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

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)

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)

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. 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. 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)

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)

Admin behaviour at 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)

• 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)

EGMichaels

→ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/EGMichaels

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: [7].) 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)

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[8] 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)

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)

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 [9]
• Adds that a Jewish businessman was a "swindler". [10]
• Adds material to the lead of another Jewish businessman about a criminal conviction. [11]
• Adds material about the financial problems of another Jewish businessman. [12]
• Adds to the article about a British actor that he's British-Jewish. [13]
• Adds to the article about a American-Jewish poker player that he donates to Zionist causes. [14]
• Adds to Rodney King that King had resisted arrest before being beaten. [15]
• At Adolf Hitler, removes that international Jewry were scapegoats. [16]
• At Template:Neo-fascism, removes the Anti-intellectualism article, calling it a "preposterous slur." [17]
• At Anti-intellectualism, removes that Italian fascism was associated with violent anti-intellectualism. [18]
• 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." [19]
• 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." [20] "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." [21]
• Changes that the majority of Jews and Roma sent to extermination camps died, to "many" of them did. [22]
• Edits to Ashkenazi intelligence [23]
• 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."[24]
• At The Jew of Malta, changes the "Significance" header to "Significance to Jewish interpreters." [25].
• At History of the Jews in Argentina, removes "falsely" from "Russian Jews who were falsely accused of masterminding a Communist conspiracy." [26]

• 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: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]
• 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, [43] 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) [44]
• 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. [45]
• 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. [46]
• Even after being warned by ChrisO about the Israel-Palestine restrictions, [47] and reported here and on AE (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#NickCT_and_Soledad22), he turns up again at al-Durrah to revert. [48] 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)

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.wikipedia.org/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 [49], 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.wikipedia.org/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. 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 [50], 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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)

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. [51] 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)

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: [52]. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:42, 28 February 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).

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)

User:Mclaudt

Resolved

 – indefinite block by user:Blueboy96 Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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., [53], plus numerous cases where has has cut-and-pasted the same argument several times to the same or other pages [54].

Personal attacks and incivility

In deletion debates he has called other editors fat, stupid trolls, incompetent, illiterate, etc. [55] [56] 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: [57] [58] [59]

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. [60] [61] 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. [62] [63] 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) [64]. 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 [65] [66] [67]. 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)

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 [68] because Wales "is not a country". He's made the same edit here: [69]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

70.240.203.25

(From WQA) Just came off expired block, please see personal attack [[70]] and edit comment [[71]] Gerardw (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Block review of SkagitRiverQueen

I just blocked SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) for one week for what I saw as her continuing harassment of Crohnie (talk · contribs). However, I'm not sure this is long enough -- it's part of a editing pattern I've been seeing for a while. Can I have some more opinions on whether the block was a) appropriate and b) the correct duration? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And once again, Sarek blocks me for what he sees as an infraction, but doesn't block the other editor (Crohnie). The inequity is glaring. In fact, I'm starting to see a pattern here - the same thing happened with my last block where even editors who aren't usually "friends" noticed the inequity in my block then. Also again, Sarek seems to be using his administrative powers to punish - which is not only *not* supposed to be the way admins operate, but something only bad admins do (at least that's what a very wise admin I am acquainted with believes). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with the block qua block (it might be shorter for a first offense, since blocks are to be preventative rather than punitive), but I generally think we should do more to enforce WP:CIVIL. I do note that when an established editor did the same thing to me (right down to the insulting language), and I complained about it, I was blocked for complaining about it, so I'm a little frustrated with the double-standard. THF (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I read through that talk page and didn't see anything that bad and certainly nothing worthy of a block. The diff you provided in the block comment may have been a little snarky, but to call it uncivil is a stretch. I don't think the real question is whether the block should be longer but whether the user should have been blocked to begin with. I vote no. PhoenixPhan (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't just read what's on the page, read the history, and see how many other pages she went to complaining -- including a rejected WP:AN3 report. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please *do* read through the history. Please read through the history of me trying and trying and trying and trying to work with Crohnie and then read through her history of continued incilivity toward me, her personal attacks aimed at me, and he continuous false accusations lodged against me, and her repeated bad faith concerning me. And then, be sure to look at how no one does a thing about it. Oh, wait...yes, something was done. I was blocked for reacting out of frustration due to Crohnie's continued incivility, personal attacks, false accusations, and lack of good faith. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If SkagitRiverQueen is going to have comments move here then I would like to request difs for her accusations of my supposed bad faith towards her. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In isolation, I wouldn't have blocked the editor for that one edit. However given the history, it seems appropriate. Support block.Toddst1 (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the history, you might have a better understanding of why I never should have been blocked - or with my block, the other editor should have also been blocked. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

LPerhaps we should look into her conflicting claim that she is the one being harassed? If she was being harassed` first then that should be seen as a mitigating circumstance for some "uncivil" words she may have SAID. This is all IF, as I dont know all the details but have seen in the past Skag actually get harassed in the past by other editors and the frustration she went through and not many listened or helped (and some were down right rude and should be ashamed of what they said). If someone is harassing someone through ACTIONS and then someone defends themselves and says some "uncivil" words because of frustration then no a block is not at all right. I also vote no on the block per PhoenixPhan. Having people ignore your complaints isnt a sign of incivility, its a sign that around here people are simply rude to those they dont like. Wikipedia is middle school when it comes to this stuff.Camelbinky (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A hearty amen, Camelbinky. You and I haven't always agreed on everything, but on this, you hit the nail smack-dab on the head (more than once). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well all of this went on after I left. The problems for me started with this second posting to me. I deleted the one above it because it was rude and I said so. She insisted on adding that in and to be honest I wouldn't have seen it, at least not immediately because Sarek had removed it. [72] I then got this one followed by [73] which I deleted after the complaint was closed. I went to Sarek to say thank you and ask for help [74]. She followed me there. I went to Lar who is aware of all the problems with SRQ. [75] The problem is SkagitRiverQueen. She has disputes where ever she goes. This can be seen by the history of her talk page. After I removed her comment she should have stopped. On my talk page titled Ted Bundy a new editor came by to talk to me about it. SRQ jumped in which the editor was apparently surprised about. I didn't even have a chance to respond to that editor before SRQ did. That editor is gone now as far as I know. SRQ bit him and I reminded her not to and pointed to the policy WP:Bite. Personally I think a week is too short because she was recently blocked for edit warring and then another day was added for a personal attack. She is not a victim here, I am. The post I made to her talk page she changed the title of to make it an attack on me. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SkagitRiverQueen#Denial_is_not_just_a_river_in_Egypt This was called 'For the record'. She accused me of following her to this article which is not true and I told her how I got there. You can see her response. That response is what I have to endure everytime we end up at the same article. I have tried to avoid her, ignore her and nothing works. She says she was at the Jeffrey R. MacDonald article first and that I followed her which is not true because I got to that article in Nov. '08 and her June '09. She is now on most of my watchlist so how am I supposed to handle all of this? Everything I do is being watched. So please look at the history of the different talkpages and articles. If you check the different boards like this one, Wikialert, edit warring and so on and put in her name you will see she brings editors to them a lot and most if not all of the time they are dismissed with no action needed. It's time to put a stop to this because I am not the only one having serious problems with this editor. Thanks for reading, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI SRQ's responses are being copied here from her talk page by User:PhoenixPhan, who ought to be indicating as much when they get transferred. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And has now been blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add some difs of attacks that I've had to endure prior to all of todays activities. [76], [77], [78] (this one she accuses editors of having an agenda and other things which is why I said above that there is more to this problem), [79], [80] (here she is being rude and arguing with another editor), [81] (here are two editors that are uninvolved who tried to help and got attacked for it.), [82]. If more difs are needed please just ask me. I think these show a pattern. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

豪庸

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)

my restrictions

I was told to apply for reinstatement here on March 1st. I am hopeful that enough time has passed and my actions since my probation will allow me to be a fully functioning member of the community again.--Levineps (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What part of these restrictions are you finding to be a major hindrance to working in wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to be off "probation" so to speak and be able to edit categories again. I made some mistakes and I am sorry they happenend.--Levineps (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The restrictions being -

Levineps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from creating new categories, and re-categorizing either existing categories or articles. Levineps is required to not mark his edits as minor, as he has used this flag disruptively. He is also required to use manually written edit summaries for all of his edits, outside of the talk space. He is not allowed to remove warnings or notices from his talk page, or anywhere else they are posted. A 1RR per day restriction is also imposed, due to his disruptive reverting. If he fails to comply with these requirements, he will be blocked indefinitely and his edits can be reverted without question. Levineps is reminded that he free to propose any category changes on any talk page for others to implement. He is also reminded that he can appeal this sanction only via a formal community proposal, or by emailing ArbCom.

The restriction were imposed via this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also pertinent: User:Levineps in violation of his editing restrictions Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that was a mistake I made over a month ago and I explained it there and I have had no reported incidents since.--Levineps (talk) 16:46, 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)

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)