Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Ongoing accusations of conflict of interest

Very reminiscent of User:Twoggle, isn't this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.96.227 (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of conflict of interest are being leveled by TickleMeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at Aspartame and Talk:Aspartame. I am one, but not the only target. Several months ago, TickleMeister announced a departure the article with accusations of conflict of interest and received advice to "Avoid casting aspersions regarding the motivations of others..." ([1]). The return to the article was heralded by an implicit accusation in the edit comments ("You don't build an encyclopedia by removing facts that you think may hurt it sales stats"). Talk page comments have gone from implicit ("must cleanse this, it's bad PR", "a deliberate attempt to cover this up. I suppose it's to be expected with a product like asp that has sales of around ONE BILLION DOLLARS a year") to fairly direct ("...I'm not being paid by a corpoaration to do this crap.", "So who wins this one, the wikipedia volunteer editors or the PR men?").

This is not the first time. Prior efforts at dispute resolution have not resulted behavior changes: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive88#TickleMeister. There have been several requests on the talk page for the behavior to end: [2], [3], [4].

As a final step, I invited a redaction of the comments and indicated the COI noticeboard was the place for COI accusations ([5]). Past COI accusations on this noticeboard indicate a familiarity with procedure: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive629#Aspartame articles. At the time I post this, there has been no reply to my message, but a subsequent post indicates that he will continue to accuse on the talk page ([6]). At this point, I believe reasonable measures have been exhausted and this is the appropriate forum.Novangelis (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Anyone reading the talk pages at Talk:Aspartame and Talk:Aspartame controversy can see blatant evidence of COI, where we have determined editors hell-bent on not allowing facts about this chemical onto the pages. The latest incident is with the fact that aspartame is made from constituents produced by genetically modified organisms. This information comes from newspapers and published studies. It is an unequivocal FACT. Yet a small phalanx of editors, of which Novangelis is a prominent member, are utterly determined that this fact should not be mentioned in the aspartame article. This is blatant censorship that threatens to disrupt the very purpose of wikipedia. Wikipedia is at the mercy of megacorporations that threaten to sue anyone saying a single negative things about aspartame (for example, the court case against Asda in the UK because they had the temerity to remove it from their store-brand foods and call it a "nasty", the threat they issued to The Independent for publishing the fact that aspartame is made by genetically modified bacteria, the propaganda websites they run to promote the use of aspartame, the scientists they hire to go on speaking tours all over the world to promote aspartame, etc). So here we have a huge corporation that we know is intensely active in defending and promoting this billion dollar chemical. And yet when I make the obvious comment that this corporation clearly has people at work editing the aspartame pages and suppressing information, I'm immediately hauled before an admin tribunal by one of the chief perpetrators in a sickening and farcical abuse of procedure. Novangelis has done this on numerous occasions too, accusing me unsucessfully of sockpuppetry, and forum shopping against me whenever the opportunity presents itself. In summary, the aspartame articles are being held to ransom by a small cadre of editors determined not to allow a full picture to emerge of the chemical. Taking action against me for speaking the truth is like beating the little boy who called out that the Emperor has no clothes. TickleMeister (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I've just read Talk:Aspartame for the first time, and you're right, the situation is very clear - that practically the whole page consists of you and a couple of other editors calling out practically everyone else for somehow being corporate shills for aspartame, whilst they - usually - patiently try to explain to you such concepts as WP:RS, WP:POV, WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. I would strongly suggest to you that you concentrate on the subject at hand rather than attacking other editors without any justification, because that behaviour is likely to lead to a topic ban. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Per Black Kite, I have also read the talk pages and also the article Aspartame controversy and agree with his comments - the sum of the articles reflects the reliable sources available, and the correct application of WP policy. That is not to say that your general opinions about the product and its manufacturers are untrue (or, importantly, true) but that it is entirely inappropriate regarding deprecating the motivations of those editors who are conforming with WP editorial practices. They are not obviously "shilling" for anyone, they are complying with the rules. Your issues are, rather, with the lack of authority and weight of those references that support the accusations made against the product and its producers and the preponderance of good quality sources for the current majority opinion upon them - and that is beyond the remit of Wikipedia or its editorialship to address. Whatever, your comments upon the integrity and competence of other editors for following policy and properly conveying the available references can not be tolerated. I am going to issue a general NPA warning on your talkpage, and insist that you desist from this behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• If one were to use Ticklemeister's thinking against him/her, one could make accusations that TM worked for the sugar industry and the manufacturers of all products related to the treatment of diabetes. Fortunately we're sensible enough not to do that....;-) I'm sure that if anyone did so, TM would be the first one to object. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to concede that I am wrong on this issue IF anyone here can explain to me why a large corporation with a very profitable yet controversial product would not employ people to massage the wikipedia page about the product, by creating a pro-corporation yet false consensus on talk pages. The wikipedia page on aspartame comes up top of a Google search for the product. Use Occam's razor, fellas. I have to be right. If you study the aspartame talk pages from the very beginning, you'll see a clear pattern of information suppression and censorship. I am by no means the only editor who has tried to broing balance to the pages. On the Aspartame controversy page, one side of the controversy is largely removed, which flies in the face of MEDRS's recommendation to air both sides of any controversy. To see just how much information is censored from the articles, compare to another wiki's page on aspartame here. I suggest other wikis will become more prominent as Wikipedia's success attracts more and more corporationsTickleMeister (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• So much for AGF. With this attitude of refusal to abide by this fundamental policy, you can't be trusted here. You don't understand our sourcing policies or MEDRS, and show no evidence of a positive learning curve. I suggest you change your attitude or be topic banned / blocked.
  BTW, how much are the sugar industry and diabetes industry paying you to edit and disrupt here? Do you get my point?!! One would think that by now you would understand that AGF cuts both ways, and that when you insist on assuming bad faith, you are making a bed in which you may be forced to sleep. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer, this is the second time you've threatened to block me. The other time was on my Talk page. Is there some policy that allows non-sysops to make these threats, or is this a violation? TickleMeister (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand....again. It's an option / suggestion for any admin, if they so desire. It's also to let you know that you're skating on thin ice when you refuse to follow our policies. If it were only a single instance it wouldn't be a big problem and I wouldn't mention blocking, but you've been warned repeatedly by many very experienced editors. You then refuse to accept their explanations and cautions. That's recalcitrant behavior. There is no positive learning curve. We should be seeing that by now, but we aren't. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You carefully phrase your threats so that inexperienced editors could conclude that you are threatening to block them. I'm astonished that admins tolerate that. And I am still waiting for someone to deny the possibility of the situation I outline above, IOW that it is highly likely that there are hundreds, if not thousands of people paid by large corporations to edit wikipedia articles and establish whatever consensus they wish. This is a glaring flaw in the wikipedia model. TickleMeister (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You are anything but inexperienced, but you are also not learning. Many editors, within far fewer edits than you have under your belt, have learned the basics of our policies and learned to collaborate. They learn with each edit they make. With each of their edits that are reverted, rebuffed, and modified, they learn to adapt their behavior. You don't do that.

As to your concern about COI editors, sure, we know that they exist, but as long as they edit within our policies they are allowed to edit here. It's not who the editor is that counts, but whether they follow policy. Focus on the content, not the motives or identity of other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you have come part way to meet me here. Now all I need from you is an admission that it is very possible for any corportation (or any well-funded concern) to manufacture consensus on any Talk page by deploying multiple PR people to that page. Is this or is this not possible? Actually, your agreement is hardly necessary, because it is obviously possible, and obviously occurs. This is where the Encyclopedia Brittanica model, where there are gatekeeper editors for all information, is superior. TickleMeister (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by a registered user

The user Catsclaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuously removing content of some articles that I have edited. He insists on deleting information that is not favorable to the Dutch in naval warfare articles, although these informations are based on reliable sources. ElBufon (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things; firstly you have not notified the user of this discussion - as prompted by the orange/yellow banner just above this box (and noted at the top of this page). Secondly, do you have diffs of you notifying the editor of your concerns? - presumably on the concerned article talkpages, since when I checked for the ani notice I saw that the editors talkpage had not been used for several months. In short, have you attempted to resolve this content dispute before bringing it here as a behavioural issue? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

the user has in fact been notified of this discussion but as yet to presente himself for questioning. its hard to fix an edit conflict if the other user is nonresponsive. User:Smith Jones 16:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Be very careful; Amending your edits to make it appear that they were previously warned is not going to help your cause. Better to say "Whoops, will fix!" next time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

i apologize and take full responsiblity for those typographical errors i was merely trying to avoid sanctions on ElBufon for a procedural error in his part and dont want him to have been let out to the herd that he was the one who made that mistake and not me, who was the true errorer. User:Smith Jones 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that intentionally trying to create a false history of a situation was now called 'typographical errors'. An often made error by relatively new editors is easily overlooked. Your actions were deliberately bad. What possible reason do you have for thinking that faking conversation and signing someone else's name to it could even remotely be considered a good idea? --Onorem♠Dil 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already tried to discuss with him on two occasions leaving messages on the discussion pages of some of the articles in question, but with no success. I'm going to notify him in his talpage. About the diffs, see this or this, or the article about the Action of 4 November 1641 versus the article about the Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1641). ElBufon (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ElBufon, i already took care of it. Ive been watching this user myself since I also edit naval warfare articles (albeit, not the same niche as the Netherlands editor here) and It was only a matter of time before someone called in administrative action!

Do you have any diffs of you attempting to resolve this, on a talk page, and the other user being non co-operative. Admins cannot intercede on content disputes, other than as other editors, but only on behavioural grounds or policy violation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks along political lines

I just noticed these unbelievable tirades on User talk:LAz17 [7][8], including deliberate insults ("quite arrogant"), political attacks ("commie"!), and threats ("Direktor's in for a hard time"). This is all after he was informed that I am not a "communist", and warned against trying to badmouth me to other users. Quite frankly I would like to see him blocked for this. I'm still trying to believe that someone openly writes pamphlets against other users on Wiki and gets away with it.

The user only recently got back from a month-long WP:ARBMAC block [9] after ignoring his topic ban on WWII Yugoslavia. Upon his unblock he arrived on Requests for mediation/Draža Mihailović (an ongoing RfM on the WWII Yugoslav resistance), rejoined the discussion he was topic-banned from by immediately ad hominem attacking other users so that Sunray was forced to remove the comment [10]. It is also interesting to note that upon being reminded of his ban (and the fact that he is not a mediation participant), the user simply requested the topic-ban removed [11]. (I have been "solemnly forbidden" to post on his talkpage so I would like to ask someone to notify him of this.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

According to attacks I've seen on you, you are both a Communist and a Nazi, which strikes me as being a pretty good trick. :) Based on the editor's blatant threats, perhaps he should be "solemnly" sent to the phantom zone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Its all in the phases of the moon, you see. :) When the full moon is out I venture into the woods and morph into a Nazi, while on Tuesdays I turn into a conservative liberal Jamahiriyist... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You won't have truly arrived until you're accused of being part of a "pro-circumcision cabal". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Notified LAz17 about this thread on your behalf. Exxolon (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ty :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I was punished for writing on my own talk page. But any rate, what I said remains true. You support the hardcore communist view that only the communist forces participated in resisting axis forces. That is exactly out of the communist textbooks, that the commies did everything and nobody else did anything. Wrong.

Second, my topic ban was not for yugoslavia. It was related to any ethnic map stuff. That was quite broad - by mistake. I am working on getting that revoked. There was never a topic ban for me that included any world war two related stuff.

You simply dislike me because I do not adhere to the traditional communist rhetoric which you continually support. Now, sometimes that rhetoric has a lot of truth. But at other times it interferes with the correct picture.

And also, that block expired a long time ago. That I did not edit much since that block expired is another matter. Currently I am more involved on the serbian wikipedia, and am struggling against those who who to cyrillicize latin articles. (LAz17 (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)).

Ya know, they're all commies... except me... and thee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have noted here that I blocked LAz17 for 3 months, violating ARBMAC re personal attacks, for the post above and the others noted by DIREKTOR. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok if those trolling "pamphlets" are removed? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete them if ya want. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I noted with interest that in the most recent Indiana Jones movie he had moved on from fighting Nazis to fighting Commies. Indiana Jones is a series of tongue-in-cheek, light hearted, adventure movies. Wikipedia is not. Those who feel that labelling others in such ways adds anything here have a lot to learn. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record: I'm a Marxist of the Groucho kind. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Been there, done that... suppressed the evidence! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I see, how goes your struggle with the Harpoist splinter group? :)

I hope they don't stop, its actually a source of light entertainment: which totalitarian ideology will I be labeled with today? Will it be Communism? Fascism? Chicoism? Lets watch --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should compile a list of Totalitarian ideologies ascribed to Wikipedia contributors? We could give a prize for whoever gets the most. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The UnWIKICUP! Physchim62 (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an award for it -- the "Inaugural Uncle Duce Award for Contradictory Political Bias", which I proudly acknowledge to have received in 2009, here, for pretty much exactly this same thing. Antandrus (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I came across a 'contributor' the other day that seemed to think the Nazis were Communists, so such an award might not be that difficult to acquire in one go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's telling that the "Inaugural Uncle Duce Award for Contradictory Political Bias" is about to be awarded for the SECOND time. In a forum on which I was once very busy I made sure that everyone knew in advance that I was a tree sniffing whale hugging pinko lesbian long-haired vegetarian namby pamby do-gooder new age sandal wearing hippie black armband stoned un-American pot smoking limpwristed baby boomer subversionary bearded pacifist leftie bleeding heart out of touch neolithic idealogue. Labels are important HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Without labels, you might have to consider the other guy some sort of person or something. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait... there's an award for this? Goody gumdrops! I'm sorry to have to tell you guys but I win, no competition. Its a daily thing on the articles where I'm at. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The user is restoring the personal attacks on his talkpage. They are quite belligerent and call for users to follow me around and revert my edits (because I'm a "communist", of course xD). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Left him a note to only use his talk page to discuss questions about his block and removed the personal attack again. Any further disruption and I would recommend removing talk page access again. Kuru (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"commie" again [12]. He's not getting the picture. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hector Sants

An editor with few other edits, SilverFox93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has followed in the footsteps of an anonymous editor in trying to insert a controversial section relating to Credit Suisse and Iran into the article Hector Sants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I picked up VRTS ticket # 2010112510012945 originating from a very prominent, respected and immensely credible firm of solicitors. I reviewed the sources used for the content. Here they are:

• BBC News mentions Credit Suisse but not Sants
• Reuters mentions Credit Suisse but not Sants
• The FSA mentions Sants but not Iran
• Credit Suisse is an annual report that merely names Sants as an officer of the company
• The Observer does not mention Sants at all

Not one of these sources supports the inference that the editor seeks to draw. The editor reinserted the text after I removed it and revdeleted it, in response to the OTRS ticket noting its potentially defamatory nature. I accidentally chose RD2 instead of "Potentially libelous/defamatory", I corrected that for subsequent redactions. I am of the very strong opinion that SilferFox93 is engaged in novel synthesis, I am also convinced that this is an agenda account. I note all this for review. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

SilverFox93 was indef blocked for good reason. On the other hand, the full protection of the article until 27 May 2011 seems excessive. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair reminder, I will down it to semi, now SF is blocked. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Password1125: Incivility and possible shared account

While editing The Amazing Race 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) tonight, Password1125 (talk · contribs) edited the pages in ways that were against the general style of these pages, and I advised him on his talk page as to why his suggested edits were not necessarily correct (or having consensus) in User talk:Password1125#TAR17. After he finally made a thread on the article's talk page, and after I responded to it there, I advised him to sign his posts (a thread he removed) and then I told him how talk pages are generally edited. He first responded by being extremely rude and then admitting that he is not the only person with access to the account. He continued to be rude after. I gave him an NPA warning, which he removed and then put on my page.

In short, Password1125 (in addition to having a possibly bad username) is being unnecessarily incivil and may be used by more than one person.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would back off if it were me. You're arguing about how to display FastForward clues (whatever they are) for a reality TV program as if Moses brought the formatting guide back on a second trip down from the mountain. I think you got off on the wrong foot when you started out with the "First of all, ... Second, ..." It's going to put someone on the defensive and make it more difficult to get an agreement. Then you kept it up by insisting on debating on his page but deleting his comments from your page and picking a needless disagreement over the difference between an argument and a fight. (And, fwiw, I think he was right.) If it were me, I hope a good friend would tell me what I'm telling you and that I would sleep on it and decide to apologize. (But I'm not an admin, so my opinion is mine alone and worth every penny you paid.) Msnicki (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a note on my talk page (or in its edit notice) that requests that discussions be kept on one page. That is why I was reverting his comments to my user talk (and then subsequently moving them to his). That isn't against any rule as far as I'm aware, so I don't know why you're picking that out as being something I'm terribly wrong about (or the argument/fight thing). Also, the "First..." and "Second..." bits are there because there are two different edits that he made that I disagreed with. Again, not relevant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, it looked like you wanted to get to some kind of agreement you could both live with. But it's always harder to do that if people aren't sure you respect them. You could be more effective at getting what you want if you can make it easier for people to agree with you. No one likes to feel like they're being pressured. Msnicki (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Sleep on it and apologize tomorrow. I'll freely admit I'm a bit of a nerd...to call that a "personal attack" is a bit excessive. The action more likely to be seen as a personal attack here is you accusing the other editor of making one. Read WP:CIVIL, that's what "you're a nerd" might be more likely to run afoul of...and even then just barely. As for your usertalk, consider posting on his page instead, or moving the comments to your page but leaving them on his as well. So long as the entire conversation ends up in one place...really, who cares where the original posts were made and if a copy is left there? N419BH 07:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

He has still admitted that two people have access to this account with a questionable username choice. There is really no reason to call someone a smartass, moron, or nerd, either. This is not about the dispute that caused this exchange of words. There is a talk page thread to determine a consensus now. This is about the fact that the account apparently has been compromised in the past, his rudeness, and possibly his poor username choice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, unless directly calling someone a smartass, a moron and an idiot as well as having no life, not to mention asserting what seems to be strong article ownership is no problem at all. I have to question from especially this edit here this person's PhD qualifications as claimed on the userpage as the knowledge of basic English required is obviously not there. –MuZemike 07:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note - This user tried to blank this AN/I entry as well. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Shared accounts are strictly against the rules. Why is that editor not blocked already? Color him gawn. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The incivility would be highly problematic, however a shared account is even more so. Indeffed. Courcelles 18:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Password1125 has returned as Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs), we can AGF that the "shared account" issue is resolved, but incivility issues may remain. I will leave to others as far as how to deal with this is concerned, but my above comment, as well as all other previous correspondence should remain in effect. –MuZemike 00:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, he was advised to fix the shared account problem by creating a new user ID, so that's what he's done. He'll certainly bear watching, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh fuck I saw all of this report apart from the last message by Bugs! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed my error, hopefully didn't WP:BITE him too much... *slinks off sheepishly* S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My comment was also a bit vague, so here's the diff[13] where an admin advised him to either take it to ArbCom or create a new ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin community article probation

Resolved

 – Review completed, consensus determined against content inclusion. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Request an uninvolved administrator to take a look at a situation covered by the Sarah Palin community article probation. The particular user involved is Victor Victoria (talk · contribs).

For full background on the situation, see Talk:Bristol Palin#Willow mentioned and WP:BLPN#Willow Palin. To make a long story short, Victor Victoria wishes to add negative tabloid-type information about Willow Palin, the 16-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin, to the article about her older sister, Bristol Palin. Willow Palin, due to her age, has been treated per past consensus as a non-public figure per WP:BLP.

Consensus at the BLP noticeboard has been, I believe, to exclude this information. Victor Victoria has continued to argue for inclusion, supported by 184.59.23.225 (talk · contribs). I actually suspect the user account and the IP are the same individual based on similar editing patterns at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Bristol Palin.

Victor Victoria has been notified of the community article probation, but continues to add the mention of the younger Palin sister to the Bristol Palin article.

At the very least, would appreciate someone with BLP knowledge stepping in and making the call one way or the other whether this information is a BLP vio. Kind of between a rock and a hard place - don't want to violate the article probation by edit-warring, but I also think the consensus is that the info is a BLP vio and needs to be removed. Any help greatly appreciated. Kelly ^hi! 03:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am not User:Victor Victoria, and I welcome a checkuser to verify that. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly that this edit by User:Victor Victoria reinserted material reinserted virtually identical material to a BLP without any consensus for inclusion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this edit is not a reinsertion of anything. That quote has never been in the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Trivial error corrected.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a trivial error, and I object to the new wording as well. The quote of the apology never appeared before, and frankly it boggles my mind that a quote of Bristol Palin is being censored from her own Wikipedia article. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The new wording (in my comment above) is not going to change. If someday there's a full-length multi-volume biography of Bristol Palin, it will not quote every word she's ever said; while it might perhaps include the quote you've inserted, that doesn't mean it belongs in a brief encyclopedia article. What surprises me is that you're ignoring the need for consensus to insert or restore material to a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong on two counts: 1) the point of Wikipedia is to expand. If the Bristol Palin article is "brief" (which it is not, it is much bigger than a stub), then we should grow it. 2) Consensus has to be based on policies. The current objection to including the words "Willow Palin" in the article essentially rests on WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the 4th example in WP:IDONTLIKEIT is to call something "trivia". Victor Victoria (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue really comes down to whether a teenager acting like a teenager is 'notable'. I'm inclined to think not. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Accusing me of employing sockpuppetry is bad faith on User:Kelly's part. I call on him/her to take it back immediately. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Struck - your word is good enough for me. Sincere apologies. Kelly ^hi! 04:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Now how about addressing the substantive issue. Why isn't this trivia? Would you wish to include this if this wasn't Sarah Palin's daughter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability doesn't exist in a vacuum-- IOW, it's not necessary to establish that this event would be notable had it not involved the Palin children in order to establish it's notability in context. Furthermore, something being "trivia" is not a contraindication to inclusion. The more appropriate question, I think, is "Under what policy has this assertion-- sourced to no less than nine reliable sources-- been deleted?" (I'll also note that past consensus regarding WIllow Palin's status as a WP:NPF has been mooted by her recent press releases regarding the issue.) 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If a contributor wants to include something, it is up them to show why it should be. Anyone can delete anything that fails this test. I'm glad to see you accept that this is 'trivia'. Now explain how something can be both 'trivia' and 'notable'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I never conceded that this is trivia; I simply asserted that trivia isn't antonymic to notability, which you can verify by consulting your favorite thesaurus. I also don't see anything on WP:BLP to back your assertion that "Anyone can delete anything that fails this test," although it's difficult to be certain, as you have yet to clearly articulate which test it is that you feel this content fails. Regardless, it strikes me as fantastic that any articles retain content at all were that an accurate restatement of some existent policy. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

184.59.23.225 put trivia in quotes, which you should interpret as air quotes. He/she has not "accept[ed] that this is 'trivia'." Victor Victoria (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the original post baselessly accusing me of trying to insert material about Willow Palin into the Bristol Palin article. It is Bristol herself, that tied the two of them together, not me. Now, there is a certain group of individuals that are performing absurd edits to ensure at all costs that Willow Palin is not mentioned in the Bristol Palin article. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Wikipedia is a conspiracy run by the Palin sisters. You win. I give up. Welcome to Absurdistan... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:SARCASM. That sort of statement is nonproductive. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to produce anything. I was trying (unsuccessfully) to hold back a flood of trivia. I've now decided I can't win, and am resigned to drowning. Please play "Imagine" at my funeral, and then bury me face down at a 45° angle, just to confuse 25th century archaeologists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

<undent> It wasn't my intention to drag a content dispute here, and I ask all participants to please stop restating arguments they've made elsewhere. They've been restated so many times that this is well into dead horse territory, and I provided links to the discussions. Just looking for an uninvolved admin to please look into the BLP issue and make the call on consensus one way or the other. Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 05:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your original post sure doesn't read that way. I read it as a complaint against me and my alleged "sockpuppet" (which you have graciously struck out). Victor Victoria (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Probation

Articles like Bristol Palin are under probation precisely so admins can offer firm guidance when nonsense like the current dispute arises. When I noticed the issue at WP:BLPN#Willow Palin, the Bristol Palin article contained some extreme trivia (see this version and search for "shit") where pointless details of how a 20 year old ranted on a Facebook page, and later issued an apology with a mention of her 16 year old sister and a rant she had made. Do we have to debate this endlessly and start WP:DR, or will someone please handle this. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gods10rules, User:KeptSouth, User:Kelly, and User:Johnuniq reported by User:184.59.23.225 (Result: ) Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP review by uninvolved administrator NicholasTurnbull

The text reinserted by Victor_Victoria (talk · contribs) is a substantial recreation of content that has formerly been excluded from the article under BLP policy. Having undertaken a consensus review for the purposes of considering this AN/I request, the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:BLPN#Willow_Palin (excluding the article disputants from the discussion) was as follows:

Willow Palin is, at the present time, considered not generally well known as a BLP subject on Wikipedia. She is, consequently, not considered a notable subject for inclusion in Wikipedia.

On the basis of this above reasoning, the conclusion of this BLP review is that the information regarding the Willow Palin Facebook homophobia exchange shall be excluded from Wikipedia by community consensus. It is my opinion that Subjects notable for only one event (WP:BLP1E) applies in this case:

"Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."

Taking the spirit of BLP1E, Willow Palin could be considered mentioned in published sources only in the context of a specific event -- i.e. the Facebook exchange -- for the purposes of the current discussion. As the event is not notable enough for an article of its own, the content should not be included, especially when taken in the light of Willow Palin being a minor at the time of publication, in which the bar for inclusion of events is necessarily higher as a component of editorial discretion. One can take the spirit of the above and reason that, since the event is definitely not notable enough for an article to exist on it, the content is entirely excluded in this case. Therefore, my summation is the following:

The Willow Palin Facebook homophobia exchange shall be considered excluded from Wikipedia on the basis of an editorial decision of non-notability by community consensus[14] and its inclusion shall be considered a violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons content policy. Victor_Victoria (talk · contribs), 184.59.23.225 (talk · contribs) and any other involved parties are put on notice that, in the event of reinserting content describing this event, they may be banned on sight from editing articles related to the Palin family (Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and any other future articles) under the terms of the existing article probation; any uninvolved editor may remove the inserted content.

Corrected. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

QuackGuru

QuackGuru (talk · contribs) has become slightly difficult on the article vertebral artery dissection. This medical condition sometimes results from chiropractic neck manipulation, and one gets the impression that QuackGuru wants to use the article as a WP:COATRACK for this link. I have taken the opportunity to add some uncontroversial content about the condition, trying to make whatever is written as NPOV as possible. The following things have now happened:

• Adding a tag ({{too short}}) despite my assurances that the article body would soon be expanded to match the introduction.
• Changing the header of others' threads on talk:Vertebral artery dissection without engaging in actual discussion
• Bloating the intro after insisting that it was already too long
• Refactoring my posts on his talkpage, using edit summaries to respond in the process.

Could someone have a look and explain that this is not going well? JFW | T@lk 04:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say, my addition of {{ANI-notice}} to his talkpage was refactored also.[15] JFW | T@lk 04:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know that he has read your posts then. He is allowed to remove them on his talkpage - as long as he realizes that it's considered acknowledgment of the message (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. In the context of his other behaviours I imagined it might still be relevant. JFW | T@lk 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Could Supreme Deliciousness be given a break, please?

This is the eighth SPI done on him, the last not even a week ago,. Honestly it's starting to border on harassment at this point. Any time a new account or IP pops up that happens to edit the same article he does, the community screeches SOCKPUPPET! and reports him. HalfShadow 05:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but what can we do about it at AN/I?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Far too much attention is being paid to SD! Do I just not seem to have what it takes to be a sock puppet master?! On a serious note, yeah, it's getting silly. Sol (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Has he been notified? Basket of Puppies 05:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

SD has been around for a year and a half, and Frederico1234 has been around for almost three years. One would think that if they were socks, that would have become evident before now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The focal point of user Juijitsu's complaint is the article Cave of the Ramban, and he seems to be involved in arguments with at least 3 different users there. It must be obscure, since "I" never heard of it, but as the editors in question show an interest in this region, it's more likely they would have heard of it. That observation doesn't prove anything either way. But the previous SPI's have all been either vindication for SD, or dismissal due to lack of evidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Can some admin please delete the outing that has taken place at the SPI? Jiujitsuguy is revealing my location, my ethnicity and nationality, its personal information and I don't want it revealed. He links to an old account (removed) that I in the name reveal both my ethnicity and nationality, its not a sock, Before I registered this account I had that account that I used a few times, keep in mind that I didn't know anything about Wikipedia rules at that time, then several months later when I wanted to edit Wikipedia again I just registered a new account, I didn't know that I should have used the old account, I didn't think about it at all, at many websites I just register a new account instead of trying to find out the password. I never pretended to be someone else or something like that with this account. I just abandoned the other one. The problem is that I was very inactive with that account and I didn't know any of Wikipedia rules, so at one point of time I did some inappropriate canvassing when I wanted to get attention to an article problem: [16] I'm not trying to hide it, I didn't know anything about the rules here and didn't realize that I did something wrong. The problem with that account is that both my ethnicity and nationality is revealed, and I don't want to be outed, I regret revealing that personal information, and I told shuki about it at my talkpage [17] I told him I did not want it revealed. Because of the personal information. Now he must have told Jiujitsuguy what account that was and Jiujitsuguy made a post about it at Shukis talkpage, so Jiujitsuguy must have seen the conversation between me and Shuki and asked for the previous account, but despite this he is revealing the account - revealing my ethnicity and nationality. I now ask you to please delete the comments at shukis talkpage and SPI so that the link to my previous account is removed and my personal information is not revealed, and the personal information connected to my old account, and my location and nationality is removed [18]And please tell shuki and Jiujitsuguy not to continue to out me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can you pass it to another admin (SD left a request at my talk). I won't do it because I have been told by User:SandyGeorgia here that our standards for outing are those of Wikipedia Review and that if your name is available by doing Internet research, then you're out of luck on outing. Since all of this is ... somwhat different from what I learned after becoming an admin, I will brush up on my knowledge of outing before acting in such a case again. --Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you admit in the post just above that you are the same account as (removed), then that would have to be revdelelted, according to your interpretation of "outing", SD. Do you want a revdelete of anything that would ever tie you to the account that you are mentioning as being you? You have confirmed that the accounts are both you yet again. You cannot "out" yourself, and I challenge any editor to show me how one can without giving out truly personal information that has not been subsequently deleted. Real name, address, serial number: that stuff. "Supreme Deliciousness" is most likely not your real name... Doc talk 11:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Accounts? There is one account. I don't want that account shown to be me anywhere as it reveals my ethnicity and nationality.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"He links to an old account (removed) that I in the name reveal both my ethnicity and nationality..." It's not personal information that could actually harm you - stop it, please. You misunderstand what WP:OUTING is meant for, I'm afraid... Doc talk 11:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've revdel'd the SPI stuff, since Admins can still see it, it seemed safest to do that. SandyGeorgia is wrong, our policy says "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." and says nothing about an exemption if it's available through an Internet search. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia might be wrong if she had said any of that and Wehwalt were representing my views correctly. Alas and alack, not the case. By the way, Wehwalt, if you tell stories about me again, would you mind letting me know? Is it All About Me All The Time with you? Must I follow all of your posts or rely on people to let me know when you're misrepresenting me? Please, lower the focus on me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And SD, many people are known to be of a certain nationality, sex, or religious group without being considered to out themselves.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic, but the problem is that WP:OUTING goes on to define what it means by "personal information" as follows: "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not." I'm not sure that nationality or ethnicity fall into that definition. If I had the information on that list, I would be able to find where you live and work, steal your identity, or contact you without Wikipedia seeing it, leading to possible harm or harassment off-Wiki. Things like nationality and ethnicity (or sex) don't provide the person who knows that information any such power to harm or harass off-Wiki. I'm not saying I oppose the definition specifically in the case of SD, but just generally I think those types of information should not be considered WP:OUTING. Maybe we need something more like WP:VANISH, whereby editors would have the right to have information posted about them vanish as well. ← George ^talk 11:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bingo - but now you should revdel this whole thread, since "Jiujitsuguy is revealing my location, my ethnicity and nationality, its personal information and I don't want it revealed." "Location" has been taken care of... but "ethnicity" and "nationality", still for all to see, and within this thread. I'm also, shockingly, (removed). Actually, I'm really not. I'm Scotch/Javanese. I mean New Guinean/Luxembourgian. Eh - just revdel all this too, just to be "safe". But this is my real information: you gotta believe me! 555-1234: call me ;> Doc talk 12:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone is concerned about outing, announcing it here is not the best approach. A better approach would be to contact a trusted admin via e-mail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly referring to someone as a "transexual Filipino" or whatever could be harassment, especially if the editor referred to is clearly distressed or has asked the other user to stop. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA already cover on-Wiki harassment of that nature. ← George ^talk 22:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that self-revealed ethnicity and nationality is covered by the outing policy, since this information is not in any way sufficient to determine identity and was in any case posted by the editor himself, but since SD objects to the name of his old account being referred to because it reveals this information, would an admin please change the name of the account to something neutral of SD's choice, so that this doesn't become an avoidance of scrutiny for the edits made by that account (such as the canvassing of multiple editors complaining that the "Golan" article had been taken over by Israelis)? We are all responsible for our edits, and there's no reason that SD shouldn't be held responsible for those edits simply because of this matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Logged out bot..

User:HBC Archive Indexerbot is editing while logged out (again, I believe) The IP is 71.244.115.102 (talk · contribs). I'm not sure if I should post this here or on the Bot Owners' Noticeboard, never having come across this issue before, but I'm gonna try posting here. If I've got the wrong place, just let me know! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 07:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, this is the appropriate place to post. I suggest that the IP be blocked longer than 24 hr since this has been happening for over a month (or more) now. Goodvac (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Older discussions: August 3, November 5, and bot owner's talk page. Goodvac (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Despite being a frequent vandal fighter, I've never requested someone be blocked, so if the IP isn't already blocked, would you tell me how to make such a request? (I feel like such a newbie...) Thanks! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 09:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm, according to the IP's block log, the IP was blocked early on 27 Nov., but the block expired 8 or 9 hours ago..
    • I don't think it's that much of a concern since it's not editing currently, though it does need to be blocked eventually. Right now not too many people are active, so I figure that when it nears 11 UTC, more admins will be on, and one will block the bot. Goodvac (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I for one didn't think it worth blocking the IP address when it hadn't been used for eight hours. The far more important thing to be doing here is going to User talk:Krellis#User:HBC Archive Indexerbot and emphasizing your concerns. Or — better yet — looking at the 'bot's source code and seeing whether you can determine and fix the problem. Krellis has already attempted to do so, as you can see. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
        • A fix to stop it editing logged out (but not recovery of that failure) would require page.pm to be updated so the line in the save method saying POST $obj->_wiki_url . "&action=edit", would be POST $obj->_wiki_url . "&action=edit&assert=bot", so mediawiki enforces the must be logged in as a bot bit. I'll post to the bots talk page. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Navajo people

Resolved

 – not for ANI Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Concerning this thread: [19] an apparently new editor wants to turn this article Navajo people into a stub and start over again. In my opinion that seems excessive and unnecessary. I will appreciate any input there. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm very happy to leave any and all information in the article if it can be sourced. However, a lot of the material is unsourced, and at some of the information is incorrect, such as that "brush" is used for building hogans. Some of the articles linked to such as this one, is sourced to a "personal interview," and other sources which leave his notability for Wikipedia in severe doubt. So it looks like the whole complex of articles may be in need of pruning and discussion. But at the very least, the main article on Navajo people should not have tags stating it is unsourced since June 2010 or April 2009. This is a major article. I'm not here to destroy, but with these things you have to be bold or no one does anything. I don't have access to the sources myself. Atneyak (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are another couple people which seem to be non-notable: Emmi Whitehorse and Melanie Yazzie. Atneyak (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

. . .so you want to start the article anew because some of the sources are incorrect/not RS? Sol (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I was incorrect to say it should be stubbed. I was looking for inline references, and didn't notice at first that the article uses another form. That still doesn't mean that I should be told to tag and move on, as I just was on the article talk page. That's already been done. I'm just trying to take the next step. Of course that isn't nice for the authors, but again I'm not trying to destroy wikipedia. Atneyak (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

And while it shouldn't be stubbed, there is quite a bit of material which should be removed, and as I said above some of the stuff included is lists of people who aren't actually notable... it's a big project to clean this up :P Atneyak (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

An unenviable task, yes :P But you might find it easier to pull out the offending information/find better sources and leaving in the remainder as having to find the sources all over again would more than double the work load. Sol (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'll do that. Writing it is half the work like you say, and anyway they seem willing to work to find sources. I really didn't expect anyone to care, considering how long the tags have been on. Atneyak (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat suspicious of this user's agenda. He asked what was appropriate action with the lists of famous Navajo, which includes a number of entries which are not bluelinked, not redlinked, and not sourced. I offered advice on identifying members of these lists which appeared to be notable. In the next edit, Atenyak proposed instead the removal of a bluelinked article, as he argued it was 'not notable'. An odd thing to focus on, given that the unsourced list probably violates BLP. I have voiced this same doubt on the talkpage, so I'm not coming here behind the user's back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Cross posted from talk page:Of course you should be suspicious of my agenda... if I'm wrong about what I'm saying and not open to suggestions or ignoring Wikipedia policy so as to skew the encyclopedia to a non-NPOV state. However, I urge you to read WP:NOTABILITY. Yes, we need to get rid of some of the non-linked people, but also many of those with articles just don't seem meet the standard for inclusion unless much better sourcing can be found. I'm not focused on the article but really on the whole complex of articles. Again... if I'm wrong of course you need to be suspicious. But if I'm right, I would suggest you focus on the content of my edits rather than on what "agenda" I might have. Atneyak (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if you think it violates BLP, let's discuss that, and maybe you can help get rid of any violations. I don't know of any, I just notice they sometimes aren't well sourced. ......Uh, which is a violation right there, I forgot. So then what's the problem with focusing on them? Atneyak (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Emmi Whitehorse and Melanie Yazzie seem to pass WP:N. What are the specific problems you have with these two pages? Jarkeld (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

They may be, but Yazzie barely seems to make it with the sources given, if she does. Emmi Whitehorse seems to have only one source which isn't self published or insignificant, "Reno, Dawn. Contemporary Native American Artists. Brooklyn: Alliance Publishing, 1995:183," which I think is probably less than "significant coverage," maybe just a mention. IOW, if she's notable, it seems just barely. However, this may be because good sources aren't given, rather than that they aren't notable. Here's another that's iffy Irvin Morris Atneyak (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK — why is this at ANI? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This was brought here to avert an edit war and to create a better working environment at the article; it seems to have worked as several issues are now being worked on, looked at and discussed as opposed to simply deleteing, reverting ad infinitum...Modernist (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Let it be noted that there was no edit warring... there were a few edits by me and Modernist reverting. Since I didn't even revert once, bringing it here to prevent and edit war.... Atneyak (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

User:The Globular Mass

- - User:The Globular Mass added nonsense to the Serpentor article yesterday, and restored it after it was removed. IPs 69.210.253.143 and 69.210.241.145 also became involved, restoring it several times[20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. The Globular Mass was warned, but removed the warnings. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked The Global Mass following a review of their edit history, prompted by their removing of the above report previously. This action, and their edit warring over the complained edits, and other questionable actions leads me to believe that they are not intent on improving the encyclopedia. I welcome further review of my and TGM's actions here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. A third IP 69.211.8.205 has now restored the nonsense as well.[25] 108.69.80.49 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Arnold Reisman and User:Fusion is the future

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615#Arnold Reisman book self-promotion|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615 § Arnold Reisman book self-promotion]], and [[:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arnold_Reisman/Archive]]

AFD discussions for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman
• Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Reisman, Arnold

• Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ellen Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• BandGwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Fusion is the future (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The article Arnold Reisman, about a retired professor, was created by User:Ellen Reisman, and extensively expanded by User:Arnold Reisman using that account and a number of IP sockpuppets. (I believe that User Reisman confirmed his real-world identity as Arnold Reisman to OTRS, but I don't have a link for that.) After discussion on AN/I, both Reisman accounts were indef blocked for extensive self-promotion of Reisman's self-published books, which were spammed into numerous articles. Neither account has ever asked to be unblocked.

In June, an IP attempted to edit in a similar manner to User:Arnold Reisman, and was warned off, [26],[27] to be replaced by User:BandGwolf, who was also warned off. [28], [29],[30]

In September, User:Fusion is the future is created, and edits productively to jazz-related articles for almost two months, before starting to edit the Arnold Reisman article – which is totally unrealted to jazz – in a manner similar to the editing by Reisman. Once again, I warned the editor, resulting in extensive discussion in which Fusion adamantly denied being in any way connected to Reisman. [31] Fusion reaches out to admin User:Slim Virgin for assistance, [32], who examines the article and strips it, as a BLP, of all unsourced statements.

Since then, there have been numerous threads on the article's talk page and on the RSN board concerning the article. Fusion persists in attempting to add material to the article using primary sources, ignoring Slim Virgin's request for secondary sources to show the subject's notability. User:Fladrif has indicated that there are some secondary sources, reviews from reliable sources of the professor's self-published books, but Fusion has, as of yet, declined to integrate these into the article.

Uninvolved admin intervention is needed for these reasons:

• Given Fusion's attitude towards this article, his clear self-involvement in the subject, his personal reactions whenever anyone does not agree with what he wants to do, his setting up as first one editor (me) and then another (Slim Virgin) as the "bad guy" preventing him from doing what he wants to with the article, and given that the article's subject is totally disconnected from the subject area Fusion otherwise edits in (jazz), it is nearly impossible not to come to the conclusion that Fusion is in some way connected to Arnold Reisman, either as a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Arnold Reisman (the editor) has never requested a lifting of the indef block, yet has persisted in attempting to shape the article about him through socks, and this is appears to be yet now another attempt, albeit a somewhat more Wiki-sophisticated one, to do so. An admin should decide whether the behavioral evidence is strong enough that Fusion should be indef blocked as a sock- or meatpuppet of Reisman.

• Regardless of whether Fusion is a sock- or meatpuppet or not, his behavior has become an egregious case of I didn't hear that and his framing of other editors as adversaries is uncivil, uncollegial and indicates a battleground mentality. An uninvolved admin should warn him not to continue editing in this manner.

• Finally, although the article Arnold Reisman has survived two AfDs [33],[34], the most recent one in May of this year, some determination should be made of whether it is sourced sufficiently as a BLP to be kept. If so, then it should probably be taken to AfD again, since, despite over two weeks having passed since Slim Virgin asked for secondary sources, it is still based almost entirely on primary sources, and does not appear as if it fulfills the notability requirements for subjects of this type. (I'd rather not take it to AfD until these other issues are decided.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

All named parties have been notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the last of your comments on the subject, my thinking is that if the article were taken to AfD and deleted then it would make much of the rest of the concerns noted moot - especially if User:Fusion is the future confined themselves to editing jazz related articles. Again, if the AfD resulted in good secondary sources being located and added then the other concerns, if not moot, would be of considerably less import. What is your rationale for not moving to AfD, precisely? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess primarily that I'm involved, and that bringing it to AfD might be perceived as a tactic rather than a good faith nomination. I've no objection to filing there, if that's what folks thinks is the best thing to do. Aside from that, I had (and have) no particular objection to the existence of the article per se. This report was provoked by Fusion's most recent comment on the article talk page, which convinced me that we were on a merry-go-round that didn't show signs of stopping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, Arnold Reisman seems borderline notable at best. There are others in his field more notable than he who still do not have WP articles written about them. Even so, I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• No objection to an AfD, but to disallow primary sources in an article is inappropriate. If I'm understanding correctly then VS is wrong in preventing them if they are otherwise reliable. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Primary sources are fine, Hobit, so long as the article is based on secondary sources. I don't know what to make of the Arnold Reisman situation. This is the version of the article Reisman himself seems to want, and has tried to insert using various accounts and IPs. Problem is that much of it is unsourced. He appears to be a former academic at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. What might make him more notable is a series of books he wrote on Turkey and the Holocaust, listed here on Amazon. But when you look at the publishers, you find they're all self-published. In addition, Reisman has written a blog post on how to use the Web, including Wikipedia, to self-promote books: "My premise is that the Web has made possible a direct relationship between a book’s author, its purchaser and or reader ... What is also significant to the author, is that it’s cost free ..." This was accompanied by someone spamming his book titles into a number of WP articles.

  So at this point it becomes difficult to know what to trust, and for that reason we've been asking Fusion to construct the article out of secondary sources. Fladrif found some book reviews and posted them on the talk page, but all we get from Fusion are long posts complaining about other editors. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Binksternet, before you make any further comment, I kindly suggest you read the discussions, all of them, from the scratch.

First here, than here. and than here.

Otherwise, you are hurting me with these words:

• "I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked."

This is to me, "Rush to judgment."

@Beyond My Ken, I am truly thankful to you, that you brought it up here, even though you still try to spread doubts about me, still, I am happy, so that uninvolved editors and Administrators alike can sort things out by going to the bottom of it.

As I said all along, my words are my honor and the basis for my credibility. I would also ask the respective admins to run an IP check on me. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 23:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mclaudt requests lift of ban.

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive600#User:Mclaudt|Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive600 § User:Mclaudt]]

User:Mclaudt is requesting that his community ban be lifted. The reason he gives is, "Please unblock me. I have no time no intention for canvassing or train-wrecking Linux software discussions. I'm getting PhD in quantum chemistry and I want to be really useful for Wikipedia in that field. Also I'm happy to be an active Wikipedia donator because I sincerely support ideas that Wikipedia declares. Thanks." Is there support for lifting this ban? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not by me. The user's request does not address in any useful detail the many reasons given for his ban in the discussion that led up to it. It is therefore unconvincing.  Sandstein  22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support- it's been nearly eight months and the user has promised to behave, and I for one don't require a lengthy essay by way of apology or shameless grovelling before supporting an unblock. If the editor resumes disruptive behaviour they can be reverted and blocked again very easily. Reyk _YO! 23:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• weak support I agree with Reyk (which may be a first?) It's been long enough, see how it goes. Hobit (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• I feel I should point out that he also contacted me about it - which I find odd because I've got it written plain as day on my talk page that I lost the tools in July and will not have them back for the forseeable future. In any case, Neutral. I'm leery of the "I'm a *REFORMED* alcoholic" defense, and I'd like to see a bit more than vague speech. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It's been long enough, but I don't see evidence of understanding why he was banned in the first place and what he will do to avoid those issues. I also woule like to see how he wishes to be "really useful": working on any drafts first, etc. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Question- The guy was blocked/banned for off-site canvassing and has now said that he has no intention of canvassing again. Does this not demonstrate a knowledge of what he was blocked for? If not, what would you consider a satisfactory answer? And, if you were in his shoes, how would you explain how you'd avoid canvassing again that goes beyond saying "I won't do it anymore"? What other possible answer is there? Reyk _YO! 03:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Give him a standard offer and see if he agrees to the terms. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Schrandit at Crisis pregnancy center

I wasn't sure whether to put this on the noticeboard for vandalism or edit warring, so I thought it would be more appropriate to list it on the general noticeboard. Here's a rundown: I (Roscelese) have been making a sincere attempt in the past week or so to improve the article Crisis pregnancy center. It has NPOV issues, true, but it's more that there are significant pieces of information that are just missing, among them information about the centers' religious affiliation. I added a paragraph that contains the following facts:

• Three-fourths of centers in the USA are affiliated with Care Net and Heartbeat International, two CPC networks.
• Care Net and Heartbeat Int'l are both Christian in nature (I elaborate on this).
• Other centers are run by the Roman Catholic Church or by other church groups.
• (These statistics obviously exclude other countries; however, the USA has by far the most CPCs, and the UK's and Canada's also appear to be largely Christian. I doubt this is the reason the user in question has been continually removing information - s/he hasn't mentioned it at all - but I'm in the process of adding it for completeness' sake.)

Given the presence of this information in the article, I thought it appropriate to put in the lead that CPCs were typically Christian in nature.

Schrandit has repeatedly made the following changes:

• Typically Christian in nature to Often Christian in nature - "Often" doesn't even imply a majority, much less over three-quarters of CPCs.
• Although the vast majority of CPCs are Christian to Though the majority of religious CPCs are Christian - Over 75% of CPCs having a Christian affiliation is not a majority only of religious CPCs.
• Many require employees to comply with a statement of faith to Some require employees to comply with a statement of faith - Care Net is the largest CPC network in the USA - ie. in the country with the most CPCs - and our sources state that they are affiliated with half of all American CPCs [I either misremembered or just can't find that source again] the largest CPC network in the USA. That isn't "some."

I initially tried to assume good faith. I asked Schrandit to suggest a change to the lead (the part that contains "typically Christian") that would please hir without changing the nature of the information presented; I asked for sources that contradicted mine; I reiterated my points on the talk page and asked hir to stop making unsupported changes. Though we had discussed at length on the article's talk page, I also posted to hir user talk page before reporting hir here.

At this point I really can't fathom what Schrandit wants from my sources. They clearly state, for example, that Care Net, which administers half the CPCs in the United States, not only calls itself "Christian" but requires affiliates to comply with a statement of faith, and that Heartbeat Int'l, which administers another quarter, describes itself as a "Christian association of faith-based pregnancy resource centers," yet s/he says that it's "irresponsible" to "assume" that that means most CPCs are Christian. Does s/he think that Care Net employees are really Jews pretending to be Christians in order to get jobs at CPCs? That Heartbeat Int'l is a "Christian association" that administers Muslim or Pagan "faith-based pregnancy resource centers"?

In conclusion, the changes Schrandit has made are a) flagrantly misrepresenting the sources and b) suppressing relevant information. Given hir total lack of effort to explain why my sources do not support my edits or to find contradictory sources, I'm led to call this - in the sense of a deliberate, bad-faith attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia - vandalism. I would really appreciate administrator intervention.

Thanks,

-- Roscelese (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered/tried WP:3O or WP:MEDCAB? Sounds like a simple content dispute at this point--you've not alleged any edit warring or like conduct. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that would be better? I'm hesitant to call it a content dispute since one side is not providing any content, but I could do that. Roscelese (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Roscelese is inserting OR into this article. It could be possible that a majority of CPCs are Christian in nature but she has failed to provide sourcing that says so. - Schrandit (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page comments by MickMacNee

I'd like to report harassment/stalking by User talk:MickMacNee, per his comments on my talk page. I'm not sure if he's stalking me or User:Mjroots, but in either case the stalking is unwarranted. I was blocked on 31 October 2010 for "baiting Mick" on his talk page while he was blocked (Actually, I was trying to make fun of an admin, and the whole thing backfired. I learned my lesson anyway.) Anyway, I should be able to make comments in passing about someone without having to fear that they will feel the need to comment on it. In the case with Mick, he is known for harassing other users, especially at AFDs, and has been the subject of many ANIs in the past for such harassment, and other related behavioral issues. I'd like an injunction against his posting on my talk page for any reason other than gving notices reguiered by WP such as for ANIs, and ask that he be restricted in his interctions with me on AFDs where I have posted first, allowing other users to respond to me. I'll agree to the same restrictions in return, if needed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have modified the header of this section. Stalking is a real-world activity that involves physically following a person and threatening their well-being. You're not being stalked, and using that term to describe someone posting on your talk page when you've made reference to them is unacceptable. This is not a comment on the remainder of the report, but a correction in terminology that should routinely be enforced on this noticeboard; the term "wikistalking" was deliberately deprecated a considerable time ago because of this issue, and it is remarkably disappointing to see that regular posters on this board have forgotten it. Risker (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Such an interaction ban would seem reasonable to me. You obviously both rub each other up the wrong way or whatever. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Nothing good will come from you posting on each others' talk pages. So I'd support an interaction ban. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• In agreement, an interaction ban would do nicely. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I reserve the 'right' to comment wherever and whenever my name is being mentioned, whether that user feels they have the right not to 'fear' my input or not. If that location is on a talk page of a user who does not want me there, then I reserve the 'right' to expect that they cease bandying my name about in casually incivil conversation, safe in the knowledge that I cannot respond. That is pretty much the definition of baiting right there. Infact, while we're at it, I also reserve the right not to be called a mother fucker and a stalker in edit summaries, period, in all cases the former, and at least without evidence in the latter. This ANI complaint of 'stalking' is based on one post to one talk page, where my name was being mentioned. I was not aware of any ban of myself from that talk page, neither formal or through the expressed wishes of BilCat. Based on these facts, and the fact that this report makes various oblique references to my 'past behavior' in the best tradition of poisoning what he already knows is a very viperous well for me, I think it's pretty fucking clear who is baiting who here. Based on past experience of what he does and doesn't know about EQ, I will happilly accept the most formal and complete interaction ban with this user, who cannot it seems even file an ANI report header in a neutral, non-offensive manner, on the express proviso that I have done nothing wrong wrt the bare facts of this report, and also with the exception of his rather unusual 'me first' Afd suggestion, which can only be seen as an attempt to game me off of an ongoing notability content debate. I would note however that he is in no position to be offering to stay off my talk page save for notices etc as some sort of new bargaining chip at all, that was apparently what he had already agreed to do when he was unblocked for the aformentioned baiting of me the first time round. I had no knowledge of what was arranged in that appeal, and certainly no notifications of any related consequent obligations/restrictions on me, as I already explained here and here, and which has been clarified for him by the blocking admin here, so any and all suggestions from him that I have been baiting him, are quite false. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)