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 17:01, 24 February 2010 editBenjiboi (talk | contribs)50,496 edits →Creation of new biographical articles introducing BLP and sourcing issues: c← Previous edit Revision as of 17:03, 24 February 2010 edit undoBenjiboi (talk | contribs)50,496 edits →Background refresher: cNext edit →
Line 544: Line 544:
I have temporarily hidden the above comments that revealed unnecessary personal information for this ANI. ] (]) 08:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC) I have temporarily hidden the above comments that revealed unnecessary personal information for this ANI. ] (]) 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 to the gay porn industry has strongly objected, 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 in the industry shouldn't be writing about it. Thanks, - ] (]) 16:41, 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 to the gay porn industry has strongly objected, 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 in the industry shouldn't be writing about it. Thanks, - ] (]) 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. ] 17:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


=== OUTING === === OUTING ===

Revision as of 17:03, 24 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

    User: Gabi Hernandez

    User: Gabi Hernandez has been repeatedly warned for persistent disregard of image policies, and adding controversial un-sourced material to soap opera related articles. Warned numerous times. Continues to still disregard policy. Rm994 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

    This case is a bit difficult to follow, since the user has cleared off warnings from her talk page several times. But from what I'm seeing of her contributions, a block or at least a stern warning--in both cases, with the next sanction being an indefblock--is in order. Blueboy96 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

    I agree. Myself and others have tried numerous times to be patient, offering helpful advice, not assuming bad faith, but she refuses to heed warnings. She does not understand that her refusal to follow guidelines creates more work on other editors who have to "clean up" behind her. Rm994 (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    User has agreed to adhere to guidelines, and ask for assistance when needed. Rm994 (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy


    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

    Radiopathy •talk•

    ArbCom elections are now open!

    Hi,
    You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

    Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

    Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

    Invitation to participate in a research

    Hello,

    The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

    You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

    The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

    Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

    Kind Regards,

    WMF Research Team

    BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (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)

    Stars4change, again

    Stars4change had numerous problems discussed at this previous ANI thread (since it's relatively long, I'm just going to start a new section rather than drag the whole thing out of the archives). In summary, they are incessantly using talk pages as a soapbox, they've been warned, blocked, and warned again, have promised not to continue their behavior, yet the behavior has obviously returned. I saw them at Talk:Capitalism#Child_labour, making some questionable comments based on their history. Took a look at their contribs and found more soapboxing since they promised to stop, including: , and . A lot of rhetorical "do you think you could add this?" comments. I don't know why they don't seem to be getting it. Can someone take a look please? Thanks, Swarm 12:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

    Agreed, this kind of soapboxing is not what wikipedia is for. It would be one thing if they were actually adding useful content to the encyclopedia but this constant railing against capitalism (and promotion of fringe material such as The Black Book of Capitalism and When Corporations rule the world) is not helpful. I would suggest a User RFC Soxwon (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    Eh, I think it's beyond that. They've received a ridiculous amount of warnings, been brought up previously at ANI, had admins personally warn them, gotten blocked, received more last warning templates and have been talked to by more admins. I don't see what a User RfC would do at this point. They have shown that they understand what they're doing yet have continued doing it.
    I get the impression that admins, for whatever reason, are reluctant to deal with this. Swarm 04:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    This has been presented several times but archived without action. If no action is taken this time I will take it to Arbcom. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Admins aren't reluctant to deal with this. He had warnings in the recent past which resulted in a 48 hour block (I'm guessing you missed that). This time, I've upped the block to a week. This editor's edits aren't all unproductive, I see a lot of Wikignome work with typo fixes, etc. But those little fixes don't outweigh the continuous attempts to rail against capitalism and the western world on article talk pages. Having such opinions is fine, using article talk pages as platforms to protest against what you don't like is definitely not. The editor has been warned many times about this, and if they don't improve after this block is over, a block of a month or perhaps indefinite may be in order. -- Atama頭 00:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    It just seemed like this comment was sitting without any admin response for an unusually long time, which gave me the impression that no one wanted to deal with it. Anyway, if you say that's not correct, I believe you. Thanks for taking the time. --Swarm 03:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I will acknowledge that it's not as simple as clear vandalism, or sockpuppetry, or some other clean-cut blocking situation. This is more about a pattern of behavior from an editor and you have to look at the big picture; what is this editor bringing to Misplaced Pages? Each edit on its own is questionable, but not actionable, you have to look at the editor's history to see how they are trying to soapbox. If the editor wasn't also bringing productive edits to Misplaced Pages then I'd indefinitely block right now, but when this attempt at spreading propaganda on talk pages is balanced by legitimate (minor) article improvement, it does give me hope that maybe this person will give up and just focus on the proper article fixes they've been doing. If the previous 48 hour block wasn't enough to get the message clear that we don't tolerate soapboxing, perhaps this 1 week block will do it. If not, maybe there's no hope after all. -- Atama頭 18:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    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)
    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)

    User:Likebox deceptively sourced infraparticle

    If I may intrude here, but this is about me after all ...

    I place my comments first, because I am, after all, the one affected. I ask that you not move them.

    1. let me start with this: I have never deceptively sourced, or badly sourced, an article in my life. I have explained this to the blocking administrator, who agreed that he or she misinterpreted my comments. Nevertheless, I still have two blocks --- 3 months for vandalism and 1 day for edit warring--- on my record. I will say it here unequivocally: I am proud of these blocks.
    2. It is difficult for me to believe that Headbomb, who read the sources provided, knew a few of their contents, and discussed one of them in depth, could possibly believe that the article was deceptively sourced. I used the sources to answer a few of his questions about Noether's theorem, and resolved one of his confusions about the electromagnetic current. If he thought they were deceptive, why didn't he say so on the page? Why didn't he give an example of a deceptive source?
    3. The questions headbomb were asking were at too low a level. It would be as if an article said "Abraham Lincoln, the American president who led the U.S. to victory in the Civil War, was gay." And somebody then said "Oh yeah? You say he was American? Prove it!" The issues raised by headbomb and Finell were at too low a level for the artice, and the sourcing that I was providing ended up describing things that are not relevant for infraparticles, but just general background knowledge, things everybody needs to know. The only relevant source was Buchholz, the rest of the sources were a joke. This was exactly what I said on Wales' talk page. I can't understand how people misinterpreted it.
    4. In the discussion below, Count Iblis raises the issue of sourcing mathematical derivations. These should be sourced not equation by equation, but in logical blocks, to texts that contain the same argument. The discussion should be paraphrased mathematically. There is no dispute about this. The citations to Buchholz are the block-cite for this article.
    5. It is imperative that frivolous administrative actions such as this not be consequence free. I have had three specious complaints against me in the past few weeks: 1. Outing Brews ohare 2. IP socking 3. purposeful vandalism. This type of harassment is very bothersome.

    I place my comments first, because I am, after all, the one affected. I ask that you not move them.Likebox (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Comments by Headbomb

    Infraparticle was stubified after a deletion discussion (linked in the top of Talk:Infraparticle) to remove OR and other unsourced material. A while after, Likebox restores the old version, triggering a revert war between several editors (myself included) over whether unsourced material is appropriate. This also triggered several discussions over at WT:WikiProject Physics, and him filling an erronous WP:3RR report (here).

    After several discussions, Likebox gives in and begins sourcing the article. He later admits during a rant on Jimbo's page that he deceptively sourced the article in order to prove some point, and that he's proud of his blocks.

    Headbomb {κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    I also request protection of the stub version of Infraparticle to allow us to ensure that the text reflects the sources. Headbomb {κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    I now request protection of the tagged version of Relations between heat capacities, Methods of contour integration, and Helmholtz free energy, based on the admission of Count Iblis that these are deceptively sourced as well. I don't know if a block is in order, but a strong warning sure is at the least. Headbomb {κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    You really do not get it, do you? I used only three examples out of many hundreds of articles containing good explanations that are difficult to source. Count Iblis (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Now that's creative: POINTY, disruptive, bad data, edit war. Most people just try one or two. I recommend an indef block. Rklawton (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    This is what you get when you demand sources for trivial statements. I will admit right here that many of my contributions to Misplaced Pages have also been deceptively sourced. I have written derivations that are just as OR as what Likebox has done. But my work has been on more elementary subjects and I'm a less controversial editor. In my case it wa susually others who put in sources over my objections, precisely becuase I'd rather have no source than a deceptive source. But in my case deletion of derivations/explanations was never an eiisue. In this case, however the explanation was going to be deleted unless it would be sourced, which is a ridiculous demand. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Rklawton, Headbomb and Finell are the two who are in the wrong here. They were edit warring in a ridiculous way, by repeatedly removing an essential paragraph of the article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


    Example 1 Relations between heat capacities is improperly sourced. Why? Because someone demanded sources for trivial mathematical derivations. The source does not cover the derivations at all (it wasn't me who put in the source).
    Example 2 Methods of contour integration is improperly sourced. I'm not involved here, though.
    Example 3 Helmholtz free energy, largely rewritten by me is not adequately sourced. If it were made a demand to correct that, then I could put in some sources, but then the sourcing would be improper in the way Likebox meant. Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    After seeing this diff and in the light of their previous block history and the above, I've now blocked Likebox for three months. -- The Anome (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    I really don't see how this is justified. Headbomb and Finell are ultimately to blame for escalating a minor problem to a huge ridiculous conflict. Headbomb, who unlike Likebox is not an expert in quantum field theory, some time ago made the mistaken judgement that the article was larglely nonsense and put it on AFD. The AFD discussion was conducted mainly by non-experts who decided to keep the article but remove an unsourced paragraph. Likebox restored that paragraph because as an expert in the field he knew that it was correct and also necessary for the article. Why headbomb decided to through in his weight and edit war over that paragraph, I cannot comprehend. Count Iblis (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    If they think the block is unjust, Finell can post an unblock notice on their talk page if they wish. The normal conditions will apply. -- The Anome (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Likebox you mean? Headbomb {κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I would suggest anyone who is caught purposefully adding improper refs should be blocked on sight for sneaky vandalism. That type of deception is not allowed. β 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Indeed. Two wrongs don't make a right. There is clearly a problem here, but this is not the way to sort it. I suggest that all the editors involved find somewhere to discuss this, and attempt to resolve these issues in good faith before this escalates any further. -- The Anome (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Well as far as I was aware, the problems stopped when sources began to be added, and we were all collaborating on the article. The revert to the stub is simply a precautionary measure because the sourcing has been deceptive (I've set a draft of the unreliable version on the talk page so we can keep working on it, and readers aren't mislead). Headbomb {κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    This was yet more edit-warring after a history of repeated blocks for the same reason. The quote suggests that they are completely unrepentant about this. -- The Anome (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    But LIkebox did not edit war, he stuch to 1RR as his probation demands. In this case, Headbomb is really in the wrong, not in the sense of violating Misplaced Pages's rules, but by defending such an unreasonable position. From the POV of an expert in the field like Likebox, this is extremely provocative. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Yes he did, see the WP:AN3 thread. Where he admits to 2RR (and still unconvinced he's not the IPs). Headbomb {κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    This is silly, as nearly every editor at sometime violates WP:POINT in order to make a point, as here. It's not vandalism to put in a cite for some mathematical transformation to satisfy some bunch of people who wouldn't know if it was needed or not. And it certainly cannot count as vandalism if you admit it later, to make your point, as here. Likebox wasn't "caught"-- he "turned himself in," after making his point. And his great sin? Adding cites for math steps inside the article, which explain the transformations in the proof, but aren't per se relevant to the article subject. So what? How else to get people who merely want more cites for a long article, to listen to the fact that use of experts on WP has major flaws? Yes, an "expert review needed" tag exists, but where are we paying attention to it, when we really need it? Not here. (I see no tag). Do I have to remind everybody that editors who actually understand any siognificant quantum field theory on WP, can be counted on one hand? I'm not one of them, but I know enough of it to recognize when somebody knows a lot more. The rest of this looks like people totally ignorant of the subject, who are flexing their wiki-muscles simply because they can. I see no vandalism (an unhelpful cite is not a vandalism-- it's simply an unnecessary cite). Even if there was vandalism (made-up cites, say) this is an IAR case, inasmuch as clearly Likebox's purpose is, and was, to improve WP. That is all the defense he really rationally needs. He was trying to write a detailed explanation of what an infraparticle is, and nobody would let him. SBHarris 01:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Please take this to an RfC

    This has clearly gone beyond a simple edit war, and beyond simple admin intervention. Both sides have a point, and it's not my place to say which is right, nor is this the venue to sort it out. I suggest you file an RfC, and take this to arbitration. I'll reduce the block to 24 hours to let Likebox participate. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. -- The Anome (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    It's not beyond simple edit war or admin intervention, because that's all it is. All articles that've been found as potentially misleading should be tagged as such, and work can continue on the talk pages. If things turned out to be inaccurate, or badly sourced, the article will be rewritten and new sources will be found. If the articles are accurate, and correctly sourced, then tags will be removed. Headbomb {κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    But did you really find anything? Likebox makes a comment and you happen to find what Likebox mentioned. I mention three examples and you have happen to find exactly those three (out of the many hundreds). And what I and Likebox mean is that the explanations cannot be sourced in the way you would like to see, not at all that they are misleading. Why not end your crusade right now and get back to editing? Count Iblis (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


    I would like Headbomb to stop tagging the three examples I mentioned. I simply mentioned them because these articles are vulnerable to the same problem that we have with infraparticle, albeit the articles are mostly at undergaduate level. Any article that does some nontrivial explaining will suffer fromm the same problem. usually editors collaborate and accept that you cannot source every clarification to make the material understandable (because a textbook will write for students). The three articles I mentioned are either not sourced in the way headbomb wanted for infraparticle (but this has never been seen to be aproblem by the involved editors), or they are sourced in a i.m.o. misleading way (the sourcing has been done by others over my objections). Count Iblis (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


    To be very clear about this, I can easily expand the list of examples to a few hundred Wiki articles. Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Please do, I'll add {{accuracy}} to these as well so it adds them to the physics cleanup listing and reminds the readers to be careful when reading to particular articles. Using general references is fine, but certainly not references that have nothing to do with the sentence/passage supported. Headbomb {κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    We're only talking about general references that suggest more than it should be. When I rewrote the thermodynamics articles in early 2008 I started a few discussions about the problems with the previous versions. Why Wiki-policies regarding sourcing alone were not enough to prevent huge errors etc. etc. That fell on deaf ears. I made some suggestions at the time onn how to improve the situation, but people did not want to listen. Half a year ago, I tried again by writing up WP:ESCA, and again what we saw was a knee jerk rejection by people who don't like these ideas. Anyway, the articles in question for which these ideas are necessary exist. I put in quite some effort to remove a huge number of stupid errors from thermodynamics articles. Likebox has done a lot of work on field theory articles, the article on the Ising model and other advanced topics. But to reject all these efforsts just because they seem to be incompatible on some very minor policy points is just ridiculous. Everything is verifiable from appropriate textbook but, of course, with going through the derivation, as any physics student has to do, not from literal quotes. Count Iblis (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Likebox's editing of Infraparticle should be dealt with here

    I don't have time right now to discuss this at length or to look up old diffs. I will make a few quick points:

    1. Let's limit this AN/I to User:Likebox and his editing of Infraparticle. I don't know enough about User:Count Iblis's conduct or the other articles he cites as examples, and that sounds like a broader topic. User:Likebox's conduct in connection at Infraparticle is, on the other hand, simple and can be handled easily here, without an RFC.
    2. I don't know about the other articles that Count Iblis raised, but the challenged content that Likebox added to Infraparticle was not simple, basic, obvious statements about elementary physics. It was advanced physics with long blocks of equations.
    3. When other editors objected to Likebox adding unsourced content to Infraparticle and reverted his material, he admitted to adding misleading sources to keep his disputed, challenged material in the article. He didn't just admit it; he bragged about misleading the other editors: "At the moment, the opponents can be distracted by smoke and mirrors." Talk about hubris!.
    4. In its context, Likebox's deceit was a tactic in his edit war over Infraparticle. Given Likebox's admitted disdain for Misplaced Pages's core policy of Verifiability, his deceptively using false source citations to evade that policy, and his block record for prior edit warring, he should be blocked until he demonstrates that he will abide by Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, whether he likes them or not. Likebox's conduct jeopardizes Misplaced Pages's reliability, which is the reason for the Verifiability policy in the first place. Likebox's edits can no longer be trusted, and we cannot assume good faith when Likebox himself admits to conduct that is bad faith.
    5. Likebox's deceit wasted other editors' time. Late last night, assuming that Likebox's source citations were in good faith (I don't have easy access to the sources themselves, so I assumed that the cited sources supported the statements for which they were cited), I spent almost 2 hours copy editing the content he added, adding missing wikilinks, fixing incorrect wikilinks, and fixing Likebox's citations (many of his citations were incomplete and therefore uninformative to the reader, he filled citation templates incorrectly, he cited a preprint without citing the published journal article, etc.). Headbomb spent time doing the same. (Almost half of what I did didn't get into the article because Headbomb made a lot of the same fixes at the same time, so I had an edit conflict when I tried to save a big block of edits. I copied my edited version to my user space to reconcile it later with what Headbomb did). All wasted time.
    6. Likebox has additional relevant history that implies that his editing of Infraparticle has a particular POINT:
      • A few months ago, Likebox had a bitter edit dispute with lots of drama over his attempt to insert his own mathematical (or logical) proof into an article. I think it was Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Likebox claimed that his proof was a simpler equivalent to existing, published proofs. But, the proof was his own creation, i.e., OR, and other editors disputed it. I vaguely recall that there was a dispute about another of Likebox's proofs in another article.
      • During or in the aftermath of this dispute, Likebox and a couple of allies, including Count Iblis, then proposed to weaken Misplaced Pages's policy on OR. More drama, but the proposal was defeated by a very substantial consensus.
      • Around the same time, Likebox was one of 2 or 3 supporters of Count Iblis's ESCA policy proposal. The core of the proposal was that science articles should be edited, and editing decisions made, based primarily on "reasoning from first principles", rather than based primarily on reliable sources. A very substantial consensus defeated that policy proposal on the ground that it would seriously weaken the Verifiability policy. So, ESCA was converted into an essay. (I haven't done a detailed comparison, but my impression is that the current ESCA essay places more emphasis citing sources than did the defeated policy proposal). (Despite that resounding defeat, Iblis proudly proclaims on his talk page that he edits science articles as though ESCA were policy.)

    Likebox's conduct here is a serious example of gaming the system. It cannot be tolerated, and a severe sanction is required to stop Likebox's willful violation of Misplaced Pages's policies.—Finell 05:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you, Finell, for your "few quick points". Perhaps you and Headbomb need to cool off? Infraparticle was making progress, which you've succeeded in reversing. Great work guys! --Michael C. Price 06:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I was trying to help in that process too, when I thought that Likebox's sources were for real. He made fools of us, so it is back to the drawing board with the article, since Likebox's content cannot be trusted until every line is verified, or until someone competent and trustworthy rewrites it from scratch.—Finell 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Since this is a more concise version of all the brouhaha above, the only thing I have to add to this are links of convenience:
    Headbomb {κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks. I also had in mind the diffs for my item 6, Likebox's relevant history. It's all just a vague, but unhappy, memory.—Finell 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    I think you'll find summarizes the most recent iteration of the Gödel's incompleteness theorems trainwreck, which has been going on for quite literally years. 71.139.6.157 (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Let me address this for the record: "During or in the aftermath of this dispute, Likebox and a couple of allies, including Count Iblis, then proposed to weaken Misplaced Pages's policy on OR. More drama, but the proposal was defeated by a very substantial consensus. Around the same time, Likebox was one of 2 or 3 supporters of Count Iblis's ESCA policy proposal. The core of the proposal was that science articles should be edited, and editing decisions made, based primarily on "reasoning from first principles", rather than based primarily on reliable sources."

    To be clear, ESCA or some other guidelines along the same lines are necessary for certain class of technical articles where simply sticking to sources is not good enough. In no way is anyone saying that sources should be ignored. To the contrary, in addition to sticling to sources, you need to do more nonrivial work. The essay gives some suggestions on how to act. I have discussed problems with thermodynamics articles to death here on Misplaced Pages a long time ago and it was my rewriting of them which ultimately led to ESCA about a year later. ESCA in its original form, took for granted that we all know that things should be properly sourced. The later version emphasize this more, precisely to deal with the comments from other editors who mistook it as licence to do OR. Count Iblis (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    There is still a fundamental problem with Infraparticle. The main sources provided seem to be to the small school of researchers in algebraic quantum field theory, the followers of Rudolf Haag - Buchholz, Schroer, Doplicher, Fredenhagen, etc. This group is usually considered to be on the fringes of quantum field theory: the article does not make that clear. At present the lede is mathematically nonsensical, with its confused discussion of Hilbert space and Fock spaces. I suspect that this is due to the fact that (a) inappropriate sources are being used and (b) editors are writing beyond their level of competence. One of the other mathematics articles that has been mentioned, Methods of contour integration, essentially a list of examples, also has glaring problems. Why is there no mention of holomorphic or meromorphic functions in the lede or the main text of the article? There are huge numbers of classic texts (I added Titchmarsh's book, first published in 1932), yet it's hard to find these in the references. In all these cases, sources exist and should have been found before writing the articles. That is why both these articles seem rather odd. It has very little to do with special guidelines for writing scientific articles. Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Outside inside view

    Disclosure: I have met Likebox personally, and consider Count Iblis and Headbomb to both be allies of mine here at Misplaced Pages.

    I think that this dispute argues for the need to have a Misplaced Pages:Science council. Both sides make good points, but both are talking past each other. Count Iblis and Likebox are correct that the rules for citation and prose control in mainstream science articles are necessarily relaxed due to the difference between pedagogical prose and primary source prose. At the advanced level of the best science articles in Misplaced Pages (and here I speak of mostly physics and astronomy articles of which I am familiar) the sourcing is at best approximate in order to accommodate the prose style of this encyclopedia. Headbomb is correct that sources are absolutely necessary, but it is not necessary that the reader of our articles must necessarily immediately understand the connection between the sources and the prose of the article. I could refer to a number of science articles that are Featured Articles where this is the case, but I won't for fear of stoking the fires.

    In part, what's happening now with the maturity of Misplaced Pages is a need for quality control. There are cases where a novel approach should be excluded as original research and there are cases where a novel approach should be viewed as simply an appropriate paraphrase and simplification of sources that are not original research. It takes an expert to decide which is which. We are simply not equipped here at Misplaced Pages to determine that.

    In this particular dispute, I believe that Count Iblis and Likebox are actually correct, though they are combative. Unfortunately, knowing the culture of Misplaced Pages, I'm afraid that what will happen is enforcement against the behavioral issues associated with these two valuable editors rather than what should happen which is a careful consideration of the results of the editing. The article is in better shape in the way Count Iblis and Likebox want it to exist.

    ScienceApologist (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Block review

    I am concerned the block is based on a mistaken reading of Likebox's statement here. The blocking admin evidently read this as an admission that Likebox himself had deliberately inserted false references. However, the way I read the statement, he was merely saying that references inserted by others had been false or irrelevant. The statement seems to have been taken out of context: it was evidently in response to Finell's preceding statement that "As a result of work on the article by me and other editors , Infraparticle is now reasonably well sourced". Evidently, Likebox's response that "The "sourcing" of infraparticle was a joke" referred to those additions. – If this is true, the block seems fundamentally misjudged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Almost. Likebox was actually saying that he inserted the references in spite of them being asinine. I've been on that end of the stick in writing here. While not the nicest thing to say, he was certainly not saying that there was anything intrinsically wrong with the references he provided, only that they were boneheaded and seemed to detract from the content of the article.
    Imagine writing an article about Abraham Lincoln for the Simple English Misplaced Pages and having a bunch of editors complain that they didn't understand the words you were using. "Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth president of the United States." you write, but they don't just want a source for that fact, they also want a source for the fact that the United States has a president and that there exists a number sixteen. Is it possible to find such sources? Of course. But if you are a historian trying to write about Lincoln, looking for such sources is really, really annoying. You might find some sources and insert them, but you'd find it ridiculous. The sourcing is a "joke" because it is so idiotic. That's what Likebox was saying. Nothing more. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Yep, I'm beginning to understand his point. He's explained it here himself now. Given this statement, I think we can safely say the charge of deliberate falsifying of sources should be dropped. This leaves the charge of edit-warring against consensus to be assessed. (Note: I only now notice Anome had actually already reduced the block from 3 months to a mere 24h for edit-warring, so maybe this part of the discussion was moot anyway, but then Anome didn't say he did so because he had dropped that serious accusation). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, that's my fault. I already changed the block length and reason yesterday after reading the discussions many paragraphs earlier: I should have added a comment here when I did it. I still think this issue is just the tip of a much large science article iceberg, and I suggest that all involved should take this to an RfC. -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Update: I've now unblocked Lightbox, in response to their unblock request. -- The Anome (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    I don't see what there was to misinterpret in these 2 statements in Likebox's post on Jimbo's talk page:
    • "At the moment, the opponents can be distracted by smoke and mirrors." That can only be interpreted as intentionally deceiving his "opponents". Further, his characterizing other editors, with whom he is supposed to be collaborating to reach consensus, as "opponents" is another demonstration of his edit warrior approach to editing Misplaced Pages. I certainly didn't think that I was Likebox's "opponent" when I insisted that he supply reliable sources for the material he added to Infraparticle. I thought I was another editor trying to be sure that the article was accurate, and that enforcing Misplaced Pages:Verifiability was the way to ensure accuracy.
    • "I am very proud of my blocks." These are his blocks for edit warring. He repeats that statement, this time in all italics for emphasis, in this AN/I.
    Maybe Likebox need some form of counseling or mentorship. There are plenty of places where he can write what he wants as he wants. He can publish in a peer reviewed journal, if his material is good enough, or he can self-publish anything for free on the Internet. But if Likebox wants to help build this encyclopedia, he needs to comply with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.—Finell 00:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    There's absolutely no need of mentorship. Likebox's explanation of his meaning in User talk:Likebox#Blockedthis thread is clear, straightforward, and perfectly acceptable. What he did is completely within guidelines & policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I want to point out that the last five or six items on my block record are for similarly silly things. I hope that editors do not use the block record to bias their decisions on cases here, snce it will cause Misplaced Pages to lose editors who are willing to do the hard work of confronting biased or misleading articles.Likebox (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Involved admin using their powers in a BLP dispute

    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)
    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

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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 to the gay porn industry has strongly objected, 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 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)

    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)

    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)

    Proposing immediate close

    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)

    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)

    WP:OFFER unblock request of MyMoloboaccount

    MyMoloboaccount is a sock of Molobo, who was blocked for a year in May 2009 per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo/Archive. Molobo was later blocked indefinitely as a compromised account. MyMoloboaccount now requests unblock per WP:OFFER and promises not to sock again. As recommended at WP:OFFER, I am referring this request to the community for discussion and am placing the unblock request on hold. This is a procedural referral; I have no opinion about the merits of the request.  Sandstein  22:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    • First, let me correct a factual misunderstanding that might arise from the above: "MyMoloboaccount" isn't a "sock", it's a straightforward alternate account created because Molobo apparently had concerns over the security of his original account. The socking for which he was originally blocked was unrelated to that; it was about Gwinndeith (talk · contribs) (see SPI case). Second, a concern: Molobo was centrally involved in the EEML case, being the owner and creator of the infamous mailing list, and IIRC heavily active in the coordination of the disruptive activities for which several of his friends got banned. It is my understanding that he wasn't implicated in the final remedies of the Arbcom case only because the arbitrators considered him already covered by the community sanctions anyway. Anybody who wants to consider unblocking should first make themselves familiar with the evidence page of that case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I have struck out part of the above. My apologies for getting Molobo mixed up in my mind with somebody else (Digwuren). Molobo was active on the list, but not among the most central figures. I no longer have the archives at my disposal and must admit I couldn't say for certain, from memory, just how problematic his conduct on the list was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    User Type Sanction
    (quoted verbatim)     		Special Enforcement Details Expiration Date
    Molobo
    Note: User subsequently lost control of account and is now editing as User:MyMoloboaccount     		Revert limitation

    Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, and should discuss all reverts he makes on the relevant talk page. If he violates this limit, he may be blocked by any administrator for any time limit up to a week.

    After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, the indefinite block will be reapplied.

    Sanction imposed from this discussion.     		MyMoloboaccount has a 1 year block for sockpuppetry (see SPI conclusion on 1 Jun 2009 and block notice on 1 Jun 2009) which expires 1 June 2010, after which the restrictions are to be reviewed by the community.
    Civility supervision

    If Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked for any time limit up to a week. Note: if Molobo is disrupting talkpages with tendentious filibustering, that comes under the civility supervision as well.

    For clarity, I updated the final column, but otherwise I have had no involvement with this case. My thought is that the block is in force until 1st June, so it is too early to discuss this, so I would oppose unblocking. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Steve, Molobo is making his request under WP:OFFER which states that the editor needs to wait six months, rather than full term of the block before making the request. Molobo's waited eight nine - hence it's definitely not "too early" to make this request.radek (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    You are quite right, Radeksz. I have stricken my "oppose", as at the moment I have no opinion on this - I need to look into the history a bit before making a reasoned comment - obviously, if the 1-year block had been ArbCom-imposed, then that would be different, but as this is a community sanction, then it should be considered. Thanks for pointing out my mistake! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    As blocking admin, I cannot support this. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Rlevse, I believe you simply reblocked the account after the conclusion of the case. Likewise Future Perfect's block was procedural (and done on Molobo's request after his original account became compromised) - and as an aside FP's statement above is factually incorrect on several points (I have emailed him to notify him of his error). The actual blocking admin in this case was Avraham (who should be notified).radek (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    In general, I am a firm believer in affording people the opportunity to learn and grow, and absent evidence to the contrary (as some of our recidivist puppeteers have amply demonstrated) if a user wishes to come back and be a productive member of the project, by all means. However, I would suggest "trust, but verify" at least for a little while, and I would suggest that Molobo accept some form of mentorship or guidance. If someone here is willing to act as Molobo's "big brother/sister" for a while, and Molobo accepts that messing up this opportunity will all but remove any trust the community may place in him, then I personally have no issues with an unblock and a welcome back. However, I am just one voice among many, for what that is worth. -- Avi (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Comment I too, am in favour of second chances. In this case, the editor appears to have waited a reasonable amount of time. Any restrictions applied to the original account should be understood to apply to the alternate account, and the editor should be under no doubt that if unblocked, they will be under scrutiny and further problems will lead to a long block. If they want to contribute constructively, welcome back. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    As with Avi and Mjroots, I am also in favour of second chances. If the editor wants to edit constructively, then that should be encouraged - however, I also think that mentorship along the lines of Avi's suggestion would be a good idea - and also that this is a 'last chance' - if they cause problems, then they should be indef'd. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    • Oppose unblock:
      • Molobo (talk · contribs) aka MyMoloboaccount has been disruptive ever since he created an account in 2005 (block log, )
      • He was blocked for socking after he was conditionally unblocked from his second indef ban (see table above). This already was the n-th "last chance".
      • After he was blocked for socking, he continued to be one of the most active members of the EEML (Misplaced Pages:EEML#List_membership, WP:EEML/Evidence). Since I was the one who initiated the SPI that led to his last block, I was one of the targets of these activities, e.g. this attack Molobo initiated against me just after his block. His participation in the arbcom case showed no sign of acknowledgement of fault. To the contrary, he used his condidtional unblock during this case to sling as much mud as possible, particularily in my direction (see here). The case only closed in late December, and his participation there does not indicate any willingness to change his behavior. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • In addition to what I wrote above: second chances are fine and all, but with a user who was banned not just for sock-puppetry, but for persistent POV-related poor behaviour, with a block log as long as my arm stretching over several years , a "standard offer" of return should never work on the basis of a mechanical "has been quiet for so many months" basis. Instead, what we need from him is a firm commitment demonstrating understanding of the root causes of this disruption in his own attitude to the underlying content issues, and how he intends to approach these content issues differently from now on. If he can't make such a commitment, then all superficial "no more socking" or "no editwarring" or "no incivility" promises are worthless. – A second thing, if I'm not mistaken, when he was blocked for sockpuppetry last year he kept vigorously defending his innocence, and the dispute over the proof of his socking or lack thereof was causing quite a significant amount of meta-disrution. He now says he hasn't been socking "since last May". Does that mean he finally admits he in fact was socking back then? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Agree that some kind of mentorship + articulation on intended good behavior is needed. I also think that WP:OFFER, from reading what it says, was actually specifically designed for cases like these, where you got a problematic user who at the same time CAN make positive contributions (which is where the mentorship comes in).radek (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Request to uninvolved eyes - then consider this case take in mind this:
      • user's in question record breaking block log;
      • fact that user in question was already placed for indef ban for two times and only was saved by well know buddies of his.
      • fact that during his SPI case he denied being sock master, however now it seems that he admits it. Therefore conclusion can be drawn that he deliberately mislead community during SPI investigation back then.
      • that the most "proficient" defender of this user on this newest ANI thread, not only has historic ties per WP:EEML, but seemingly violates ban imposed on him by Arbitration as well. M.K. (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment On the face of it, I would be inclined to support the request (subject to someone mentoring them), as per AGF. However, although the unblock requests says that MyMoloboaccount will not sockpuppet any more, I note that MyMoloboaccount does not mention the editing restrictions, and I would be unwilling to support the request without MyMoloboaccount specifically mentioning these and confirming that they will keep to them, and that any further disgressions would result in an indefinite block, with no further "chances". -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    AGF is fine as long as there is no evidence to the contrary. Molobo kept on editing throughout his block, via his EEML proxies. The last such proxy edit was in December, just moments before his EEML proxies got restricted (eg Radeksz, who is participating in this thread and did some of the proxying for Molobo before he got topic-banned). It seems odd to restrict the proxies and unblock the one who ordered the proxy edits. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • This looks like a reasonable application of the standard offer. Any editing restrictions that would otherwise be in place upon the Molobo account should be restored. Possibly new restrictions should be crafted as an alternative to mentorship, since it appears that no mentor is available. Durova 17:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    With regard to the editing restrictions, MyMoloboaccount sent the following email through Misplaced Pages to me:
    If you mean the Revert restriction and civility restriction, then I am fine with them being in place. I didn't mention them since they were not the reason for block and therefore not a issue in unblock. But I assumed they will remain in place.
    I am going to leave a message on their talk page asking Mymoloboaccount to confirm this there. However, subject to mentorship and/or further editing restrictions, I feel that this would be a reasonable use of the standard offer. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Update: Mymoloboaccount has confirmed this statement here -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I remain unconvinced, and I am asking myself where this whole talk of a "standard" offer comes from anyway. How did people conceive of this notion that people get a routine get-out-of-jail card for simply "no more socking"? No more socking is the minimum requirement for not having one's block extended to indef, and nothing more. Any reasonable "standard offer" must include an editor addressing the root causes of what got them sanctioned. The root cause here was POV-pushing, and I'm not seeing any statement from Molobo indicating that he will be editing in a substantially different manner than before. Shockingly, I'm not even seeing anybody asking him about that. Revert limitations and civility paroles are just superficial make-up designed to contain a fundamentally disruptive editing disposition. What we need in such cases is something different; it is a fundamental change of stance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Step 2 of WP:OFFER is "Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban." The standard offer isn't just "no more socking", that's only the first step. If the editor doesn't address the root cause of what got them sanctioned then they aren't honoring the provisions of the standard offer and it's rendered moot. -- Atama頭 21:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose per User:Skäpperöd. Molobo bypassed his ban via User:Radeksz. Radeksz and several other EEMListers are currently banned from Eastern European topics. Molobo's return would most probably end up in proxying other EEMListers. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Quick review please

    I've blocked User:Hiineedrequestforcomment for trolling and harassment. Since I'm one of his targets of harassment, someone else might want to take a look; he'll certainly demand an unblock. --jpgordon 23:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Someone may wish to attend to his unblock request. --jpgordon 20:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Spamming

    - Gibnews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) freely acknowledges that he is associated with this site, which is currently subject of a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Please inform Gibnews of this thread. Tan | 39 00:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Gib has been informed. I've commented that it's a conflict of interest for Gib to link to that site at the conflict of interest noticeboard because he is the person running the site, and it can be perceived as self-promotion. I believe he brushed off any COI accusations because they were originally brought up by an editor he feels has a grudge against him, and he has accused that person of harassment (see the noticeboard discussion). But others agreed with the concerns, and I think Gib would agree that I'm not biased against him. I definitely don't have a problem with him as an editor, I just think that he shouldn't be linking to his own site, and I'd like him to stop. If others think that the site is useful, they'll add it. -- Atama頭 01:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I thought the gibnews site was going to be blacklisted. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I'm about a week out of date on this issue, but AIUI there are two similarly named sites - gibnews.net and gibnet.com, and it is only re the latter that there is talk of blacklisting. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    There's a backlog at the blacklist. Given the vindictiveness of some spammers I can understand why people are reluctant to join in there. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Firstly the discussion about gibnews.net ended with the view that it can be cited for primary material.
    In the case of gibnet.com Its my view that it has not really been gone into in enough depth. Lets get some things clear, firstly any references to the site are not intended to be 'spam' or site promotion, but to refer to original documents that are retained there with permalinks. If there are better links to the same thing great. If there are none at all it seems very negative to remove them.
    Secondly Yes, I'm in the business of building websites for people. gibnet.com was the first one I created. Is it my personal site? no, its owned by a company. There is no element of 'self promotion' involved, indeed the site does not promote anything to do with me or web design services.
    The website that DOES that is not mentioned or cited in Misplaced Pages, its a totally separate thing. I am not mixing business with wikipedia editing.
    So the accusation of Spamming is unfounded as the site is not selling you anything. It may be that I have been over inclined to use it as a source for original documents in Misplaced Pages as I know they are there and some of them are hard or impossible to find elsewhere.
    I resent the suggestion that everything I do, or have done for the last 15 years is in some way suspect. I've created over a hundred websites for clients, now just because I happen to spend some time editing wikipedia and contributing first hand knowledge about Gibraltar which upsets some editors who want a different view of it promulgated, is that so wrong?
    In another discussion on an/i another editor asserted I was using socks, and was in fact an infamous banned user. That led to an online lynch mob assembling. None of that is true, and that attitude has biased any neutral review of this issue. The main area cited is the list of documents. I have not written any of those, simply designed web pages. So there is no conflict of interest, and the documents there all indicate their sources and status. --Gibnews (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Firstly, to Guy... The blacklist proposal seems to have been rejected. There's little support for it and I see no need for a blacklist, because we don't have multiple people spamming it. Per WP:SPB, the blacklist is a final resort when all other methods have been tried and failed, but really there's only one person adding the site (Gibnews).
    To Gibnews, spam does not have to be financial in motive. WP:REFSPAM concerns references that are added for non-financial reasons. You said before, "I resent the suggestion that everything I do, or have done for the last 15 years is in some way suspect." Unfortunately that's how conflicts of interest work. At the very least, if you include information about a web site or link to a web site that you've been affiliated with, that will give your additions added scrutiny. When people object to the inclusion of that information, that COI just makes the issue worse.
    The sockpuppetry accusation, you just have to let it go. Many legitimate editors get incorrectly identified as sockpuppets, even me! You keep bringing that up in every discussion, it's not helping. -- Atama頭 18:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    RH is making new accusations that I am using 82.23.144.48 to revert him removing references. Its nonsense but if you repeat lies often enough people believe them. Again, the CONTENT being removed is original not my creation. Its rather like banning references to a newspaper made by one of the printers or the man who did the layout. --Gibnews (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    No, Gibnews, there are for the last two edits that included gibnet.com (which I looked at) several other sources available. All we are asking is you to go into discussion, as you are connected with the site (as we would also ask the printers or the man who did the layout if he was too focussed on his own site). I see you have started to use other sites as well, and that is certainly recommendable, no-one banned you, no one blacklisted gibnet.com. You say that gibnet.com has the best information available, if you can show that RH is removing references that can not be replaced by anything else, then that would be reason for discussion, until now many can and have been replaced (also by RH). --Dirk Beetstra 16:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    User:Fatherofnew01

    I find the content of this user's userpage quite disturbing. The page seems to suggest that the user is resident in the U.S. I'm not sure what should be done about this, so I'm bringing it to attention here. -- The Anome (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Can't it just be deleted per WP:NOTBLOG or WP:SOAPBOX? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Saying he is a teenage father taking care of his kid, and the three children she had before by someone else? Discuss what you find troublesome or think violates a rule, on that page with the person. An 18 year old living with a 14 year old, she below the age of marriage, and they sexually active if they have a child together, is a bit disturbing. They have a page on the Misplaced Pages somewhere for discussing people's User pages, and you can even nominate one for deletion. Dream Focus 00:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    (ec)I think The Anome's concern might be this given the ages mentioned.  7  00:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    (ecx3)I would say that it is either trolling, or too much personal information. However, it doesn't appear to meet any of the CSD (even though it appears to be against WP:USER) - I think you'll need to take it to WP:MFD? It's soapboxing (well, the talk page is), and inappropriate for a user page/talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Please inform the user of this thread. Tossing out all "impropriety" concerns, this is still an single-purpose account and the user should be informed that they are mistaken as to the nature of this project. If the crusading/philosophizing/declarations of intent continue, then they should be blocked. I'd do it, but I'm not on my main terminal and don't have the useful tools at hand. Tan | 39 00:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Potentially rather more serious than mere impropriety. I sincerely hope they're merely trolling. -- The Anome (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I disagree. I see that this is a potentially "OMG" subject, but it's not for us to figure out what is going on (maybe he knocked her up while he was 17, anyway) and it's certainly not for us to play policeman (various times where police have been contacted are regarding users' safety, not because Misplaced Pages is obligated to keep tabs on it's users' adherance to legal statutes). Again, regardless of all this (he could be crusading about pizza and I'd feel the same way), he needs to be informed of what Misplaced Pages is and is not. Tan | 39 00:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    If you check his contribs, seems to me he thinks this is a blog. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I stuck the template informing them of this discussion. Would someone like to compose a message to them informing them of what Wiki is and is not? Does anone have a standarized one ready to go? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    This edit is also somewhat "off". -- The Anome (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • First, a careful reading of his user page shows that he's saying the kids aren't his (actually, due to poor grammar, it's not 100% clear what he's saying), so no need to block him for statutory rape. Second, with a grand total of 6 edits, it's hard not to be a single purpose account. Third, no one has actually discussed this with him, so talk of blocking is premature. Fourth, you're correct that there's a lot of soapboxing going on; I'll try to explain things to him (or at least welcome him). --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Indeed. It's ambiguous, and we don't have enough context to reach any kind of conclusion about this. But still, combined with the edit to Talk:Bipolar disorder, I find it somewhat concerning. -- The Anome (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I have blocked the user for 24 hours, and left a message on their talk page explaining why. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • PhantomSteve has unblocked, and I've blanked the user page and left a message on their talk page. Not sure anything needs done until we see what they do with their welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Disturbing edits

    Please see 99.199.112.217 (talk · contribs)'s edits, especially their edit summaries. Woogee (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    But what about their threats to Epcot? Woogee (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    What 'threat'? He may as well have posted: 'I have a death ray aimed at EPCOT and will fire if I am not given....one billion dollars by the end of the week...' HalfShadow 05:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Woogee - your point is valid - and if you feel that this was even remotely credible per WP:VIOLENCE you can report it. I don't read these as credible (or even coherent), but of course I'm no expert. I notified oversight due to the two BLP names mentioned along with the threat which should be RD2'd, and I suspect the stewards who review it will help decide if this merits escalation.  7  05:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    I'm unmarking this. Followup edits by other IP's have been noted on related articles. The edit linked alone is one hell of a tolstoy. --M 20:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    From a completely seperate range as well here. This might be some coordinated prank. --M 20:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    quick short block

    this guy just needs to cool down for an hour or two, I reckon... 216.79.193.76 EditorInTheRye (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    216.79.193.76 (talk · contribs) has not had a final warning. I have given him one. In future, please administer a final warning and if vandalism continues report to WP:AIV. Cheers, SGGH 18:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    User:AJona1992 and Selena discography

    Over the last several days, this editor has been attempting to force a non-free image to depict Selena onto this discography. I attempted to discuss the matter with him, raised the issue at the article's talk page, to naught. Today, he finally started talking with me, a discussion that had been going on well enough at User_talk:Hammersoft. Then, in the middle of the conversation, he decided to revert yet again and push the image back onto the article .

    In reading my talk page, it should be readily apparent that this user does not understand copyright. He says the image comes from selenaforever.com, and makes a claim (on my talk page) that it is free, yet provides no proof of this, just claims that the family wants the images to be used freely. Searching this web site, I can find no such claim.

    We don't use non-free images on discographies, as such use fails WP:NFCC #8. See item #1 of Misplaced Pages:NFC#Multimedia. This editor insists that since Britney Spears, Rihanna, Beyonce, and Jennifer Lopez all have images on their discographies (which is true; and they are all hosted on Commons and free licensed) that Selena Discography must as well, except he has yet to prove this image is free.

    I don't want a deeper edit war to errupt. Would an administrator please step in and warn this editor of the consequences of ignoring out copyright policies and that per guideline we don't permit non-free imagery on discographies? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    User Off2riorob

    Resolved – User:DeanButlerFan blocked by User:Rklawton NawlinWiki (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Off2riorob is violating his position by removing referenced material from the talkpage for Gordon Brown. I suggest you block him for trolling. (DeanButlerFan (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

    Somehow, I think that suggesting that Gordon Brown is autistic (based on a random blog) may perhaps be a slight BLP problem. Could some kind admin handle this sock? -- Bfigura 18:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    I'm not suggesting it, it's a very well known fact taht he has Asperger's Syndrome. Hence his inability to live normally. Anyway, all the information is cited. Off2riorob is just a Labour supporter deliberately damaging the article. (DeanButlerFan (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

    Can we please block the instigator of this report and close? TIA --Tom (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    persistent POV at 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa

    I am currently involved in a content dispute with a Portuguese editor(possible multiple) on 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa. The editor started off by dramatizing the events to focus on Portuguese "bravery" as an annon and now has one (maybe two) accounts:User:Goali and User:Olivença. Most of the user's claims have been unverifiable and he insists on mainitainig the number of Portuguese v/s Indian troops as 3300 v/s 45,000(more likely 30-35,000). Doesn't seem happy since I pointed to a Portuguese source that puts the number of troops at 4500 with a citation. Has reverted my edits claiming that the source doesn't cite the numbers, while I have clearly mentioned it on the talk page . Editor has now carried over his POV to other related articles: and . Im at my wits end.Im tired of this, please help --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    I've semi-protected the article for a while to cut down the IP and new account problems, and blocked the Olivença account per WP:DUCK as an obvious sock. I've also left Goali a warning about edit warring. You could have tried approaching them directly on their talk page; this might have achieved better results sooner :) However, hopefully they are now aware of the way we work, so if there are any further problems please re-report. All the best, EyeSerene 08:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    This is sooo not worth the time.

    This kind of activity is what drives any sane person away.. Wholesale revert, deletion and silence. That the well referenced and supported text could be improved is not even in the same universe as making every character printed vanish from the article entirely.99.141.249.226 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Oh. What a surprise. _99.141.249.226 (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    This is a range-blocked IP user 99.1xx (see SPI case and ANI report) back to his usual tricks. Re-blocking the IP is the best solution, but the 3-month durations seem a little light. Now he's flaunting the 3RR as an act of "civil disobedience?" Xenophrenic (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24 before I saw this. Feel free to increase. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 23 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

    User:ADM violating the terms of his unblock from indef?

    ADM (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

    The above user was indefinitely blocked in February of 2009 for "Inappropriate advocacy". Discussion on the user's talk page indicated a distinct and definite bias, and the unblock was denied with explanations such as "Misplaced Pages is not the appropriate place to speculate about the insidious political leanings of others; we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to function as a blog." The user made a plea for clemency and claimed that s/he "solemly pledge 1) to no longer make controversial edits on issues relating to the Vatican and the Jews (and other similar socio-political issues) 2) to no longer edit in an obnoxious newsblog pattern." As such, the unblock was granted.

    However, it appears that ADM has reverted to his/her old patterns. Please see the article that s/he recently created: Jewish sex abuse cases, which engages, in many people's opinions, in speculative original research and synthesis, and the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jewish sex abuse cases, where the user accuses those who disagree with him/her as being "Jewish partisans and zealots" and has basically accused those trying to explain the concept of WP:SYNTH to him/her (mainly, myself) of trying to [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FJewish_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=345968489&oldid=345968209 "protect the reputations of noted child abusers.", somethnig I personally find rather disgusting and abusive.

    I believe that ADM has violated the terms of his/her unblock and the indef block should be restored, but, obviously, I am biased as I am involved in a AfD discussion with the user and have been the target of said user's veiled accusations. Therefore, I am asking the larger wikipedia community to weigh in on the subject. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


    Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Comment : I did not find this to be controversial at all and did not expect ANY controversial responses. So, if I was involved in such a debate, it was purely on an accidental basis. I also forgot about my pledge, and was not aware that it was still binding after over a year without problems. I think most Jews on Misplaced Pages should not consider me as their enemy, and should also peacefully acknowledge that there have been abuse problems in the Jewish community, just like in the Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Not a particularly compelling defense. Indef block reinstated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the indef block decision has already been made, but I hope it's still OK for me to add my support to it - I came back this morning to have another look at the AfD issue (which was still a civil discussion when I left it last night), and was horrified by ADM's personal attacks on people who thought the article should be deleted as "Jewish partisans and zealots", and further accusations that people who thought it was WP:SYNTH were accusing him of making the whole thing up. (For the record, I'm not Jewish) -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • For others wishing to check into this situation I have been concerned about numerous talk page posts on various articles that weave a narrative linking Jewish people, pedophilia, LGBT people and, at times, Michael Jackson. They all follow an innocent enough sounding "I think the article should include" or "it's interesting to note" and then too often cites possible sources that are wildly inappropriate. Most of those were quickly dismissed by other editors including myself but this had been going on for months as a low hum which borderlined as soapboxing. I didn't realize their were issues elsewhere. -- Banjeboi 15:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    71.196.72.160

    71.196.72.160 (talk · contribs) continues to edit disruptively despite warnings and blocks. This IP has already been blocked 4 times. Twice for vandalism, once for vandalism and edit warring and once for just edit warring. Basically, they have been blocked several times for repeated behavior. Not only that, to continue their edit warring and disruptive editing, they used proxies and a sock. This can be seen with Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AFROdr. It seems like they moved out of the proxies and went back to their original IP. Is it possible to block this IP or protect the pages their editing? Elockid ·Contribs) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    I'm not seeing vandalism today. I'm seeing a content dispute. Take it to RfC. Rklawton (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Problem is that they are not open suggestion and instead have gone ahead continued to edit war despite comments from opposing editors. Elockid ·Contribs) 23:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    And the recommendation from RfC was? Rklawton (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Misread that there. Was thinking of something else. Elockid ·Contribs) 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    They do seem to be involved in an edit war and are in violation of 3RR. Woogee (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Block evasion from AFROdr also? Elockid ·Contribs) 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I've blocked for 3 months. That IP address has been consistently disruptive for nearly 2 months now. They just recently came off a 1 month block and went right back to what they were doing. I'm hoping that this longer block will make them give it up for good and move on to something else. -- Atama頭 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Note: rights alteration

    Jrcla2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    I've blocked this contributor for 24 hours for repeated copyright infringements. I subsequently removed autoreviewer, since copyright issues make that inappropriate, and rollback, since he used it to revert contacts on his talk page about copyright issues. I believe given the note at Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature that "The rollback feature is a fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense" and the subsequent note that "If there is any doubt about whether to revert an edit, please do not use this feature. Use the undo feature instead, and add a more informative edit summary explaining your revert. Misuse of rollback may cause the feature to be revoked by an administrator." that this removal was appropriate. Block notices and copyright violation warnings are not vandalism or nonsense, and using it in this fashion is inappropriate. No question about the block (since he had been warned long ago), but I'd welcome review of the rights reversion. This is the first time I've done that. --Moonriddengirl 23:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    Rollback can be removed at any time. Using it to remove copyvio warnings on your talk page seems like as good a time as any :) No problems here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I'm surprised you only blocked for 24 hours, but I suppose that's your call. As for the rights removal: I'm not so sure on the revocation of rollback. On the one hand, what you say is true; on the other, removing things from your talk page for any reason is generally considered acceptable. But considering that he was using rollback to try to hide copyvio concerns, I suppose it is fair to remove it in this circumstance. NW (Talk) 23:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    Support both, if not longer block. Use of rollback to remove legitimate warnings is not what it's designed for. If the warnings were bogus, ie vandalism, then that'd be okay to me as that's what rollback is intended for. NJA (t/c) 08:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Haida Chieftan's socks

    Resolved – IP's were blocked --NeilN (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Haida chieftain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing, POV pushing, soapboxing and being a general nuisance on Canwest.

    User:199.60.104.100, previously identified as Haida Chieftan logged out, is continuing to add his vital messages of The Truth (TM) concerning CanWest's financial predicament. Could someone block this IP for a bit (seems to be currently stable to Haida Chieftan, so perhaps 24 or 48hrs) - I want to go get some sleep. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    About time he was finally blocked. I said it would probably end up being necessary... HalfShadow 23:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    (Mysteriously?) Deleted User:Praxidikai

    Resolved – per Plaxico, I guess —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Hi there! I came across Praxidikai's user page user page and it seems to be missing without a deletion log or anything. What's going on?

    In the talk page, there seems to be some accusation of "suck puppeting" by User:Rklawton, who appears to be an admin. So, what's going on here? --195.251.123.21 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    An account needs to create a user page to have one; they don't just magically appear. Praxidikai has never done so. Deor (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    User ShortstopVM and the case of the serial uploading

    Could an admin have a word with ShortstopVM (talk · contribs). In spite of pages of of copyright warnings this editor insists on uploading far too many NFCC living person images of the Zima girls (whoever the hell they are). It looks like this user is far too enamoured of these examples of eye candy to make any effort to learn the ways of Grasshopper and the philosophy of Copyright. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Done. This is Morton's fork: either COI or image policy violations. And creepy too if you really want my opinion. And it could be COI and image policy violations and creepy, in which case someone should win a prize. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    Cheers, though it may only be creepy if the uploader is my age! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    It seems the uploader is a 19 year old women, so it's not so much creepy as, errr, fashionable.--Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I think she's female, so it may be less creepy.  :) But she does say on one of the uploads that the image was found at http://tv.ign.com/articles/990/990458p1.html), so it's unlikely she's the owner. Woogee (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I think we could just chalk this up as a newbie who is inexperienced with the ways of the Wiki. Lets just hope that we haven't scared her off, as people that age are a dime a dozen. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Michael Doret

    Whilst I'm ensnared in the world of NFCC, could someone please look at Michael Doret and make a decision on whether that gallery of (tagged for deletion) NFCC images is a bit of a no-no as far as NFCC usage is. I have an idea but as I seem to have pissed off too many people this evening already I'll let an admin decide. By the way, sorry for the colon instead of a pipe. I keep moving round the house and one machine is a Mac and the other a PC and those symbols are in the exact opposite position on each machine! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Certainly doesn't look valid to me! Huge copyright violation. Woogee (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I think the claim that File:MDoret.jpg was published prior to 1923 may be... um... mistaken. Woogee (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    The uploader is now claiming that the artist has released copyright claims for release to "his wiki". The uploader's baldfaced claim notwithstanding, we need proof of this release. Woogee (talk) 02:22, 24 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)

    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)

    Libelous vandal, multiple IPs

    74.207.32.212 (talk · contribs), 74.207.62.36 (talk · contribs), 74.207.35.218 (talk · contribs) has been making libelous edits to a number of articles in the past day or two. The above IPs are obviously all the same user/group of friends at Luther College. Not sure what the standard response is for this situation (a rangeblock of Luther is probably draconian), so I'll hand it off to other admins.--Father Goose (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    I've gone ahead and placed a SharedIP notice on the remaining two IP talk pages. Sometimes these tags (especially when they are so descriptive like these) are enough to get them to stop as it scares the living daylights of them. It's probably because they assume they are "anonymous" and can get away with things. We're then proving them wrong. Doesn't always work, but this technique has proved it's merits on a several occasions for me. Rgoodermote  06:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    I've blocked all 3 with a schoolblock. Shouldn't hurt anyone else really, there were no other edits from those IP addresses. Might not help either, I guess. I watchlisted male prostitution. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 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)

    User:Sameboat

    User:Sameboat is apparently not happy with the current state of this. The situation now is that after almost two weeks, they are the only user objecting to the removal of stock colours from the template, as well as having plenty of guidelines against them. They have decided that they don't want to listen. I have attempted to carry out the removal, it having become clear from the debate that the formatting (use of colour and boldface) was not appropriate. The other user is having none of it. There is now nothing more to discuss (there being more heat than light at this point), there having been no real progress away from the current consensus position of "remove the colours", so I closed the discussion (there being no need to delete anything), with what I believed to be an accurate summary, in an attempt to spare us all some blushes and save us wasting any more time on it (Sameboat refusing to allow anyone to make any progress at this point). User:Sameboat also apparently doesn't believe in non-admin closures of any kind (it being reverted with the specific reference to "user without administrative power").

    I, for one, have no intention of beating dead horses, hence stepping well back from the keyboard for a while. I would appreciate if someone would suggest User:Sameboat to do the same, as I no longer have the energy or the patience to do so. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    When you create a section on this page, your are required to notify the user that this discussion is going on here. Woogee (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    User has been informed. Rgoodermote  06:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    I have listend to the comment and agree to replace the colored text by colorbox in the {{HK-MTR lines}}. The anon disagrees becuase he suggests that the colorbox is inappropriate to appear in the prose of 300 articles. While the template is predominantely used in the tables and templates. The anon does not agree substitution by colorbox from the template as well in favor of the prose. The anon is obligated to perform the removal of the template from the article one by one manually because he is the only one to oppose the colorbox being used in the template. (Not to mention that he justifies it by saying he is supported by other discussion participant. But in fact they only agree on substitute the colored text.) Yet he intents to leave the hill of mess to me, the defender. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Speedy Deleting 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)
    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)

    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)

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