, three of the most prominent country music editors), Wikibones circumvented consensus and undid the merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Whatever happened in the past isn't really relevant. Go through the proper procedure and if an uninvolved party closes it as 'merge', then Wikibones will be hard-pressed to ignore consensus. –xeno 19:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    And yet he still will ignore consensus anyway. I know his style. He re-created If I Was a Drinkin' Man only days after it was deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    No - he didn't - at least not according to the deletion log. And what you said above didn't happen either, you guys simply flip flopped over various redirect targets and a merge tag - the merge discussion never happened. Go through the proper procedure and you will have something to bring to ANI. Until then, this is a content dispute that doesn't belong here. –xeno 19:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Okay, I was wrong about that then; I thought for sure I already had. I still have every reason to believe that he will circumvent consensus and claim that the article is his his his. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Prior AfD looks like a weak merge consensus to me, but was closed as no consensus; either way, protecting the page for three days to avoid edit warring and encourage discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I would think that a permanent lock would be best. Given this editor's history, he's going to undo the redirect the instant the article's unlocked since he doesn't believe in consensus. If he does, please to be blocking. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Help: El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area

    Resolved – Article histories have been merged. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    I recently created El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area and nominated it for DYK. User:Polaron put some banners on the article without explanation. When I insisted on explanation he/she provided what I consider WP:OR (no sources; personal opinions) and proceeded to rename the article, remove references and content, etc, etc. I requested that such changes not be made without consensus, particularly considering the article is up for DYK, and tried to revert the changes. Polaron promptly changed everything back and hasn't been willing to provided any more info as to the motives.

    I don't want to get into an edit war but I need this restored before the article fails DYK. Basically I need a "don't do things unilaterally or you'll be blocked" intervention here.

    Any help is appreciated.

    Thanks.

    --Mcorazao (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

    This looks to be a content dispute. I don't see anything for admins to do here, unless you get into a move war. The Guest Life article seems to be a weak reed to hang the DYK hook on, and even if Polaron were not in the picture, passing verification at DYK would not be a simple matter. There is some discussion over at T:DYK. Better to try to persuade the DYK reviewers that the article verifies than to wait for admins to do something. I have notified Polaron of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    Hmmm....and then when s/he gets into an edit war because nobody would help, s/he'll be roundly condemned as being just as bad as Polaron. Sounds familiar to me. Isn't there some way of instructing Polaron that he has to engage in discussion about things he wants changed when there's disagreement? His refusal to discuss before things reach the edit war stage is a repeated problem, as I know you are aware. It may be a content dispute, but if he refuses to discuss it, what's the other editor SUPPOSED to do? Lvklock (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    Lvklock, thanks.
    I removed the DYK nomination. Still this needs to be dealt with. EdJohnston, I am disappointed in your attitude. Your personal opinions about article content are not relevant. If you have concerns in that regard (and I welcome them) there is a place for you to discuss that but this isn't the place. The issues here are administrative. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    I haven't reverted any content even a single time. I moved the article to a non-misleading name. Mcorazao did a copy-paste move back when he could have simply moved it back. I only undid the copy-paste move as that was not the proper way to move an article. --Polaron | Talk 19:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

    If there is editor consensus that the former title should be restored, El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area, I can do that, or any admin. It is up to the judgment of editors whether there are enough sources to support that form of the title. If no agreement can be reached, WP:Requested moves is suggested. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

    Uh-huh. And once again Polaron makes a unilateral move that is then treated as status quo while trying to discuss it with him is like pulling teeth. I do not understand why repeated issues like this with Polaron are not addressed. Lvklock (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    EdJohnston, I don't understand what your bias is here. Polaron made a changes based on WP:OR with no sourcing. I have simply ask that the damage be corrected so that discussion can continue. I will not discuss "moving it back". That is unprofessional. The article is reasonably well sourced (there are some places where more is necessary). We can discuss Polaron's proposals on the article page at such time as Polaron is willing to substantiate the opinions put forth.
    The policies are there for a reason and need to be enforced dispassionately. At the moment I am forced to continue editing with a split history which makes the situation uglier and uglier.
    --Mcorazao (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Please move the article back properly. Because you didn't use the move function and did a copy-paste move instead, an admin needs to move it back. Once it's moved back to its original title (with admin assistance), we can start a discussion. In the meantime, please edit the original article if you want to change the content. Creating content forks is against policy. --Polaron | Talk 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I am not an admin and cannot do any move as you are very well aware. I did edit the original article and am continuing to do so. I hope one of the admins will merge this soon so that your fork doesn't become a problem. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    So go and ask one. Also, you are the one creating a content fork. I edited the original article and didn't create a new one as you did. You can always edit the original article too, you know. --Polaron | Talk 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    I've merged the article histories (but not the talk pages) to El Paso–Juárez region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Any further move discussion should take place pursuant to WP:Requested moves.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Repeated copvios on Ottawa Police Service

    72.1.194.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a possible COI editor, has been repeatedly inserting copyright violations into Ottawa Police Service. I don't detect a malicious intent to harm the article, just unfamiliarity with WP policies, so his/her actions are probably technically not vandalism. Nevertheless, the editor will not pay attention to his/her talk page, so I'm requesting a temporary block so that the article can be sorted out. At present the editor's repeated reinsertion of copyvios and unsourced contributions are making that impossible. --Rrburke 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    An enthusiastic IP - 72.1.194.43 (talk · contribs) - has been copying the Ottawa Police Service website into the article on a wholesale basis. It's continued after warnings and the article's a mess. I could block for massive copyvio and remain within policy, but it'd be better if someone who hadn't been editing the article and engaging the editor (unresponsive so far) was to deal with it. I blocked the IP a while back for spamming the OPS Gift Shop in the article, of all things. I suspect a volunteer is getting too carried away. Acroterion (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Semiprotection, anyone? Durova 17:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Ah yes, I thought I had forgotten something. Semied two days ago last night, for a month. I expect this marks it as resolved for now. MLauba (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC) my sense of time is a bit off these days... I blame internet time, where days pass twice as fast. MLauba (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    More eyes needed at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

    Do you enjoy solving complex disputes where few or none of the parties are completely clean? Are you committed to the principle that all editors should be here to build an encyclopedia, and we should encourage as many people as possible to do so? Can you cut to the pith of conflicting claims of reliable sourcing, civil POV pushing, baiting, off-site encouragement and coordination, and bad faith conduct accusations in the service of content disputes? Then there is an opening for you in the fast-paced and exciting topic area of the climate change probation!

    • Starts: immediately
    • Payscale: N/A
    • Benefits: the satisfaction of not pleasing everyone anyone Fixed. NW (Talk) 01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Open to: everyone, but experienced administrators receive a 1.618x pay multiplier

    Swing by Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement or recent changes related to the climate change probation area today! - 2/0 (cont.) 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    I may be masochistic, but I'm not completely insane. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Needless to say, I don't agree with Jehochman's response here. I hope other admins will take a moment and give it a look. I believe this incident was fairly simple. Cla68 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I don't agree with the sanctions anyway as I believe they get in the way of the smooth running of the area and were imposed without any real advertising of the debate (I was not aware that it was going on and I am active in that area!) so they are not a community consensus at all and hence should be invalid but I promise if I ever get admin status that I will steer well clear of this topic, which I edit in from time to time, and I encourage admins to just treat the area as they would any other area of wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    User:RanJayJay

    See his mass-!voting "delete" in many random deletion discussions . No way this is a new user. –MuZemike 20:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    So? Unless you're accusing them of being a known and unwanted ex-user, the votes seem to be reasonable on the evidence given. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    At the very least this is (likely) a violation of WP:ILLEGIT; "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not be used to edit in project space ("Misplaced Pages:" pages) or project talk space, including in any vote or dispute resolution". NW (Talk) 21:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    So tag the !votes with {{subst:spa}}. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Not certainly a new user. I suspect he is related to B2C Jewels Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    WP:AIV Backlog

    Resolved – Empty now --Taelus (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    WP:AIV is developing a bit of a backlog. Can a few admins please stop by? Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Is this a sock revealed by mistake?

    Resolved – Not an AN/I issue. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    revealing diff, Special:Contributions/198.185.66.249 , Special:Contributions/Sulmues , historyMegistias (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    The IP has no blocks, but the account 5.Megistias (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    That is my IP. I edited unlogged, then realized it and signed off. --sulmues (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Sess44

    Resolved – User blocked for 24 hours for going waaaaay over the line. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Sess44 (talk · contribs) - While not liking an annoying editor such as I is understandable, this seems to be a bit overboard. Editor has made a few useful edits. Notified the editor of this section.- Sinneed 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Ip user

    Resolved – Not the correct venue for this report. Please go to WP:AIV or WP:RFPP. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    This IP has been vandalizing pages, and so on, user, talk page, historyMegistias (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Please file a report at WP:AIV to report the IP for vandalism across multiple pages or WP:RFPP to have a single page protected if the vandalism is confined. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Persistent vandalisam of NLB League article by unregistered user

    Resolved – Not the correct venue for this report. Please go to WP:AIV or WP:RFPP. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    User at IP 94.189.255.31 persistently modifies MVP information. To ensure this is not a content issue, a link to the appropriate source was provided, to no avail. Maybe a temporary, short-term ban on edits of article by non-registered users would be appropriate?Miden (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Please file a report at WP:AIV to report the IP for vandalism across multiple pages or WP:RFPP to have a single page protected if the vandalism is confined. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Please block me at once

    Resolved – Obliged by User:Nakon. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Please waste no time in doing this. I am using a public IP address. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I am useless (talk • contribs) 22:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Seems like an incredible waste of time to create an account to get it banned. Are you trying to prevent that IP address from being used for evil? --King Öomie 22:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    And we waste even more time by catering to this sort of silliness. Why do we bother? Bielle (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think this request should have been honored. This sounds to me like a prank where someone snuck over to the computer of an innocent party and got them blocked. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Haida chieftain - what's the next step?

    Haida chieftain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry before finally being indefinitely blocked on 16 February. In the last 30 hours, at least three IP addresses from the same subnet have edited the Canwest article in patterns consistent with the blocked user. He all but admitted to using the sockpuppets today. One of the IPs, 199.60.104.100 (talk · contribs), also made a blatantly offensive unblock request.

    Multiple editors have tried to work with him. His response has turned from ignoring our help to outright defiance and incivility. It occurs to me that some combination of the following four steps are the best process from here:

    1. Denial of recognition of his disruption by quiet reverts and blocks of the IPs in question.
    2. A range block of the addresses he is using to evade his block (downside: collateral damage to other users in a public library).
    3. Semi-protection of the Canwest article.
    4. A formal community ban of Haida chieftain.

    Recommendations? Other options? —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I've semi-protected the article for 3 days, hopefully that will be enough to discourage him. I think the first option in your list is a pain considering how relentless he is, the second one isn't needed since there's only one article being abused, and while the last option isn't a bad idea it won't do anything to stop him from using IP socks. -- Atama頭 00:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I rather liked the idea of contacting the public library myself, and asking if they have a regular who is a slightly wild looking, English as second language speaker, with shares in Canwest. If so, can they please ban him from using the computers. Other than that, the article hasn't been edited by an IP who isn't Haida Chieftan this side of Christmas, so I'd vote to extend the semi. 3 days is no way long enough. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I second the approval of the contacting of the library. Maybe we should just ask them to keep a log of who signs on to the computer, and then compare it to the vandalism, thus catching them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


    Note: he's now frantically refactoring his talk page (17 edits in as many minutes). Don't know what that's all about. And he still thinks we've located him by GPS, rather than doing a WHOIS lookup on the IP addresses, which of course are all registered to that public library.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I think that his user talk page is in clear violation of WP:UP#NOT #9. I think a courtesy blanking is in order. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 03:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Semi-protect the article for two weeks and protect his talk page as he shouldn't still be pushing for article changes without addressing his block. The IP's whois record gives 3 email addresses, 2 of which seem to go to specific people. If others think it's a good idea, I'm willing to email the contacts and explain how one of their patrons could be causing issues for their other visitors wishing to use Misplaced Pages. --NeilN 04:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    SupportElen of the Roads (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Support - I was trying to be cautious with the protection, but probably too cautious (I know that's a fault of mine). I think the extension of protection and attempts to contact the library are a good idea. -- Atama頭 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    User talk:Brews ohare block review

    Resolved – Misfiled request. The community does not review arbitration actions.

    Durova 22:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Appeals of arbitration enforcement rest with the Arbitration Committee

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

    This user was blocked for a AE sanction violation. He was blocked by someone not in Arbcom and for reasons that seem to be trivial. He has requested unblock under the claim that he wasn't violating his sanctions. It hasn't been reviewed for 2 days. I Strongly recommend a lift of the block or a review by a impartial admin that will rule on the merits rather then let someone who was atempting to aact in good faith hanging. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    For the record, I am actively considering this block; but I am also awaiting comment by Sandstein, the blocking administrator. AGK 01:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Support unblock.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Support unblock (sandstein acted correctly, but it is an unusual case).--Likebox (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Oppose unblock. FWIW, I don't see how Brews has not violated his restriction, so I'm not sure why he should be unblocked. It may have been well-intentioned, and I think allowances can and should be made at the beginning phases of enforcement (and many allowances were made after the case closed). But there's a limit to everything. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I was asked by email to clarify my view. I did consider voicing a view of lifting the block as time served as I felt it was well-intentioned. But some of the comments I'm reading, both here and on Brews ohare's talk page, make it clear to me that an unblock would be taken the wrong way and would prove dangerous to well-imposed blocks by administrators. Sandstein's block was the means of enforcing an existing sanction, it wasn't against the wider community opinion, and in such circumstances, was the correct response to the AE request. There was a very simple way to convince me that the block is worthy of at least being lifted as time served, but jointly, the editors involved (including Brews) managed to do the total opposite. My opinion is unchanged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I'd like to refer to my AE block rationale. I've not, so far, heard an argument why that rationale was wrong. While I am unfamiliar with the circumstances under which the arbitral topic ban and Tznkai's supplemental sanctions were imposed, it appears to me that their clear intent was to make Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) disengage from the disputes he had previously habitually engaged in. In the current discussion among arbitrators at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Speed of Light, all participating arbitrators have declined to grant a request to lift the topic ban, believing that it is still needed. I am therefore opposed to lifting this block. Evaluating administrators should consider this motion before lifting it.  Sandstein  06:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Sandstein, It's far from clear what ARBCOM's intent was when they first imposed the sanctions on Brews ohare, and this lack of clarity has been confirmed by the recent failure of the arbitrators to engage on the issue at the still ongoing 'appeal', in the face of considerable community consensus to lift the sanctions . There was considerable community opposition to your blocking action and you archived the thread before the discussions were finished. You even removed the comments of one editor on the grounds that you had archived the discussion a few minutes earlier. That was very high handed behaviour on your part. The view was expressed on that thread that the entire enforcement action was only brought about as a means of settling private scores in relation to the ongoing appeal. David Tombe (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I should make it clear at the outset that I have no real interest in this. I'm simply curious as to the reason for mentioning the "the current discussion among arbitrators at 'Speed of Light'"? I'm only asking because that seems like such an obvious non sequitor, based on the way that it's written above. Thanks!
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    The arbitrator discussion is relevant because it concerns a request to lift the topic ban on Brews ohare that he violated in this instance.  Sandstein  08:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    David, I do not see anything like "considerable community consensus" to lift the sanctions. Brews was a highly disruptive influence on some articles and caused a lot of trouble, and he appears to be largely unrepentant (on the gorunds that he remains firmly convinced that he is right and the rest of the world wrong) so keeping him away from his hot-button topics is a great way of achieving that while allowing him to continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages. I have no real opinion on the current block but I do strongly support the arbitration sanction. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Ohm's Law, I think that a major part of the problem is that there hasn't actually been anything that could be properly described as a discussion amongst the arbitrators at 'speed of light', at least not one that we have all been privy to. This whole problem could be resolved if ARBCOM would step in and clarify exactly what they meant when they said that Brews was forbidden to discuss physics related topics. Did they mean that he was forbidden from discussing topics that are connected with physics? Or did they mean that he is forbidden from discussing non-physics topics in conversations that arose as a secondary effect of physics discussions by other people in which Brews wasn't involved. I would have taken it to have meant the former. I believe that it is only a cheap play on words to suggest that it could have meant the latter. At any rate, it would be a great help to everybody concerned if ARBCOM would answer my request to clarify this issue. David Tombe (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    David Tombe, your continued comments here probably violate your restriction from "beginning or commenting on threads on all administrative boards which involve or derive from disputes stemming from physics-related content, or meta-discussion (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular", as logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions, but I will leave that determination and any sanction to other admins.  Sandstein  08:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Sandstein, As a man who likes to enforce the letter of the law, I think you ought to know that there was not a single basis in the letter of the law that allowed Tzntai to instigate that supplemental ban on me in the first place. Under the letter of the law, Tzntai's supplemental ban is therefore illegal. Tzntai's supplemental ban was instigated on the false premises that I had broken my terms of probation when I raised an AN/I thread about a certain matter. That matter was cleared up amicably with the person involved who even came to my defence at the relevant arbitration enforcement action and pointed out that I had not breached any of my sanctions. Tzntai nevertheless went ahead and imposed his supplemental ban which is totally contrary to any natural justice, and which was instigated illegally on the back of a totally dishonest interpretation of the facts, and contrary to the consensus expressed on the relevant AE thread. Tzntai's supplemental ban was actually a retrospective attempt to outlaw the actions which he had hoped to be able to punish me for in the first instant, but which were in actual fact not actionable. Tzntai moved the goal posts.

    But lets' not take the low road in these issues. The main issue here is that Brews ohare has been blocked for a week on a totally frivolous premise, and for the sole purpose of allowing Headbomb to settle a private score in relation to the ongoing appeal to have Brews's sanctions lifted. It was very bad timing for such an enforcement action. And Brews was giving good faith advice to the parties in a dispute which arose between Likebox who instigated the appeal, and Headbomb who was the most vocal opponent of the appeal.

    I believe that you have over reacted on this occasion. It should not be too difficult for you to reverse your decision for the sake of harmony and lift the block on Brews.

    Guy, I am not going to comment on the issue of whether Brews was right or wrong on the physics issue. You have stated your own opinion that he was wrong. Brews and I are not allowed to comment because we have been gagged. Come back and ask me that question again some time in the future when there is a more level playing field in operation. On the issue of consensus, you obviously didn't read the case very well. There were seven editors asking for a total lifting of the sanctions, and most of the rest agreed to a relaxation of the sanctions. David Tombe (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Endorse block I don't see any problem with the block by Sandstein enforcing a topic ban placed by arbcom, that User:Brews ohare quite clearly violated. Given that this is not his first block for such violations, and the fact that the topic area of the ban was clearly stated by arbcom, and made even more explicit by User:Tznkai, I don't see any justification for shortening of the 1 week block either. Secondly, an appeal to modify the topic ban was recently rejected unanimously by all participating arbitrators, and I think the constant rehashing of the same disputes by the same set of editors at multiple venues is beginning to get disruptive (in User:David Tombe's case it's arguably violating a topic ban placed as a result of the same arbcom case). Abecedare (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    In general, topic ban and restrictions are broadly based and content based. Broadly based means edits about that topic are not allowed. Content based in that the edit self is questioned. For example, if someone's topic banned in the area US Politicians, editing an article about a porn star is not a violation. Making an edit that links the porn star to a US Politician IS a violation of that topic ban, even though the porn star is not normally considered in that area. I will recuse in determining whether this edit was a violation of the topic restrictions (as this likely will be back at ArbCom at some point), however, I would like to remind all that a full and complete discussion must be taken before undoing any action taken as a ArbCom Enforcement of a sanction. SirFozzie (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Support modifying block to time served I have already given my reasons elsewhere so I will not repeat them here. The violation, if any, was small. We live in a panopticon here. Every action by any editor is visible and scrutinised relentlessly in Misplaced Pages and anywhere on the Internet for that matter. More so of a stigmatised editor like Brews. I have made my straitjacket and The Iron Shroud analogies already so they will not be repeated here. I will add another one however, from The Prisoner. The white bubble will rise every time from the water as soon as there is an escape attempt by Number 6, sorry I meant Brews, from the village of sanctions. So the security and safety of Misplaced Pages are safe and guaranteed. Given the low level of the current infraction, the only thing at risk here is the orthodox interpretation of the rules. This is my last comment on the subject. I came to discuss Brews' plea in good faith but I refuse to engage in further discussion with walls. The Wall of Orthodoxy has been erected as a means to debate. I feel that I have nothing more to contribute here. In closing I wish to thank AGK for at least trying to see past the wall. Dr.K.  13:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


    Not only unblock him, but also overrule ArbCom and immediately lift the topic ban. Guy wrote above: "keeping him away from his hot-button topics is a great way of achieving that while allowing him to continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages". This is big misunderstanding. Physics was all he used to contribute to, not surprising for an engineering professor. Now, of all the things he did within physics, it were only a few topics on which he is not an expert that were causing problems. These problems were simply that he dominated the talk pages too much. It really didn't have much to do with him being wrong on the issue. Even if you are right, if most other editors disagree, you have to accept that. Brews had difficulties doing that. He is now editing other topics on which he isn't an expert either and that without cousing any trouble. So, he has learned his lesson and should be let back to his areas of expertise on which the prospect of him causing trouble should be even less than on the topics he now contributes too. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    • The same accounts show up time and again to help Brews ohare promulgate disruption of multiple pages on Misplaced Pages. When will we be ready to put an end to this disruption? Is the volume of beneficial editing sufficient to justify all this overhead to the project? Please keep the block in place, and consider enforcement action against David Tombe. Jehochman 16:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think so. I am not one of these accounts Jehochman. And I am surprised to hear this from you.I always considered you a thoughtful and fair admin. You have to admit this transgression is a light one. Blocking Brews for a week seems excessive. That's what drew me into this bitter mess. Rest assured I hate these conflicts with a passion. But I also hate persecution. So no. Please do not dismiss me as one of the Brews pack, whatever that may mean. Dr.K.  20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Support unblock. Count Iblis has spoken well.Clayt85 (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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

    The Blue Cross - COI and edit warring

    Looking at the last few edits at The Blue Cross and Northiam, there appears to be a small ongoing edit war. One user, claiming to represent the Blue Cross is removing details of a current news event which an anon IP is reinstating . The addition seems to be a copyvio of the article source.

    In my opinion, it appears to be a personal protest spilling over into Misplaced Pages. There is conflict of interest, the removed text is poorly cited and I cannot decide what action to take. I have come here hoping to have a more experienced editor have a look Putney Bridge (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I live in the region, so can give some background here. It has been reported on regional TV that Blue Cross are considering the closure of their centre at Northiam and subsequent sale of the land. There has been much criticism locally of this plan. Whether or not this puts Blue Cross in a good light, it should be included in the articles. Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Obviously the reverted edit is bad, since it cites only a primary source, but if sourced properly it might well be considered significant. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I've now notified both parties, and will remind PB about the need to do so. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    User:R12056 again

    Resolved

    Can someone revoke this user's Twinkle access? I can't find the other thread here at ANI on him (forgive me if mistaken), but his excessive requests to RFPP that lead to the block, and most recently, CSD/MfD nominations of his usertalk/userpage have all been done, with Twinkle, which make it way easier to do such things. Could someone blacklist him from twinkle? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    The previous thread is here. —DoRD (?) (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Judging from his recent edits, I think he wants to get gone. I don't think any other admin action is needed here. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 03:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Alright, thanks for the input. Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Kudpung.

    It's nearly 2am, I'm not going to write out a thinly veiled partially inflammatory rant to explain why this behaviour is obviously inappropriate. Sceptre 01:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Not notifying a user about an ANI thread involving them is also inappropriate. User notified here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AKudpung&action=historysubmit&diff=346220026&oldid=346183993 Frmatt (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I have nothing more to say in this matter other than this edit summary by Sceptre who after a continuous history of immature action, obscene and inflammatory editing and talk participation, right up to the present, ironically, now complains to ANI:

    • Revision as of 18:28, 29 July 2006 (edit) (undo)
    Sceptre (talk | contribs)
    (→You're cool.: Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, but Shirley was all behind the bike sheds sucking off Matt so she could show him her Egg McMuffins)

    and this:

    --Kudpung (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    You're going to have to provide diffs for those claims, or retract them immediately. Woogee (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Some of Sceptre's edits are positively disgusting and obscene. If according to Sceptre's opinion, children should be protected from appearing in an adult world, then probably our stance ought to be that they (Sceptre) should also be protected from becoming editors and admins of this encyclopedia. Rather a lot of Sceptre's comments on his own and other's talk pages, and on other discussions, are unnecessarily combative, and inflammatory. It's no good Sceptre preempting his own insulting behaviour by providing an advance blanket apology: "But be warned, I am rather sarcastic or sneering at times," Continuing trying to look clever by using foul language on this encyclopedia will not gain him more respect from his more mature peers, and will ultimately cause some mild mannered editors, such as me, to lose patience. In spite of his many years of contributions and high edit count, this kind of thing only gives more fuel to fire of the contenders that the Misplaced Pages is being run and administrated by children. A lot of the work Sceptre has done is good, and he should keep it up, while perhaps avoiding inviting situations that spoil it and scar his reputation. Such voicing of personal prejudices and ideology might not be shared by others, or aye, may even be politically uncorrect.--Kudpung (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    • Ditto. None of it excuses essentially making your userpage an attack page. Especially when, as far as I can tell, the only diff you even provided here did not involve you and appears to be a joke that was either a movie reference or an inside joke among wikifriends. --Smashville 14:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Indeed. In fact, the diff given would be instantly recognisable to any British person with a television to be a Little Britain reference. Sceptre 15:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Huh. Whaddyaknow. I even linked to the Vicky Pollard article in that edit! Sceptre 16:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I'll give Kudpung the opportunity to apologize for the personal attacks, in light of the explanation given by Spectre and others for a racy edit summary. If not, I'm blocking for a clear violation of WP:NPA. -- Atama頭 19:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    • Thank you, Kudpung (I'm surprised to see you reply so quickly since it's 4 AM where you live). I will assume that your attacks were a misunderstanding based on what was admittedly strong language from Spectre. I suggest we all just drop this now? -- Atama頭 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    And one of the "supporting" links is an archive page from 2006. But apart from that, what have the admins ever done for us, eh? Guy (Help!) 19:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    SockPuppet/Vandalism

    Resolved – all blocked by NuclearWarfare Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Hello,

    I hate to be abrupt like this, but I need something taken care of fast. Someone is rapidly creating accounts all over the board and has targeted me, my user page, and WikiProject Bob Dylan. These users: Lined-papier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (vandalized WP:DYLAN page); Hail Hail Radiohead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (vandalized my user page) Commie-copulation (AKA Commie-F*CKER) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This has all occured within ten minutes. Please look into these accounts - they've disrupted enough, and I'd like them blocked so I can get back to editing. I'll post back with more examples when I have time. Many thanks for your understanding. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Look at this history, this edit. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Requested_articles#Topic_areas_in_applied_arts_and_sciences has been vandalized

    Resolved – Minor vandalism, easily fixed. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 04:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requested_articles#Topic_areas_in_applied_arts_and_sciences

    All the sections appear corrupted in some way. Click on any of the topics to see. -- Dougher (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    It was just some random IP vandalism on Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences. It's fixed now. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 04:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Adi Da, User Tao2911, reverting, insulting other users, WP:Own, WP:Point

    User Tao2911 has been making it very difficult for progress to be made on the Adi Da article. He reverts edits, even after consensus has been reached among other editors in the article. On top of this, whenever proposals are made for new edits, or even when simple questions are asked, he repeatedly insults other editors in Talk:Adi Da. His tone is angry and aggressive, and I feel that it is obstructing the editorial process of this article, at this point. Other editors feel the same way. For this reason, I am requesting Administrator Intervention. WP:Own and WP:Point, are also concerns.

    Previous complaints against this user include: August/Sept 2009, February 2010 (Section 88: Outside View), February 2010, and February 2010

    Thank you.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Below are some diffs showing contentious behaviour; these are just from this evening. It is like this every time he participates. There is also a possible sock puppet: User:Chaschap. I have notified Tao2911 of this complaint.

    • Changes headers of sections in an attempt to scuttle reasonable discussion occuring on the talk page ]
    • Takes ownership of page ]
    • re-added material that was removed through consensus ]
    • Takes ownership of page ]
    • Tries to scuttle sensible content discussion by making threats ]
    • Questions Diannaa's right to edit the article ]
    • Insulting remark to Jason ]

    Perhaps an administrator could have a look, with an eye towards instituting a ban of this user. Thank you. Sincerely, --Diannaa 05:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    This looks to me to be essentially a content issue that's become complicated by adherents to the subject's religious teaching objecting to elements of the article. There may be some issues with WP:OWN, but in another light these could also be seen as an attempt to ensure the article isn't whitewashed into becoming a mere puff-piece. The complaints and diffs linked above don't really support the contention that Tao2911's editing is the problem it's being presented as.
    It's true that Tao2911 has been combative and less than civil on occasion (although not egregiously so in my opinion); they have already been cautioned about this and will face sanctions if it continues. There has also been some edit warring from a number of editors; all parties please note that this can lead to sanctions on any involved editor and also note that reverting edits made against consensus is not an exception to WP:3RR. I've protected the page for a week to allow discussion to continue without editors worrying about what's happening on the article. However, I see nothing else that would require admin action and certainly nothing that would support a ban on Tao2911. I also note that the parties have made a request for mediation, which was accepted two days ago. Given that, I don't believe this ANI report was particularly well-timed; instead I suggest letting the mediation run its course and seeing how things develop from there. EyeSerene 10:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you for your input, Eyeserene. The parties were not aware that the request had been accepted. Thank you for pointing it out. I am filing the sock puppet report on the appropriate forum. --Diannaa 13:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, sorry, I forgot to mention that. I meant to suggest that you take the sock stuff to WP:SSP (which you obviously have/are); for what it's worth, there does seem to be enough similarity to justify a report, but not enough for me to act unilaterally per WP:DUCK. If an editor has been tempted to sock, that would be both unwise and unfortunate; if it's proven then the sock will be blocked and the main account's credibility will inevitably suffer. EyeSerene 14:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    User:John

    User:John has been very impolite and abusively using reverts, as well as starting a personal vendetta against me. He insisted on using a German word for "Nazi Germany", reverts a common infobox addition to a long list, and used automatic warnings on me, an established user and frequent editor of philosophy articles. All of my recent edits to any article was reverted by him. He also threatened me with block. Administrators please take action to stop his behavior. Wandering Courier (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but it looks to me like John's correct. You seem to have not fully accepted our core policy on verifiability and our guideline on what constitutes a reliable source. Providing credible sources for your edits is not negotiable. We are all aware that many (if not most) Misplaced Pages articles fall below this standard, but it's site policy nonetheless. I appreciate that it can be frustrating, especially where you've been working from personal knowledge because it may seem like an attack on your integrity. However, it isn't - we're all subject to the same rules and it really isn't all that arduous to take the extra few minutes to produce a source (in fact, eventually it becomes habit). I see no evidence that John has been discourteous to you or targeted your edits, bearing in mind that when potential issues are noticed with an editor's work, it's normal practice to to check other contributions from that editor. This isn't a vendetta, just common sense. I suggest the only solution is that you provide sources as required by policy. EyeSerene 09:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Regarding your first diff, two edits later he made an edit that merely put "the" in front of your word choice, leaving it in place rather than what he reverted to the first time, that doesn't look like "insistence" to me. Regarding your second diff, did you provide a source at the time of the first insertion? No. And your response: "if John insists on adding reference to infobox listings, i will add a reference, but John, you'd then require ref for ALL infobox listings of influence, which is impossible, sir" is unreasonable. As EyeSereen says, articles may fall short, but that is no excuse for making the problem worse. I note from your talk page that John is not the only person to have warned you about this matter. I think you need to up your game. No problem found with John's actions, I endorse them. Recommend close, no action. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Odd edits by HoundsOfSpring

    I came across HoundsOfSpring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a little over half a year ago when he made a few edits to Tokusatsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Most were beneficial. However, he began inserting {{fact}} and {{whom}} tags in November, such as adding {{whom}} after the word "dubbed" when it does not refer to being called something but the filmmaking technique. In January, after he added all of these tags back, I put a message on his talk page concerning his errors and how all of the tags he added were covered by other referenced statements in the text. He added all of these back tonight. I left another message on his talk page and then I went through more of his edits and found more superfluous additions of these kinds of tags. I even found a {{whom}} tag added to hidden text because the word "considered" was used.

    I can see these edits and other problematic edits (such as only stating that "cl" or "edit" and other simplistic edit summaries) as well as edits that break the formatting of the page (putting in extra carriage returns around ref tags, thereby making the text pressed together). I can only find one edit he has made outside of the article space and that was making his user page. He has been at this for a year. He does not respond to talk page messages and he certainly does not contribute to anything other than articles where he repeatedly makes the same mistakes in editing and comprehension of the article text.

    What should be done? Also I am aware I have not left a message on his user talk concerning this discussion. I find it highly unlikely that he will pay attention to it, as he certainly has ignored all messages to him in the past.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I've notified them of this thread - hopefully they'll drop by and explain themselves. However, if they don't, I think a block to forcibly get their attention may be the only option left to us. EyeSerene 10:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Excessive violations of BLP on Talk:Johnny Weir

    Johnny Weir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) concerns a skater who has repeatedly refused to comment on his sexuality - describing it as nobody's business.

    THere's nothing verifiable to say. But we've had a long discussion on the talk page, discussing his sexuality and how to word a section about the "speculation" - that's inappropriate in itself.

    Then the project LGBT people insist on bagging him with a project tag, edit warring to retain it, and then launching a long discussion and an RFC to keep the tag. Somehow,the subject's wishes not to comment on his sexuality get ignored, as there's an inhouse discussion over something as meaningless as a wikiproject tag. This discussion has gone on for days, driven by obvious agendas, and dominating the talk page. It serves no useful purpose, does not improve the encyclopedia, and is a flagrant violation of our proper attitude to BLPs.

    I have removed the discussion, and indicated a willingness to block any editor persisting in this madness. Discussion of that action, should be brought here and not continued on the talk page of the article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I think you are too involved in one side of the BLP discussion to be able to perform any administrative decisions involving BLPs. Even if you think you are acting objectively, your actions will always look biased to some editors and using phrases like "obvious agendas" and "bagging" will not help to change this. Removing an ongoing discussion based on BLP is dubious at best, considering that the policy was made to regulate article content, not internal logistics. If anyone should do so, it should be an admin who is less involved in BLPs to avoid their actions to look as if they are motivated by personal beliefs. I think the RFC should be restored and an uninvolved admin (both on the article and in the current BLP debate) should close it once it has taken place. Simply discussing the inclusion of a project tag does not harm the person and as such removing the discussion cannot be justified by WP:BLP. Otherwise admins could forbid any discussion that could contain material potentially harmful to a living person, which is not in the spirit of WP:BLP or this project. Articles should follow strict rules when they are about BLPs but not every single discussion concerning the subject. Certainly not the one in question here. Regards SoWhy 09:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, I have not been involved in any discussion of the content of this article. Again you are discussing inhouse niceties - the wording of BLP, the whay it looks, the need for discussion, and ignoring the fact that 1) the discussion is not germane at all to the production of a good high-quality article. 2) we err on the side of avoiding harm, especially when it costs us nothing. My personal objection is not so much to the tag, as a long discussion of the tag, and its relevance to the subject's sexuality - that unnecessary and inappropriate. Again, I am an uninvolved administrator as far as this article is concerned.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Deleting the discussion of other editors is a poor solution and is more likely to re-ignite debate by offending the contributors. I recommend the softer approach of using {{Inappropriate comment}} which can hide the text that you feel is not appropriate without having to resort to such extreme action not explicitly recommended by the guidance of BLP. I am an uninvolved non-admin. Ash (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    The discussion is a) unimportant b) inappropriate. There is nothing to be gained by retaining it. And you are a member of the wikiproject concerned.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    As far as the discussion on the talk page goes, I just want to make clear that consensus does not trump BLP in any scenario. If edits violate BLP, you can't gain consensus for the edits to violate BLP. The policy is absolute. It is disrespectful to war over the tag when the subject has 1) requested it not to be discussed and 2) there is no verifiable evidence that this person belongs in this category. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, I confess I am a member of LGBT Studies, I had thought that as I was independent of the article I would be allowed to comment, I did not realise that you consider the talk page discussion as representing the views of all members of LGBT Studies whether they contributed or not. As I am unwelcome, I have struck out my suggestion. Ash (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Edit-warring on the article itself, yes. But a discussion on the talk page created to prevent such edit-warring? SoWhy 10:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    The talk page is where the edit war is currently taking place. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    But the RFC that Scott removed was created to stop said edit-warring, wasn't it? Regards SoWhy 10:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) It is not your decision to decide whether a discussion makes sense or not. Nothing in WP:ADMIN says that admins are allowed to judge whether discussions are important or make sense. You may not be involved in the article directly but you have to consider that you are known for your strong advocacy in the BLP discussion and as such any action you take on any BLP that is not clearly backed up by policy will look as if you did so based on your personal beliefs. I can only recommend it of course but I strongly advice that you simply don't perform administrative actions regarding any heated discussion involving BLPs. Imho it's always wiser to avoid any action that might look as if done based on personal beliefs as long as another admin can do it as well. We have enough admins so that you don't have to make such decisions. Regards SoWhy 10:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)While I agree that it is time to close the discussion, I do not believe that you were the person to do it, as you have been involved in the discussion and have made your opinion quite clear , , . The discussion having been closed by someone who refers in said discussion to "a stupid useless banner" and suggests that a number of editors "take process wanking over inhouse niceties and LGBT pov-pushing and article bagging elsewhere" is completely inappropriate. Wine Guy~Talk 10:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    The discussion is and always was inappropriate. The need to remove an inappropriate discussion from a BLP is more important that the in-house niceties of who is the appropriate person to remove it. You are, I submit, "straining on gnats and swallowing camels" here/.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Reopen discussion and let consensus be formed, as deleting it is a blatant WP:TALKO violation (there was no libel, no copyright violation, no editor outing) and it is completely process disruptive. Consensus was far from being reached on either side, and to say that WP:BLP prevents us to even discuss a wikiproject tag put on a talk page (where nobody was suggesting anything explicit about the subject, but we were just discussing about the appropriateness of a technical tag) is a grotesque exaggeration. Scott MacDoc was involved in the discussion, at the point of canvassing it off-site (nothing unusual in that). Just for the record, it would have been the same if someone on the opposite side of the discussion decided to close/deete it. The block threats on the talk page are especially concerning, creating a chilling effect. --Cyclopia 11:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    About verifiability: It is verifiable and backed up by reliable sources (e.g. the Washington Post) that the sexuality of the guy is discussed, so to discuss such discussions (not endorsing them!) is absolutely appropriate, per WP:WELLKNOWN, which is within WP:BLP: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." (emphasis mine). --Cyclopia 11:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Speculation absolutely does not justify a WikiProject tag that implies the speculation is true. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Practically all the editors who proposed keeping the tag (including me) supported it iff a rationale that explicitly denied any implied truthfulness of the speculation. --Cyclopia 13:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    And when the reader sees the big "LGBT" banner they will of course immediately realise that we don't really assert that he's gay, just that some LGBT people are interested in the article. Not very plausible. Our rationale is supremely unimportant, perception is reality here. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Have you actually seen that talk page? Wikiproject tags are small text lines hidden within a collapsible box. So much for "big LGBT banner". --Cyclopia 14:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Of course I have seen it. Last time I saw it the banner was, thankfully, absent. This is as it should be. The use of Wikiproject tags often skirts the borders of WP:OWN anyway, and there is no way of getting round the fact that placing it alongside the other banners (which are plainly inextricably linked to his career) gives the appearance of asserting a fact which is not, in fact, a known fact (and very deliberately so in his case). It all looks a lot like a Tachell job to me. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I have mixed feelings about this but ultimately I think that the RfC should be reopened, for a day or so, and then formally closed and archived (so as to remove it from the talk page) by an uninvolved admin. I was and still am in the "strong oppose" camp with respect to the RfC. I feel strongly that the project tag is inappropriate for that page and I argued this point strenuously in the RfC. I also realize that there is a degree of contradiction involved in any BLP discussion about a sensitive BLP matter: the very fact of discussing a sensitive BLP issue (at an article talk page, in an AfD, at an AN/I thread, arbcom page, or wherever) can easily become a BLP violation in and of itself. However, we do need the ability to settle BLP-related disputes somewhere, somehow and the article's talk page is the most likely place to do that. WP:CONSENSUS is also a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages, crucial to being able to have a collaborative project. In this case I believe that the "support" !voters in the RfC were acting in good faith and that they had a sufficiently reasonable case to justify having a discussion (even though substantively I strongly disagree with their arguments). So, although I was and am very uncomfortable about having such a long discussion thread on a rather sensitive BLP topic sitting there at the article's talk page, I think the RfC was legitimate and should have been closed in a regular way, and then quickly archived from the talk page. As far as I can tell, at the time the thread was removed, RfC was heading either for a "no consensus to add the tag" or for "consensus that adding the tag is inappropriate" conclusion. Most substantive arguments, on both sides, had already been made and I think the RfC could have been closed in a regular way within a day or so. Additionally, I think it would have been useful to establish a record of consensus on this issue, since similar issues are likely to transpire at other pages. Nsk92 (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, no. It is not acceptable to insist on a discussion on some completely crass an inane irrelevancy such as "do we get to tag this?", at the expense of the subject. Look, there will be times when our need to discuss things, in order to write an encyclopedia, is such that we can't avoid stuff on the talk page that may be a little disrespectful to the subject. For instance, the editorial decision about whether or not to mention his sexuality in the article, needs discussed. Fair enough. But really, this is nonsense. What are we saying? An LGBT project tag on the talk page (which serves not much encyclopaedic purpose, at best) might offend BLP of a subject who doesn't want to discuss his sexuality, but a prolonged RfC thread on the talk page doesn't???? I'm actually less bothered by a tag which no one might notice than by a sustained thread, which inevitably has people commenting on whether the guy should be labelled LGBT interest. We err on the side of respecting the subject, and there is here no overriding encyclopedic need to continue any discussion. This is simply the arrogance of a project that feels its inhouse squabbles have some virtue, and subjects are there to exploit. My threat to block remains.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Scott, I understand your concerns. But discussion about things has to take place somewhere. The LGBT project tag serves the encyclopedic purpose of, well, putting it under the scope of a project whose purpose is for editors to help the article(s), so it definitely has an encyclopedic purpose (even if not a direct one). I understand your position too, but one thing is to have a position about certain BLP-ness and to courtesy blank the discussion after it has took place; another is to stop discussions by sheer force and threats. This is abusive: it would help if you could show your fellow editors the same respect you seem to show for BLP subjects. I also want to remind that the "spirit of BLP" is intended to take measures preventing libel and defamation, but definitely not to prevent discussion about article content or -in this case- interest of a group of editors in an article. --Cyclopia 13:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Why does it "have to take place"? There is no encyclopedic answer to this. Your attempt to say why a tag serves such an important encyclopedic purpose is obviously struggling, because there is none. I suspect enough LGBT editors are well aware of the existence of this article without a tag - and it is an article about a skater (who doesn't talk about his sexuality) anyway. There is no encyclopedic rationale here, only dogmatic/ideological ones which are either about wiki in-house consistency, or LGBT icon hunting. Sorry if that's tough, but it is undeniable to any fair-minded person. As for me showing fellow editors the same respect as BLP subjects. No. BLP subjects are entitled to respect and protection because we intrude into their lives without permission - we must do so respectfully, factually, and with as little unnecessary discussion of them as possible. Editors are volunteers who choose to be here, can leave, and (often) hide behind screen names. Trust me, if your sexuality were being discussed, using your own name, I would show you the utmost respect and protection. And frankly, anyone who thinks continuing inhouse inane discussion is the most important thing here is unworthy of respect.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
              • Why does it "have to take place"? There is no encyclopedic answer to this. : Yes, there is. This is an encyclopedia made by a community, and a community who takes its decision by discussion.
              • only dogmatic/ideological ones which are either about wiki in-house consistency, or LGBT icon hunting. : And why is your position less dogmatic? To be fair, your position seems to me a dogmatic "we have to respect the desires of the BLP subject at any cost". You see? It works either way.
              • BLP subjects are entitled to respect and protection because we intrude into their lives without permission: True. But it's entirely within our rights to do so, provided we avoid actual,blatant defamation and libel. And we do it for a non-trivial purpose.
              • And frankly, anyone who thinks continuing inhouse inane discussion is the most important thing here is unworthy of respect.: If you cannot show respect for who, with civility, disagrees with you (and you are not new to such statements), I think you should resign your admin tools. Your tools are here to help the community and to realize the outcome of consensus, not to force your POV in contempt of editors. --Cyclopia 13:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
                • We are here to write an encyclopaedia, not an exercise is democracy and free speech. We have discussion to achieve an encyclopedic end, not for its own sake, so justifying the discussion by reference to the need for discussion is not an "encyclopedic purpose". What is "within our rights" legally, is not what we do. We do what we do to write an encyclopedia not to exercise rights. You have not given me one reason why this discussion, or indeed this tagging, benefits the encyclopedia which is not totally circular. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and is not an exercise in free speech, that which is potentially harmful and useless at the same time is to be rejected. Tools are for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, not for enforcing some twisted notion of consensus regardless.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
                    • There is nothing circular. Wikiprojects are intended to organize efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Thus, tagging articles etc. within projects is encyclopedic. The discussion we're talking about was needed to take decisions about the encyclopedia, thus we're talking of an enyclopedic discussion. The rights I referred above were intended for encyclopedic purposes: if we want to decide what to put or not in this encyclopedia, we have to be sure to discuss it freely, otherwise we won't be able to decide it. We're not a democracy, but we're still run by consensus, not admin fiat. And tools are for the benefit of the encyclopedia, sure: but who decides what is benefit of encyclopedia or not? Not you, not me: consensus between editors, again. --Cyclopia 14:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Anyone who feels so strongly about a certain policy or guideline that they cannot treat those with respect who civilly disagree with those feelings should not use their admin tools to handle situations concerning said policy or guideline. Everyone has certain areas of the project that they are particularly interested in and no admin should be forbidden to work in those areas just because of this. But once you start believing that anyone disagreeing with you should be ignored and not be treated with the same respect as anyone else and that anyone disagreeing with you cannot possibly be right, then it's time to step back and allow others to handle those situations. Regards SoWhy 14:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Users who violate BLP...and tagging a BLP as an LGBT project when the subject categorically refuses to answer "are you gay?" questions most certainly is a violation...should be blocked. Period. This isn't a game, nor is it a place to worry about hurt feelings. I have no respect at all for users who are so disgustingly cavalier about the real-life harm these sorts of things can cause. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Except what you've written here isn't a description of what is going on. This is a thread about someone closing a talk page discussion about whether to put a tag on an article (a discussion, no less, that seems to be trending against putting the tag on the article). I don't see how your irrelevant hyperbole about a situation that doesn't even exist is at all helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.246.206 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • At the risk of dumping fuel on the fire, I'd like to point out another article with the same tag, and the same discussion, but at which a different conclusion was reached: Talk:Charlie Crist. I would imagine that most of the arguments raised on the talk pages of the Crist article would apply to Weir as well. FWIW, I think that neither BLP should include the tag, but a)recognize that consensus (such as it is) ran against me on the issue, b) don't feel strongly enough to edit-war with an entrenched mindset over the issue, and c)am unsure of the real-world impact of the tags, which are not often seen or understood by casual users (as opposed to regular editors). The discussion thread is at Talk:Charlie Crist/Archive 1#Request for Comment (RfC) regarding whether to report rumors about sexual orientation and a related BLP noticeboard discussions revolved around the article and the LGBT tag: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive49#Charlie Crist. Horologium (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I have not looked at the Crist case closely, but that RfC is from 2008 (it could well be that if the issue had been discussed now, the results might have been different), plus the main issue there seems to be about inclusion of various material in the article. Also, every case needs to be treated separately as there are significant differences present. E.g. for a politician any public sexual allegations usually directly affect electability of that politician and their ability to effectively discharge the duties of their office; politicians also often take prominent public positions on LGBT related issues (e.g. Crist's prominent public opposition to gay marriage). Moreover, there were press reported allegations about actual sexual encounters involving Crist (they are cited in the article). These kinds of factors are absent in Weir's case, where the only "basis" for reported speculations about him is his artistic style. IMO, this makes Weir's situation rather different and places speculations about him into tabloidish rather than encyclopedic category. Nsk92 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Could be, or could be not. But we cannot force the issue to not being discussed on the talk page, isn't it? You seemed to agree about this, above. --Cyclopia 15:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
          Yes, I do think that these issues need to be discussed at the talk page, since, IMO, in this case people supporting placing the tag had a non-frivolous basis for their position. However, the discussion should not be open ended and, to the extent possible, should be concluded expediently. As Scott noted, a lengthy RfC thread on a sensitive BLP issue is, in and of itself, a BLP concern and thus needs to be handled and concluded expediently and archived away from the talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    As an administrator who is a member of the wikiproject in question, but otherwise completely uninvolved (having not even looked at the article or its talk page as yet), I find Scott's implication that all members of the LGBT project are POV-warriors with "obvious agendas" to be rather offensive. I hope he does not truly think that. LadyofShalott 15:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • ON WP:LGBT tags on talk pages: 1) they do not denote sexuality of the subject of the article, merely that the article should be watched by the project to ensure accuracy. 2) ideally, all editors, whether they are members of WP:LGBT or not, should ensure the accuracy of BLPs. Sexuality is often used as political leverage, so it is within the interest of LGBT editors to make sure that public figures such as Charlie Crist and Weir are not being called gay or bisexual to harm their reputations. The LGBT project has a direct interest in watching articles in which sexuality is discussed. --Moni3 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The closure should be left to an uninvolved admin. Since Scott opined on it here (and more strongly here), the closure (or wholesale removal, whatever) should be left to another admin, imo. And perhaps one who isn't on either extreme of the BLP debates? –xeno 15:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Trout for Scott and reopen the discussion. I understand that he feels strongly about the debate, but that doesn't give him the ability to close it. In fact, that explicitly revokes his ability to close it. There is a reason we don't let admins close XFD debates they have participated in, or crats close RFAs they have participated in. The Wordsmith 16:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    We don't let people who have participated in debates close them and sum up consensus. However, you misunderstand my action. I am not judging consensus, and I am not closing the debate. I removed the debate because, regardless of consensus, it was entirely an inappropriate debate to have on the talk page. Enforcing BLP is entirely different from summing up consensus and any editor may do it at any time.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    BLP is not a wildcard that justifies everything. What specific BLP violation you are talking about? Why was the debate violating WP:BLP, and what section(s) of it specifically? --Cyclopia 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Your closure, however you want to frame it, had the effect of closing the debate and ending it in your favour. This is not on. Whether or not it was the right thing to do, you were not the right person to do it. Perhaps the RFC can be continued somewhere else. –xeno 17:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) You performed an administrative action on a discussion that you participated in. As such you were by definition unable to make an objective decision on whether the action you performed was really necessary. The point is not only whether the action you performed was correct - it wasn't imho - but whether you should have done so. Even if one assumes that the action itself was correct, it should not have been performed by anyone involved in the discussion itself. WP:INVOLVED is not restricted to closing discussions or judging consensus. Regards SoWhy 17:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I suppose you'll want to be deleting this discussion as well, since it is obviously a BLP violation to discuss whether or not something is a BLP violation. The Wordsmith 17:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Attaching "LGBT project" to every BLP of a person rumoured to be gay seems a bit pointless and heavy-handed. Why do these articles need special protection from this wikiproject? What does this accomplish that regular page patrollers and vandal watchers cannot? Tarc (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • There are only two reasons to include someone in the LGBT project: (1) the subject is gay; (2) the subject is a "gay icon". The latter includes folks like Bette Midler and Judy Garland, which is fair. No one is claiming Weir to be a "gay icon", are they? So reason number 1 is the only other possibility - hence it's a foot in the door to "labeling" someone who has not indicated what his orientation is. Hence, it's a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
        • There are only two reasons to include someone in the LGBT project: (1) the subject is gay; (2) the subject is a "gay icon".: Who has decided that? Sounds pretty arbitrary to me. --Cyclopia 17:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I also find that designation arrogant. What gives any editor the right or privilege to decide what a WikiProject covers? --Moni3 (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Common sense is not arbitrary. Johnny Weir's article is a part of the Pennsylvania, Delaware, Fashion, and Figure Skating projects as he has a direct and sourcable connection to their respective subject matters. It is not the LGBT project's place to stake a claim to articles because someone is possibly homosexual. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Quite simply, yes it is. --Moni3 (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Direct and sourced connection to LGBT issues: --Cyclopia 18:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    No, Moni3, it isn't. My god, what arrogance. Again, I will pose the initial (and ignored) question; what does this project offer or contribute to this article? What is it that this project claims it can do that regular page patrollers and vandal watchers cannot? Tarc (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Tarc, the LGBT project should be involved in this article to specifically treat the subjects that Weir is often involved in - the text about his sexuality, the recent comments by CBC commentators regarding gender, etc. There is a definite intersection between figure skating and gender/sexuality - see Figure Skating and Cultural Meaning, or this article in The Advocate. Weir's actions are smack dab in the middle of these issues and he's exemplifying a notable phenomenon - how his sexuality (and refusal to talk about it) relate to his profession and sports in general, as well as how our culture in general views the sport and the men involved in it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Reopen - this was a heavy-handed threatening gesture that flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • While Johnny's sexuality is obvious to anyone with eyes and ears, and while it is not unreasonable for the article to discuss the speculation (as newspapers have nothing better to do than wonder who sticks what in whom), it is not appropriate for the LGBT wikiproject to tag the article, as that creates a blatant assumption of what his sexuality is. I'm a fag myself, and while I understand where the LGBT project is coming from, it is simply untenable to pretend that any reader of the site--you know, those people we write for?--would not immediately leap to the conclusion that Misplaced Pages states that Johnny is gay. The tag should be removed, permanently, unless and until Johnny himself decides to state who he likes to sleep with. As for Scott Mac's actions, BLP allows for a wider latitude in admin behaviour and involvement, due to the WMF directives on the subject. → ROUX ₪ 17:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I got yelled at a few days ago for "stereotyping" by essentially saying what you said in the first part of the first sentence. Yes, it's fairly obvious. And that's the essence of "original research". And your comments are on the mark, including the point that BLP caution trumps "consensus". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
        • (ec) What?!?? The people we write for are going to read the article - which states he doesn't want to talk about his sexuality. A small percentage will go to the talk page, on which they *might* see the collapsed "LGBT" project. A small percentage of those readers might then leap to a conclusion that the article itself must be wrong and that the tag means that Weir actually *is* gay. That's something we can't control. To squash the participation of a WikiProject, who work hard to improve the encyclopedia, simply because .5% of readers might get the wrong impression is totally un-helpful to the encyclopedia as a whole. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    That is an illogical conclusion, that the LGBT project tag automatically implies that the subject in a biography is gay. LGBT editors have a stake in making sure an article is accurate, not imposing innuendo or upholding faulty insinuations. WP:LGBT has just as much right to track articles within their interest as any other project. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    No, it's a totally logical conclusion. If he's neither gay nor an icon to the gay community, then what possible reason would there be for tagging him? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I don't know, what do you think of coverage like this or the fact that "A Quebec gay rights group has filed a complaint with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council over comments made about Olympic figure skater Johnny Weir"? None of both these sources (two among dozens) claim that Weir is gay, or a gay icon, but a connection in RS between Weir and events/discussion of interest for LGBT is established. --Cyclopia 17:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Public and political figures have had allegations about their sexuality hurled at them for centuries. Because in many places the association of anything other than heterosexual is harmful, it is just as much a concern for members of WP:LGBT to ensure the accuracy of information, to remove false accusations and speculations as it would be for any project or any editor. The members of WP:LGBT have stripped half-truth information and widespread press speculation out of Jodie Foster for this reason. To assume that the primary or only motivation of WP:LGBT is to protect LGBT-related information, to make sure it is included in an article is a fallacy. No Wikipedian should be held responsible for what someone assumes when going onto a talk page. The WP:LGBT talk page banner is a tag to identify it within the realm of the concern of LGBT editors. --Moni3 (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    "No Wikipedian should be held responsible for what someone assumes..." Sorry, but that's a cop-out, and it's one reason why we have restrictive BLP rules - rules which apply to talk pages and user pages, as well as articles. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    How does the tag help LGBT editors remove stuff that's inappropriate? How? No, this is dogs pissing on lampposts to mark out their claim to turf, pure and simple.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Dogs pissing on lampposts? Anyone? Anyone want to address that? Anyone not LGBT want to address that at all? Dogs pissing on lampposts? --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    That is a highly inappropriate remark, Scott. I very strongly suggest you redact it. The Wordsmith 18:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Uh, I'm an LGBT person--not sure why you don't want us to comment on that, but eh--and pissing on lampposts/marking territory is exactly what slapping that tag on looks like to me. It also looks like 'nudge nudge wink wink, Johnny's family but we can't say so in the article.' → ROUX ₪ 18:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I'm an LGBT person as well. I feel that Scott's remark was a personal attack that was completely gratuitous and designed to offend, not an argument of substance. The Wordsmith 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Saying that placing a tag is like dogs pissing on lampposts demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of what WikiProject tags are for. They are for tracking related articles and to organize information or editing. Nothing else. Anything else is like saying that if a tag is placed on any talk page it automatically means that the subject of the article is X. It's not. Take Fred Phelps for example. Would anyone really claim that the existence of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies tag on the talk page means that he was gay? Regards SoWhy 18:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    As someone who is neither LGBT, nor a member of the LGBT project, I too find that comment an offensive and blatant WP:PA. When an admin feels that it is OK to refer to other editors as "dogs", pissing or not, it raises a serious question as to whether that person should continue to enjoy the privileges of adminship. Wine Guy~Talk 19:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    What Bugs said. Moni, you're almost always on the money... but in this case you are astonishingly wrong. BLP trumps everything--consensus, wikiprojects, everything. It is a completely reasonable assumption that seeing LGBT Wikirpoject on a talk page will lead many readers to believe Johnny Weir is gay. Claiming otherwise is... weird. And, as Bugs said, a cop-out. We are responsible for what readers assume. That's what BLP is for. → ROUX ₪ 18:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks, but I'm on the money on this one, too. It is outrageously arrogant to think that LGBT editors have anything except the highest quality information at their interest in articles, of BLPs or any other topic simply because they identify themselves as LGBT. It is furthermore just as outrageous that a Wikiproject that has a specific interest in not allowing sexuality accusations to get out of hand, to be used as political leverage not be allowed to track articles that they have an interest in. That editors who have apparently no interest or experience in this issues, such as the ones who protest the tagging of BLPs with WP:LGBT are allowed to approve and disapprove which articles the project covers. No other WikiProject must ask permission to tag articles. If this is your point, then make it official. Who has the authority on Misplaced Pages to will spell out exactly what WP:LGBT is allowed to tag, since clearly it is not the members of that WikiProject? The editors involved here will sit on such a committee, yes? And they will watch over the errant ways of LGBT editors who are not to be trusted with their own judgment, right? Who decides this? Let's make it policy. --Moni3 (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    We have that policy. It's called WP:BLP. And it trumps editors' desire to post rumors and thus claim someone for some particular group. And your desire to tag Weir already indicates LGBT editors' judgment cannot be trusted. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    We are responsible for what readers assume. That's what BLP is for. - No. We are responsible for what readers read. What they assume we cannot, and never know. We cannot be asked to read our reader's minds. --Cyclopia 18:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Wow, Bugs - that was a personal attack with a broad swath. LGBT editors' judgement cannot be trusted? Assume bad faith much? Thanks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I have dedicated 3 1/2 years to adding excellently sourced content to Misplaced Pages and in that course, written 17 featured articles, and I invite you to elaborate on the ways my editing is untrustworthy. On my talk page, or on RFC/User to specify how my judgment is inferior to yours. Personally, it's fucking heartbreaking to have my judgment, borne of all the time, money, and effort I have spent here, invalidated by what you just said. I have worked my ass off on this site, to know that in the end, the sum total of my work is transferred to nothing. --Moni3 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Isn't there a way to communicate an article may be potentially interesting to LGBT project editors without putting the banner up on the talk page? I looked here and saw Christina Aguilera listed, and there is no tag on her talk page. Can the same not be done for Weir? I believe that would serve the LGBT Wikiproject editors' interests while mitigating the potential BLP issues arising from directly tagging the subject's talk page. --SimpleParadox 18:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Not all LGBT editors, just the ones who think BLP doesn't matter. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    That would be a potential compromise that I could live with, yes. But of course, we're not allowed to discuss it, since Scott says it is inappropriate and a BLP violation. The Wordsmith 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    The citation for the CBC situation was about those two announcers, not about Weir as such. Those announcers, if they were notable, could be of interest to the GLBT project. The skater is not, because it could have been about any "flamboyant" skater. It's not about Weir, it's about those two announcers. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    (ec) On second-view there does appear to be a small tag on the Christina Aguilera talk page referring to the LGBT WikiProject. While I agree with erring on the side of caution in BLP subject matters, I think if there would be someway to put a link to Weir's article on that noticeboard I linked above without placing the tag (as inconspicuous as it may be) on the talk page, that would address both sides' concerns. --SimpleParadox 18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I went ahead and added the article to this page . This action, I think, ensures that LGBT Wikiproject members see that the subject may be of interest to LGBT Wikiproject editors without placing the tag on the subject's talk page. Is that acceptable to both sides of this debate? --SimpleParadox 18:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    It is a good first step, sure. However, that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about an administrator saying that people aren't allowed to even discuss whether there should be a tag. Scott Mac deleted the entire debate from the talk page (not archived it, he just removed the material). It is not okay for him to close a debate that he participated in, in his favor. The Wordsmith 18:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I appreciate that Wordsmith and I would say that while I agree with the spirit (I'm not even sure that is the right word for it) of Scott's actions, the manner in which he went about it and the impression it created given the circumstances could have/should have been handled differently. --SimpleParadox 18:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Well, Weir personally and publicly answered to the guys, so it's about him personally, and -again- he has also been discussed elsewhere in LGBT contexts, per links above. --Cyclopia 18:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    So any time a public figure gets asked a nosy question, that gives wikipedia license to report it, and be an agent to further spreading rumors? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    If multiple reliable sources report it, yes. Of course not reporting the rumor as fact, but reporting that it is discussed. WP:WELLKNOWN is part of WP:BLP. That said, we have hundreds of sources discussing the fact that the LGBT community is in outrage for homophobic comments directed at Weir. Still claiming there is no way for the LGBT wikiproject to be interested?--Cyclopia 18:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    It's about those announcers, not Weir as such. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    In response to the compromise suggestion by SimpleParadox, at first glance I'd be inclined to agree with that, but...a possible concern then may be that it just hides the problem behind another layer. Tarc (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    That remains a small concern of mine, as well. However, it is a substantial layer (to use your terminology) and one that is unlikely to be peeled back by someone unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages editing. I would go so far as to say that most editors not members of the LGBT Wikiproject would likely never come across that specific noticeboard. --SimpleParadox 18:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Let me pose this hypothetical: If Weir turns out to be straight, maybe even getting it on with his female roommate throughout the Olympics every day and twice on Sunday, would he still be of interest to the LGBT project? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Why wouldn't he be? The connection to the WikiProject is based on the vast number of LGBT related coverage in reliable sources, not on his sexuality itself, per WP:V. Regards SoWhy 18:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Yes. The Wordsmith 18:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Why is a Wiki-project's interest in a BLP/Subject more important than the potential damage that can be done to the BLP subject himself? RxS (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    How is a project tag that says this person is not gay "potential damage"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Because when you repeat rumors, you further those rumors. That is not wikipedia's purpose. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    And how does a project tag that says this person is not gay "repeat rumor"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    "Rumor has it that Joe Celebrity sleeps with monkeys. But this rumor is untrue." That entry would help further the rumor and should not be allowed. Also, what evidence do you have that Weir is not gay? Fact is, you have no evidence either way. I might as well tag him with "Straight and Narrow Project". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    First, if there were such a WikiProject, I would fully support this article's inclusion. Second, your summary is not accurate - a more accurate one would be "Several reliable sources have written about Joe Celebrity's sexuality, though he refuses to comment on it." Third, the point of this discussion isn't whether or not Weir is gay - concensus was achieved on the wording that is in his article. Fourth, you didn't answer my question - how does a project tag that says this person is not gay (or maybe I should reword that - the inclusion of this article in WP:LGBT does not mean that he's gay) - how does that "repeat rumor" or how is it "potential damage"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Reopen RFC, admonish Scott MacDonald for inappropriate actions. The apparent presumption is that there is a risk of harm to Mr. Weir merely through RFC discussion, yet no explanation has been offered of what form that harm might take or what its mechanism would be. Would the harm be be personal? Professional? How would the risk—assuming there is any—differ from that posed by dozens of articles in high-profile publications and Web sites, many of which WP considers reliable sources? It's basically a cause-and-effect argument with the cause part unclear and the effect part entirely missing. There also seems to be a lack of complete candor here, in that Scott MacDonald participated repeatedly in the RFC before unilaterally deciding to blank it.
    Since aspersions have been cast on the participants in the RFC based on their on-Wiki affiliations, I'll state for the record that I am not a member of WikiProject LGBT studies and have no prior association with the Johnny Weir article. Twice in two days my comments and those of other good-faith editors have been removed—first by Off2riorob here and then by Scott MacDonald here. In both cases, the editor who removed the comments had himself participated in the thread prior to deep-sixing it and had made troubling comments about the possible motivations about editors with whom he disagreed. I find such conduct disturbing, to put it mildly. WP:BLP isn't cast in stone based on certain editors' interpretation of it; reasonable editors should be able to agree to disagree. As Cyclopia noted above, what has happened in this case has had a chilling effect and may make such discussions more difficult in the future. Rivertorch (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Arbitrary break

    (←) What if a banner is placed on the top of the talk page, which addresses the reason for the LGBT project tag? Something not hidden in collapsing box or a small line. Something similar to the FAQ prominently displayed at the top of Talk:iPhone. That way you can have both worlds; the LGBT project can continue to have it tagged while it is made clear that Weir has not been identified as gay. -- Atama頭 19:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I think that would draw more attention to the situation rather than less. Why not just collapse the shell completely, and add the "explanation tag" similar to the one at Talk:Jodie Foster? Any person who is 1) going to visit the talk page and 2) going through the trouble of clicking "show" to a fully-collapsed banner shell is presumably clueful enough to know that a banner tag does not necessarily mean anything at all except that the project is interested in the subject. –xeno 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Full disclosure - I am not a member of the LBGT Wikiproject but I am a member of the "B" subset of people in LGBT. I can see concerns from both sides of the equation here. On one hand, I have issues with the current wording of the tag (not specific to the LGBT Wikiproject tag) with regards to scope that may imply a certain level of authoritative categorization of the subject as LGBT. On the other hand, I sympathize with the project in its desires to include this article in the umbrella of other articles in which they have a vested interest. I absolutely do not buy the argument that a subject must be directly related to LGBT issues to be considered a topic of interest to the project; as those who are putatively the most concerned with LGBT issues in articles, could it not be argued that the LGBT Wikiproject members have a vested interest in watching the article to ensure any information regarding the subjects "assumed sexuality" to be factual and neutral? It does not seem to be in the spirit of collaborative editing to tell an editor (or a group of editors) that they may not maintain a stated interest in certain articles. Isn't there some kind of compromise by which the project can keep their "we're watching this" tag on the talk page without a fuss? As far as the unilateral closure of the previous discussion by an involved administrator, it strikes me as being an overly protective knee-jerk reaction to a percieved BLP issue. It shouldn't have been yanked like that midstream, and most certainly should not have been yanked by an admin who had involved themselves and expressed strong opinions on a desired outcome. Shereth 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, to protect living people from attachment by association to a certain group of people that they may or may not fit in, there needs to be a condition that to add this template to the biography of a living person the person should be a self declared lesbian, gay or bisexual person. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
        • A couple of points - One, it's not the man but his article that is being "associated" with the Wikiproject. Two, the template is being added to a page discussing his biography, not his biography itself. It is one things (and perfectly reasonable) to insist that BLP article avoid making assertions, implied or otherwise, as to somoeone's undeclared sexual orientation; it is another to get worked up over the fact that LGBT folks are discussing his article. Shereth 21:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Wouldn't the addition of the LGBT template on this article the same as putting the WikiProject Gerbil template on the Richard Gere article? Someone has made claims, someone has refuted claims, the subject of the article refuses to discuss. Addition of the LGBT template is a prima facie violation of BLP. Clearly. Woogee (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I repeat my question that has yet to be answered - how in the world is a project tag that states "this person may or may not be gay" a BLP violation!? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • You've been given the answer over and over. You simply don't like the answer. The project banner gives the impression that the subject is gay. This man has gone out of his way to NOT make his sexual preference anyone elses business. Now maybe you'll explain why it's so damn important to the project to expand their dominion (and yes, that is the exact word I wanted to use) into yet another article, about a man who doesn't want you, me or anyone else to talk about his preferences? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    You've also been given the answer, and it seems you do not like it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    This man has gone out of his way to NOT make his sexual preference anyone elses business.: This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. One thing is avoiding libel/defamation to BLP subject. Another is to comply to every capricious subject preference or request. To clarify: To say "Weir is gay" is libel/defamation/rumour, so it definitely must NOT appear. To say "Weir sexuality has been discussed in RS" is a fact proven by the several RS themselves. Therefore it satisfies WP:WELLKNOWN, and it can appear. --Cyclopia 21:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Avoiding harm has some things to say regarding this issue. See also Cyclopia's links below. This is a man's life we are talking about here. Gay people are murdered in some parts of the world by law; in others, by prejudice. You cannot so cavalierly dismiss the issue as being irrelevant. (The irony of using your links against you has not escaped me.) --Cyde Weys 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Oooh, moral panic at its best. --Cyclopia 22:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Oooh, red herring at its best. If you would care to read the linked article, you will see that it is not relevant to this situation: "A moral panic is the intensity of feeling expressed in a population about an issue that appears to threaten the social order". Well, I suppose it is relevant, as an explanation of the motives behind the homophobic attacks on Johhny Weir's sexuality from your other links below. But, um, it doesn't help your argument. --Cyde Weys 22:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Since you cited the WP:HARM essay, may I quote it to you:
    • "Is the information already widely known? If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article." - See discussion for links about such sources.
    • "Unconfirmed allegations may only be included in Misplaced Pages where they have already been widely publicised by the mainstream news media" : They have been, by sources.
    • "Is the information given due weight in relation to the subject's notability? Biographies should not be dominated by a single event in the subject's life." - No one says to let the bio of Weir be "dominated" by that. Quite the opposite.
    So, what part of WP:HARM were you talking about? --Cyclopia 22:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    That's all well and good, but what's being discussed here is not whether it should be included in the article, but rather, whether there should be a WikiProject tag on the talk page. The "amount of possible harm done" works out to be a bit higher than the "potential good" in this equation. --Cyde Weys 22:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Why not put the tag that states "this person may or may not be gay" on every biography then? It's true. Woogee (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    ")after several e/c's @SatyrTN and agreeing with Woogee. The tag is a big red flag clearly indicating that the sexual orientation of an individual is a matter of encylopedic interest. It could, after all, go on almost every article about almost every person about whom there is no verifiable source specifying sexual orientation; it says nothing and hints at much that the article's subject, in this case, does not care to discuss. The tag could equally say that the subject may or may not be heterosexual. In either case, the tag puts an emphasis on an aspect of an individual's life that is not germaine to his notability. It is a purely private matter and deserves to be kept private as our BLP policy requires. Bielle (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    What reliable sources choose to say about the matter is their concern. Just because something appears in an RS does not, automatically, make it something that should appear in WP. WP's privacy guidelines and BLP policies are, we hope, significantly more stringent than many print vehicles that have turned this personal matter into public theatre. Bielle (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Nonsense. We're talking of someone whose sexuality has been the subject of notable harassment for the subject himself, who has "fueled debate about the gay issue", and in general whose sexuality has been discussed in reliable media. --Cyclopia 21:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Double nonsense: all that can be verified is other people's speculation. As the context of the specultion is public only in so far as it is about his skating prowess, the rest, a result of creepy prurience and bigotry, does not belong in WP. Bielle (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    all that can be verified is other people's speculation: Exactly. Before saying that "does not belong", please read WP:BLP well.--Cyclopia 22:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Just because something appears in a relivable source does not mean it must appear in an article, nor provide the basis for project-tagging where it is completely unwarranted. It'd do you a world of good to understand that. Tarc (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    If something appears in multiple,reliable sources it should appear in an article. That's what encyclopedias are for. Again, BLP policy kindly acknowledges that. --Cyclopia 22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Let's reopen the RFC and close this section, please

    We are now having here the very discussion that the RFC was meant to achieve and we have it now at the wrong place because Scott acted incorrectly. No matter whether we think the tag should be on that talk page or not, I think most of us do agree that the discussion about it is meant to be held on a talk page, possibly in an RFC and that merely discussing whether to include the tag does not violate BLP. So we should agree to trout-slap Scott for his actions, re-open the RFC, close this section and move the whole discussion whether the tag should be on that talk page back to where it belongs. Regards SoWhy 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    If you do, I will block you. The one place this discussion doesn't belong is that talk page. If you want a discussion about whether useless project tags should be put on BLPs regardless of the impression it gives of the subject, then open a policy RfC. But you are not having a long and needless discussion of the application of an LGBT tag on the talk page of an article about a living subject, when that subject has declined to discuss his sexuality. We are not doing that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    We are doing it here currently. The place to have an RFC about whether to put a tag on a certain page is that page's talk page. It's in WP:RFC. We all know that you think that the discussion itself violates WP:BLP but consensus in this discussion so far is pretty clear that the discussion itself does not. If you start blocking people, you abuse your tools. You have a conflict of interest per WP:INVOLVED and should not use your tools in this matter. Granted, I cannot stop you from willingly violating core policies like that but I can urge you not to. It just makes everyone look bad if an admin feels that they are not bound by consensus and feel like they can threaten everyone to not act in a way they disagree with. I know you feel strongly about BLP-related issues and this one in particular but you should be experienced enough to know that the tools should not be used in such a situation. So please, let an uninvolved admin judge consensus of this discussion and act upon it, even if you disagree with it. It's hard sometimes but the project is built upon it. Regards SoWhy 22:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Lets add a self declared only condition to adding the LGB template to living people

    • I really do think that for living people to be added to the lesbian, gay and bisexual project you should be a self identified lesbian gay or bisexual person, not just to be speculated as such, there are plenty of editors to look after the article without a template that does whatever anyone says associate the subject with that group. Adding this condition to articles about living people will affect few articles but will raise the focus of the template to the level that when added to clearly indicate that this is a self declared lesbian or gay or bisexual not just that they may look like one or there has been speculation in the press or someone thinks they could be but the subject has denied it. I would like to see this condition added to the template which would clear up this and any future disputes.Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. People can be within the LGBT scope even being explicitly heterosexual. Take anti-gay activists for example. Or, say, politicians which helped pass LGBT-friendly legislation like same-sex marriage. --Cyclopia 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Quite. That does not prevent any editor of whatever project working on the article, or indeed any wikiproject listing the article for attention on any wikiproject. Such tags are possible harm, and of no real benefit (indeed in this whole inane discussion no one has yet indicated any possible benefit to the tag)--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • This "solution" perpetuates the misconceptions about the purpose of WikiProject tags. Governor Lilburn Boggs is of great interst to Latter-Day Saint editors not because he was Mormon, but because he signed an executive order essentially legalizing their murder; should we instruct the LDS wikiproject to remove their tag from this article because the subject was not LDS himself? That'd be nonsensical. It would be in poor form to single out the LGBT Wikiproject and their tags. Perhaps there is a need for reform of the WikiProject tags in general, to more accurately convey their intent to the casual reader, but this push to restrict the LGBT project alone is both WP:CREEPy and outright creepy. Shereth 22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Or we could just stop spewing irrelevant banner ads all over talk pages in the first place. --Cyde Weys 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    • Of course, lesbian or gay or bisexual activists political or otherwise can clearly have an exemption, that is a simple addition... This template in the case of living people is only to be added to people that have self declared as lesbian or gay or bisexual or political activists or supporters in the lesbian, gay or bisexual field. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • This should have been obvious a long time ago, but it's never to late to start deploying common sense around the project. Tarc (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Good grief, that is what Category:LGBT people and its subcategories are for. Talk-page wikiproject tags are for the convenience of Wikiprojects, not to create an alternate categorizing system. Do you not realize that you are only helping to further this misconception with your comments? Shereth 22:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I suggest BLP topic bans for all of the editors who have edit warred to place that tag on the article or to place the speculation text in the article. Believe me, that action will save WP's admins a lot more work in the future. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Requested move: Mary, Queen of Scots

    Resolved – Mary I of Scotland moved to Mary, Queen of Scots

    MarkAldred45

    MarkAldred45 (talk · contribs), previously editing as 70.126.138.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) until he was blocked for abusive language is refusing to discuss an edit and laying out abuse on Charly. Also being abusive to a lesser extent on A Date With The Health Inspector and The Passion of Reverend Ruckus. GDallimore (Talk) 13:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I've blocked them for 48 hours for the attacks and edit warring. You should be aware that I considered blocking you too; the history of Charly for the past few days isn't pretty and you've crossed WP:3RR yourself. Given the length of time you've been here you should have known better than to get into a revert war, so take this as a warning that further reversion from either party will lead to more blocks. MarkAldred45's edits are most definitely not obvious vandalism (or copyvios, illegal material or BLP violations), and the three revert rule has no other exceptions. I appreciate that it's difficult dealing with opinionated editors, but please try to follow the advice on WP:BRD. If the other party refuses to discuss constructively, follow dispute resolution channels and if necessary seek admin intervention for behvaioural issues. EyeSerene 15:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I think it's clear dispute resolution would never have worked. He is now evading the block as 95.211.27.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GDallimore (Talk) 19:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Fair enough, so much for WP:AGF :) I've semiprotected the article for a couple of weeks and blocked the IP. EyeSerene 20:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Cool. It's a low traffic article anyway ona topic with zero decent sources despite being an oscar winning film, so two weeks protection will do no harm! GDallimore (Talk) 21:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Why does Misplaced Pages keep thinking I'm "Doughnuthead"?

    Moved here from WP:RD/C by User:Mo ainm

    Today, Misplaced Pages declined to allow me to add some comments to this page, indicating that they think I am someone called "Doughnuthead". I hope it wasnt just a gratitous insult. This "Doughnuthead" has been blocked until the 19th. of March.

    My questions are: 1) why is not Misplaced Pages aware that many ISPs share IP addresses among many users, and allocate them at random when a new session starts? Thus if you block such an IP address, you simply inconvenience many innocent users, while "Doughnuthead" or whoever is off using many other IP addresses. I thought this had been common knowledge for years. Isnt blocking the IP address in addition to the user-name over doing it?

    2) I turned my modem off for several seconds, then turned it on again to get another IP address, and also cleared cookies. Yet you still thought I was "Doughnuthead". So I repeated the proceedure and deleted history as well. Now you've stopped calling me "Doughnuthead". So my second question is, what does Misplaced Pages store on the user's computer computer apart from Cookies? If it looks at past history, isnt this an invasion of privacy?

    I did try to draw your attention to the fact that I was not "Doughnuthead" while Misplaced Pages thought I was. I was told to leave a comment on "Doughnuthead"'s talk page, which was impossible to do as I'm not that person and therefore I cannot log in as them to leave a comment. Thanks 78.146.70.111 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    1) Misplaced Pages admins are aware of this. But sometimes in extreme cases entire ranges of IPs are blocked.
    2) An entire range of IPs are blocked. Misplaced Pages is not secretly tagging your computer beyond the normal login cookie.
    APL (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Could you just register an actually account perhaps, rather than editing via IP? It sounds like you're being hit by Mr. Donut's autoblock. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    78.146 - for future reference, you can leave a message on any user's talkpage. You don't need to be them to do that. The only exception would be in the unusual circumstance that the talkpage was protected for some reasonElen of the Roads (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I couldnt do that earlier today. 78.147.93.182 (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Is this "block" going to be lifted now? If a whole range of IP addresses have been blocked, then its a "guilty until proved innocent" strategy, where you arrest everyone in town. 78.147.93.182 (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    That isn't quite the strategy. WP has limited tools to protect itself. IP address range blocks cause collateral damage, and are avoided when practical. Misplaced Pages:Why create an account?#Blocked? should provide a way for an account to be created for you that would allow you to edit. You may also find it easier to go to another location, create your account there. I, for example, had to use a library, as the range of IP addresses my ISP provided me was blocked. Hope this helps.- Sinneed 20:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    User:Bojan174

    This user has twice created an article about Nemanja Nikolic which has twice been speedily deleted under criteria A7. He has now recreated the article on his own userpage and then moved his/her userpage to Nemanja Nikolic painter. Thus any CSD waring appears on the talk page of the article rather than a user page. I had previously removed a redirect from the user page to one of the previous incarnations of the article but am unsure how to proceed here to propose a further CSD for the article and warn the user. NtheP (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    I moved back the page to User:Bojan174 for now. --Cyclopia 17:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    ...and the editor moved it back again when I was trying to notice him/her of this AN/I discussion. Hmmm. --Cyclopia 17:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I moved it back (twice) and left a note on his page. --Smashville 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Paranormal investigator user linking to his personal website and canvassing on Youtube

    Truthseekers666 (talk · contribs) has been involved in an edit war over at RAF Rudloe Manor. He has began linking to his personal website More importantly he has began canvassing on his youtube channel, naming users and literally describing how to edit the article to his favour. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Just flagged that video as abusive on the grounds of "bullying". Not sure if that's the best way to describe "attempt to coordinate a denial of service attack", but it seemed reasonably close.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    I also protected the article for two weeks at its current version, without looking to see what the current version actually was.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Sarek, you should know by now, it is protected at the WP:WRONGVERSION. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Good. :-) I feel guilty when I try to protect the wrong version and get the right one. :-) If someone wants to put in an {{editprotected}} request, that should cover it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    As an uninvolved admin with an interest in military and images and following comments at Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests by Truthseekers666 I made comments at the Talk:RAF Rudloe Manor talk page and related unfree file discussion. User Truthseekers666 has questioned my motives and started personal attacks despite me giving him a warning on civility. Not sure why users ask for help and then dont accept it. The user has also started to make personal attacks against me and another user that disagree on the related talk pages and even questioned my unrelated image uploads. Evidently my warning about personal attacks was part of a consipiracy to ban him and his attack continued on the ground that I worked for MoD or was a Freemason or even had vested interests. Perhaps somebody else can look at the continual uncivil behaviour from this user. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Heh. I am a Freemason, but I had no idea that could be an issue here. In any case, he has 24 hours to think about his editing patterns, thanks to a 3RR violation after warning. Maybe it will help. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Oh fantastic :( As a member of the global conspiracy to keep the truth about UFOs from the public, I'll mention this on the milhist coordinators' talk page so we can help to suppress any further inconvenient revelations. EyeSerene 20:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Ooh am I mentioned? It's too dull to watch. Verbal chat 20:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    And he asked for an unblock on the grounds that he asked to be judged by non-Freemasons. Obviously declined. Canterbury Tail talk 20:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    But if you declined his unblock, you're clearly a part of the Freemason/UFO conspiracy, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to conceal The Truth. Mind you, he hasn't actually said this yet, but you watch... — Gavia immer (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Jacques de Molay, Thou art avenged! The Masonic Cabal is victorious once again! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Just for the record: I climbed over the crumbling wall of this near ruined site last year and had a good poke about (in the interests of architecture) and was not challenged nor did I see any evidence of guards, Freemasons, aliens or ghosts - in fact it's just rather a beautiful old derelict house dwarfed by derelict 1950s type buildings - I suspect the house will last longer than the buildings - all very sad, but deserted. I'm just delighted to see it here and at long last able to identify it. Sadly, I did not have my camera when I found it by chance - otherwise I would have written it up, and that would have kept the aliens and POV pushers off the page - wouldn't it?  Giano  21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    He says he's been previously "banned by IP" last year. If that is indeed the case, as opposed to merely blocked, then we can indef block him as a sock of a banned user. On the other hand, if he's simply trying to provide a link to a reliable source that the place in question had been investigated for UFOs by the British government (they've done sillier things than that, no doubt), then I don't see a problem with that. I'm still reading his comments. And for the love of God, will someone please tell him to take the lolly out of his mouth before he creates another video! Oh, and for the purposes of full disclosure (it's on my user page), I am a freemason. Rklawton (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Article writer deleting negative !votes from AfD

    Could an admin please rein in Milanbijoux (talk · contribs). He/she seems intent on deleting "delete" !votes from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mona Lisa Brookshire.

    I'ms sure the fact that they he/she wrote the article has nothing to do with it!!! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Old image revision

    Question and notification combo: I reverted to an earlier version of Image:Mos.jpg and want to know if the version I reverted needs to be deleted, as the image licensing doesn't apply to it, and it may be unfree. If this is supposed to be deleted, then you are hereby notified, and also is there a WP:CSD template for this? I couldn't find an appropriate tag for the image. Thanks! — Bility (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions Add topic