Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Angusmclellan (talk | contribs)
64,067 edits
Line 1,040: Line 1,040:


:Done. This is [[Morton's fork]]: either COI or image policy violations. And creepy too if you really want my opinion. And it could be COI and image policy violations and creepy, in which case someone should win a prize. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 01:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
:Done. This is [[Morton's fork]]: either COI or image policy violations. And creepy too if you really want my opinion. And it could be COI and image policy violations and creepy, in which case someone should win a prize. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 01:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

== The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and his disrespectul comments ==

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

Revision as of 01:41, 24 February 2010


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User: Gabi Hernandez

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

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

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

    • I've encountered this user and have seen the problems described. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User talk:Proofreader77

    Resolved
     – Pages blanked by User:Gwen Gale and LessHeard vanU

    I realize and respect the fact that User:Rodhullandemu's blocking of PR77's use of his talk page was reverted based on him being an involved admin, but I feel the time may have come for someone uninvolved to examine that question. I have this user's talk page watchlisted so that I can see when there are any actual developments or unblock requests, but the user keeps using his talk page for things like this, posting rhetoric to support his behavior and posting "status updates" when nothing has actually changed. Equazcion (talk) 18:20, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

    With due respect they don't seem to be WP:Hearing that the, to borrow a word from the Arbcom case, bizarre communication after repeatedly being told to knock it off is unhelpful and disruptive. It may make sense to apply a short block or some alternative way that they can email for unblock if such a system is acceptable and also won't be abused. -- Banjeboi 20:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just leave it until the steam runs out and in a month or so archive it all. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. No one is unblocking him; he is de facto banned from this site. After everyone has forgotten all about him, we'll bag and tag the pages. Tan | 39 00:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to unblock him (ever) and no need for the talk page to be unblocked either when it is being misused. Lock it down and let him email his unblock requests in. Clear misuse of the talk page when blocked calls for it to be locked down. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good riddance. Maybe now he'll think about his approach and hopefully see what he did wrong, and why it was wrong, and promise to never do it again if unblocked(although unlikely).— Dædαlus Contribs 10:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I love the overpoliteness on Wikipedia. "Good riddance! Maybe now he'll um... you know, see that he was wrong and promise to be better. Yeah!" Hehe... Just saying. Equazcion (talk) 18:12, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    The user was getting on my nerves, to say the least with his incessant refusal to admit he had done any wrong, or was in the wrong at all.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone want to clean out the peculiar user subpages? In particular, SandboxA is bordering on an attack page and serves only to celebrate an unwelcome attitude. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I did send it to MfD a while back, but I withdrew after he got advice to keep such evidence gathering off-site. Obviously he didn't follow through. Pcap ping 08:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought about it at the time, but I'm neutral on keeping the sub-pages for a few weeks: I shut down and tagged the user and talk pages because he was using them only to soapbox, rather than talking about what might be done towards an unblock. Given he can still email admins and arbcom about all this, while I guess it's unlikely he'll be unblocked anytime soon, I didn't think things had yet gotten to the threshold of a clean sweep through his userspace. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I "courtesy blanked" the content. It remains in the history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppets?

    Resolved
     – Not Proofreader77

    xx.xxx.xxx.xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Perhaps, perhaps not, either way, I think it's a little strange for this IP to come out of nowhere and return 77's page to normal, where they have never edited such a page before. Would a CU mind looking into this?— Dædαlus Contribs 03:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    [Insert your favorite obscene oath here.] Gimmetrow upped this jerk's block to a month; I extended it to indefinite. It's one thing to call people "idiots" or even "fucking morons". It's another to throw inexcusable slanderous comments around as this anon did. Whoever this anon is, he/she/it can find something else to do than edit Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IP's usually aren't blocked indefinitely, because the person behind a particular IP can change. Also, unfortunately, vandals say things like that all the time. Evil saltine (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fwiw, based on the geo-location and the communication style, I doubt that this is Proofreader's sock. More likely, IMO, to be someone who holds a grudge against Gwen Gale and just went about insulting her and undoing her edits at Proofreader's page. Abecedare (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had word through email, from another admin who looked into this wholly unbidden by me, that a CU has found, so far as they can tell, that there is no link at all between the IP and Proofreader77, which I take as happy news. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did have my doubts that it was Proofreader77, & not just because it seemed to be too easy of a solution. (Now if those comments were in a sonnet form, that'd be a whole 'nother matter.) What made me see red was that (1) Wikipedia already has enough of a problem with incivility, & (2) we have enough of a problem attracting women of all ages -- let alone women willing to deal with troublemakers -- to put up with harassing comments based on gender & sex like that anon was making. I'm all for giving those kinds of problem users the old bum's rush -- which is one of those cases where an indef ban just might solve the problem. -- llywrch (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy


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

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

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

    Radiopathy's statement

    Radiopathy •talk•

    ArbCom elections are now open!

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

    Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

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

    Discussion

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    • Support - For the reasons already stated above.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef - Change to indef. The user does this thing where they 'retire' for a few months then come back. It will be like the restriction never existed. Indef puts a stop to that.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extend it, to indefinite ideally, since he seems to be having trouble acquiring WP:CLUE. He can ask for a review when some months have gone by without incident. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extend to indef, per Guy - though frankly, I'm not convinced that 1RR alone would necessarily be sufficient either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree that an indefinite 1RR restriction is needed, which can be lifted once the editor has clearly demonstrated that they can avoid edit-warring without such external limits. (see more detailed background above. Abecedare (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since 1rr is a helpful notion for any editor to follow, most of the time, I see no worries about making this indefinite until he shows some willingness not to edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think 12 months is appropriate now. Good job on this Daedalus, both sides went overboard there. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extend to indefinite, user clearly incapable of getting the message per previous ANI thread. GlassCobra 19:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support extending it to indef, based on his last comments on his page. He doesn't care about getting it, it seems. It's a shame a good editor is undone by civility and common sense, but that seems to be the case. Dayewalker (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Stars4change, again

    Stars4change had numerous problems discussed at this previous ANI thread (since it's relatively long, I'm just going to start a new section rather than drag the whole thing out of the archives). In summary, they are incessantly using talk pages as a soapbox, they've been warned, blocked, and warned again, have promised not to continue their behavior, yet the behavior has obviously returned. I saw them at Talk:Capitalism#Child_labour, making some questionable comments based on their history. Took a look at their contribs and found more soapboxing since they promised to stop, including: [2], [3] and [4]. A lot of rhetorical "do you think you could add this?" comments. I don't know why they don't seem to be getting it. Can someone take a look please? Thanks, Swarm(Talk) 12:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Recent Iran-related edits

    Can someone please scrutinise the recent edits by myself, 119.154.44.87 and 119.154.2.165 (who are probably the same person) to Academic publishing and Science and technology in Iran? I reverted the anon IP edits in good faith because I thought the anon editor(s) was/were pushing a point of view and the non-POV material was already adequately covered, but I've been reverted twice. Obviously the POV material must go but I am a bit concerned that I might be taking things too far by a full reversion. In addition I've now been accused racism on the articles' talk pages so there's a real risk of drawing other editors in to a nasty little fight. andy (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The source has questionable reliability, and the Iran article was definitely not a NPOV, it was obvious that the editor was pushing a Pro-Iran POV. I believe there was nothing wrong about your reverts. I'll post something on the talk pages of both users. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Left messages on both talk pages. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I now have some doubts (apart from the racism thing). I don't know why you say the source has questionable reliability - it's very widely quoted by reputable secondary sources. andy (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, I now think I was wrong about the reversions (apart from the racism thing). Tidying would have been better. I'm concerned that this is an administrators notice board but the response and action is only from a rollbacker with much less editing experience than I have. I could have done it myself, which is why I came here looking for admin advice. andy (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    TheWeakWilled has left message for the two ips which state that 'it has been seen that your recent edits are violating the Wikipedia policy of keeping a neutral point of view on articles.'. However TWW failed to elaborate on that point by providing any evidence or links to edits that violate policy. Therefore I have left a message with TWW about issuing inappropriate warnings. Accusations of improper behaviour must be accompanied by evidence or the accusations themselves are improper behaviour. Weakopedia (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalistic renaming

    Kitarora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is going nuts with renaming of articles to stupid names. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the same guy as Edward Seler (talk · contribs) - see Sleeper page-move vandal a few reports above. Same creation date - 19 Mar 2009; same approach - no edits till today, ten innocuous edits to get autoconfirmed, then a spree of page-move vandalism. If we get more of these, might it be worth looking at user creations for that day and blocking any who have never edited? JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you ask me (not that anyone ever does), any newly created user that doesn't do anything within some reasonable time period, maybe a week, should be automatically rubbed out, as they are probably either forgotten by their creator or are up to no good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's User:JarlaxleArtemis. Got it covered by an edit filter now. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And this apparently relates to the Fernanoteroleono section below. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dwanyewest

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

    • Canvassing: He is inviting those who do not like these particular articles to the discussions. See also this request that someone who seems to be arguing to delete in one of the discussions come join two others Dwaynewest nominated.
    • Indiscriminate copying and pasting of comments: Regarding this reply, User:Dwanyewest has actually posted that exact same "It fails..." line across a host of Afds: see for example [5], [6] (the MAIN villain in a series with multiple episode appearances and that was made into an action figure that appears on a top ten list), [7] (one of the principal locations of the He-Man universe with appearances on television, in cartoon booklets, and as at least one playset that yes, I still have somewhere...), [8], [9], [10], etc. In fact, he nominated about THIRTY articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements from the C.O.P.S. and Masters of the Universe franchises with near copy and paste nominations. Writing the exact same worded nominations and subsequent comments for episodes, characters, and locations does not feel right. These are not the same things. Moreover, the characters and locations vary considerably one from the other, i.e. how could the same worded argument possibly apply to a henchman with no action figure and who appears in one episode versus the main villain with multiple episodes versus the main villain's headquarters that also appears in comics and as a playset and especially when checking Google Books, these same characters and locations get different amounts of sourcing? What is more, I am seeing no reason presented as to why many of these could not be merged or even redirected as they are not hoaxes, libelous, or copy vios and a clear redirect location exists. Additionally, the same "original research" line is being applied to even ones that actually do have out of universe information sourced from a secondary source or two. I do not see any reason why per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE merges and redirects are not being discussed and considered first and it does not even appear that sources are being looked for prior to the nominations or that the individual notability of each article is actually being considered. It looks more like as someone said in one of them, the nominator is just indiscriminately mass nominating from categories.
    • Double voting: See for example this in a discussion concerning an article he nominated.
    • Removing friendly notices from the talk page: See for example this.

    Warnings from other editors concerning AfD behavior include: from Jmcw37, from Janggeom, fromJJL, from DGG, from Dream Focus, from EEMIV, etc. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dalejenkins, possibly? –MuZemike 19:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I share the concerns over Dwanyewest's flurry of inadequately considered AfDs and PRODs. He seems insufficiently familiar with the procedures and policies. See also the discussions at the Martial Arts project's page. JJL (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He has been here for too long in my opinion to be Dale. I could be wrong though if Dale never edited his other socks on this IP, thus escaping the checkuser's attention. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will grant that there have been a couple of them that were questionable, but by and large, many of the articles I've personally looked at were a bit questionable. First, making the big issue about PROD's is a tempest in a teacup. So what, it got PROD'D. PROD's are ridiculously easy to contest and they give you 7 days to do it. All prod's are listed at the prodsum page. I became involved in this when a number of martial arts related prods were removed, not by addressing the reason for the prod, but with a cut and paste message telling him to go to the martial arts project to discuss it. I expressed my disapproval of that at the MA Project page. But the end result was good. We all reached common ground, constructed a plan to methodically clean up articles in the project and so overall, the outcome was positive. The other thing that I've observed in the process is that some people are of the opinion that a trivial mention of something is enough to establish notability or that a couple of trivial mentions can be added together to equal significant coverage. Then they take that opinion and (sometimes rudely) begin making accusations of bad faith actions. Rubbish! The AfD discussion is where that can be debated. People can, in good faith, hold one opinion or the other and dabte it and see what the community decided. I've nominated things that I still, to this day, don't feel have significant coverage, but the community feels a one paragraph review is significant. Ok, I have to accept that the consensus opinion differs from mine. Likewise, I've nominated things that others argued hard hhad significant coverage, but the community disagreed with them. That doesn't mean that they were acting in bad faith to argue the keep. Let the process function and abide by the consensus. But this is a non-incident and my biggest fear is that Dwaynewest will end up with some ridiculous sanction over what he believes is good faith action and something I don't see as being that disruptive. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Unless he is a sock acting in bad faith I would advise him to continue on. Most of the articles he has nominated shouldn't be here in the first place. ThemFromSpace 22:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You advise him to continue double voting and spamming discussions with copy and pasted comments? Or how about in some cases, not even providing a reason? Nothing that he has nominated should be redlinked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentioning in the edit summary that he is PRODding an article would be most welcome. He removed criticism in this regard from his Talk page. I missed some PRODs I would have wanted to have known about in this way. JJL (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's have a look at A Nobody's accusations one by one, shall we?
    • First the accusation of canvassing. Dwanyewest contacted two people, one whose advice he was asking, and one whom he'd had previous discussions with about the articles in question. You'd have to try pretty hard to assume bad faith to infer canvassing here.
    • Next is the claim of copy & paste comments at AfD. When you're nominating many articles which all suffer from very similar problems, it is only natural that the nominations will be similar. Insisting on original wording for each one seems to me to be an unnecessary and pointless restriction, especially since A Nobody has never shied from flooding AfD discussions with copy & paste comments himself.
    • I've seen many discussions where the nominator has cast a single "delete" vote themselves, and nobody has ever complained before to my knowledge. Not an issue.
    • Removing notices from your talk page is allowed. A Nobody does it on his own talk page quite regularly.
    • Dwanyewest corrected himself when it was pointed out that he hadn't provided a deletion rationale, and now the editor who objected agrees the article should be deleted. No need to whinge about it on ANI.
    • That brings us to the multitude of people complaining on Dwanyewest's talk page. I'll point out that EEMIV didn't object to the articles being nominated, just that the nominations weren't completed properly. Most of the other complainers were the usual suspects from the Article Rescue Squadron claiming D hadn't done enough searching for sources before nominating. And that brings me to the major issue. I've looked at a number of D's nominations and examined a good number of the "sources" being presented there as reasons to keep. They're mostly crap. Irrelevant fluff being presented to us as substantial coverage. I mean, just look at this load of rubbish sampled from several of the articles in question: a blog, a book that does not appear to contain the information claimed, an Amazon page where the DVD is for sale, a single paragraph advertisement on the Disney site, and two single-line snippets from TV guides [11], [12]. Pretty feeble, if you ask me. And if anyone can tell me what this is supposed to prove I'll be eternally grateful. If this is the best the pro-keep side can do, then I think it's pretty clear that the subjects of these articles are pretty well non-notable and the fervent objections of the ARS ring pretty hollow.
    • So to sum up, not one of A Nobody's litany of bitter complaints against Dwanyewest has any merit. If anything D should be barnstarred forthwith, and the perpetrators of this attempt to mislead the Wikipedia community with bogus sources admonished very strongly. Reyk YO! 10:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reyk's totally false comment above is deliberately misleading and consistent with his battleground distortions of reality to advance his biased agenda: "I'm off to fly the Deletionist flag over at AfD", "keepmongers," repeated use of WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT, etc. We are not naive. That is why no neutral observer does not correctly sees the problems of these indiscriminate nominations, as the carelessness is revealed in the double voting, not providing an edit summary until told to, copy and paste spamming, etc. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Everything I have said is correct. Address the points instead of attacking the editor. Reyk YO! 18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I cannot address distortions. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yet this whole attack on Dwanyewest is a distortion. I have refuted all your points, you have failed to address a single one of mine. Oh, but wait, I used some snarky language in a discussion once so I must be wrong. Reyk YO! 18:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are attempting to defend the indefinsible. You have not refuted anything, just presented a bias and inaccurate distortion of what is pretty clearly indiscriminate nominations that violate WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Whatever you think. I feel I have made some pretty convincing arguments, and drawn attention to the misuse of sources that's been happening lately, that I hope the closing admins here will take note of. You can continue to point your fingers at me and go "OMG an evil scary kitten-eating battleground deletionist" or you can actually argue the point. I won't be holding my breath. Reyk YO! 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I am happy to argue with objective and neutral points, not ones that are presented as part of "flying the Deletionist flag," i.e. that are inherently slanted. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's the violations of WP:BEFORE, the lack of informative edit summaries on PRODs/AfDs, the malformed AfDs, and the general lack of understanding of policies [13] that's most problematic for me, though the volume of the flood of martial arts nominations is also an issue--there's only so much time and energy to keep refuting AfDs of notable pages. JJL (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • WP:BEFORE is not policy, nor even a guidelines for that matter, and can be safely ignored if a user chooses to do so. The other issues seem more of a matter of unfamiliarity with the AfD process rather than a willful disregard. A bit of instruction from a wiki-veteran or two would be preferable to being dragged to an AN/I bludgeoning first. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • I second that. Reyk YO! 22:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. There was no call for this. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is just ridiculous. Start another case if you are serious about this. Two people who often criticize the Article Rescue Squadron, are now just being uncivil towards one of its more vocal members. Dream Focus 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to Reyk's comment that "Most of the other complainers were the usual suspects from the Article Rescue Squadron claiming D hadn't done enough searching for sources before nominating." I'd like to point out that they were actually from the Martial Arts group first, others then pointing out the same thing as he kept nominating things elsewhere. The complaints are all valid, regardless of who gave them. You should always do some searching yourself BEFORE nominating anything at all. How many dozens or hundreds of AFD and prods should someone be able to do in a week's time? If most end in Keep, will the person stop mass nominating things, or keep on going? Dream Focus 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Whoa! Are you saying Dwanyewest should not cite policies and guidelines? I know those pesky things are inconvenient for people who write and defend the sorts of articles D has been nominating, but I think they're important. And I think given the way many of the AfD discussions are going, particularly on those execrable C.O.P.S character bios which are tending towards consistent consensus to delete, you'd be hard pressed to argue these are bad faith nominations. A few misfires early on, perhaps, but nothing to justify A Nobody going running to ANI over. This is a troublesome and insubstantial whinge from someone who is fast becoming ANI's version of a vexatious litigant. Reyk YO! 08:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is in no way what I said at all. I said he should not be directly quoting policy directly (copy-pasting from the policy page) or copying and pasting things as subsequent comments on AFDs he has already started. If he has something to say, he can do so in his own words without going to WP:GNG or WP:whatever and copying and pasting the text directly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Irrelevant objection. The policy and guideline pages are not copyrighted, and say what they're intended to say in very clear language. There is no problem with quoting them directly, none at all. I have occasionally quoted sentences out of them myself and nobody has ever complained. Insisting that he paraphrase them in different words is a pointless and arbitrary restriction. Reyk YO! 09:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That'd be fine and all if he didn't copy and paste the text from the page itself, including the references and other formatting aspects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ahahaha. Ahaha. Ha. You do realize he removed the formatting tags a minute later, right? Of all the inexplicable things to complain about, this has got to be the weirdest. Reyk YO! 09:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not the fucking point. He is making uninformed AFDs and using the same blanket reasoning on the AFDs despite the fact that aspects of WP:GNG/WP:PROVEIT that he is directly quoting/copy-pasting are being addressed. I found multiple references for the articles that I watch that he sent to AFD. That did not stop him from posting the same shit across all of those AFDs and the other ones.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • If that's not the point, why bring it up? And if his AfDs are so uninformed, how come so many of them are heading towards "delete" or "no consensus"? Riddle me that. And not everyone thinks as much of your "sources" as you do: I know I'm not the only one that considers them mostly insubstantial puffery. Reyk YO! 12:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You appear to be in the minority of that thought still.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Although I have been one to warn him, I still assume good faith. I think he is a bit too passionate in his belief that any article without excellent sources should be immediately deleted. It is true that in the Martial Arts Project, we have had a simmering problem about article quality: both inclusionists and deletioninsts have been frustrated. As Nightshift mentioned above, we have a good solution now and Dwaynewest is working well within this group. I would not recommend any sanctions against him for his work on the Martial Arts articles. jmcw (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • But these problems are beyond martial arts articles. This includes articles on fictional characters, articles on television episodes, etc. It just seems that if he does not deem the subject notable and the sourcing is poor, he sends it off to AFD. He did provide some semblance of a forewarning but it's still "I think these should be deleted. I'm sending them off to AFD in 24 hours." He also did this exactly one year ago, threatening to take the pilot episode of a notable television series to AFD and threatened the same thing. Mythdon's AFD for the five-part episode/five episode miniseries is probably what stopped him then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Likebox deceptively sourced infraparticle

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

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

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

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

    Comments by Headbomb

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

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

    Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


    Example 1 Relations between heat capacities is improperly sourced. Why? Because someone demanded sources for trivial mathematical derivations. The source does not cover the derivations at all (it wasn't me who put in the source).
    Example 2 Methods of contour integration is improperly sourced. I'm not involved here, though.
    Example 3 Helmholtz free energy, largely rewritten by me is not adequately sourced. If it were made a demand to correct that, then I could put in some sources, but then the sourcing would be improper in the way Likebox meant. Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After seeing this diff and in the light of their previous block history and the above, I've now blocked Likebox for three months. -- The Anome (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't see how this is justified. Headbomb and Finell are ultimately to blame for escalating a minor problem to a huge ridiculous conflict. Headbomb, who unlike Likebox is not an expert in quantum field theory, some time ago made the mistaken judgement that the article was larglely nonsense and put it on AFD. The AFD discussion was conducted mainly by non-experts who decided to keep the article but remove an unsourced paragraph. Likebox restored that paragraph because as an expert in the field he knew that it was correct and also necessary for the article. Why headbomb decided to through in his weight and edit war over that paragraph, I cannot comprehend. Count Iblis (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If they think the block is unjust, Finell can post an unblock notice on their talk page if they wish. The normal conditions will apply. -- The Anome (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Likebox you mean? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest anyone who is caught purposefully adding improper refs should be blocked on sight for sneaky vandalism. That type of deception is not allowed. βcommand 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Two wrongs don't make a right. There is clearly a problem here, but this is not the way to sort it. I suggest that all the editors involved find somewhere to discuss this, and attempt to resolve these issues in good faith before this escalates any further. -- The Anome (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well as far as I was aware, the problems stopped when sources began to be added, and we were all collaborating on the article. The revert to the stub is simply a precautionary measure because the sourcing has been deceptive (I've set a draft of the unreliable version on the talk page so we can keep working on it, and readers aren't mislead). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, the block record quote is taken out of context. Somebody was trying to use his block record as reason to disallow his edits. HalfShadow 01:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This was yet more edit-warring after a history of repeated blocks for the same reason. The quote suggests that they are completely unrepentant about this. -- The Anome (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But LIkebox did not edit war, he stuch to 1RR as his probation demands. In this case, Headbomb is really in the wrong, not in the sense of violating Wikipedia's rules, but by defending such an unreasonable position. From the POV of an expert in the field like Likebox, this is extremely provocative. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes he did, see the WP:AN3 thread. Where he admits to 2RR (and still unconvinced he's not the IPs). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please take this to an RfC

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


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


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

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

    Likebox's editing of Infraparticle should be dealt with here

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

    1. Let's limit this AN/I to User:Likebox and his editing of Infraparticle. I don't know enough about User:Count Iblis's conduct or the other articles he cites as examples, and that sounds like a broader topic. User:Likebox's conduct in connection at Infraparticle is, on the other hand, simple and can be handled easily here, without an RFC.
    2. I don't know about the other articles that Count Iblis raised, but the challenged content that Likebox added to Infraparticle was not simple, basic, obvious statements about elementary physics. It was advanced physics with long blocks of equations.
    3. When other editors objected to Likebox adding unsourced content to Infraparticle and reverted his material, he admitted to adding misleading sources to keep his disputed, challenged material in the article. He didn't just admit it; he bragged about misleading the other editors: "At the moment, the opponents can be distracted by smoke and mirrors."[14] Talk about hubris!.
    4. In its context, Likebox's deceit was a tactic in his edit war over Infraparticle. Given Likebox's admitted disdain for Wikipedia's core policy of Verifiability, his deceptively using false source citations to evade that policy, and his block record for prior edit warring, he should be blocked until he demonstrates that he will abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, whether he likes them or not. Likebox's conduct jeopardizes Wikipedia's reliability, which is the reason for the Verifiability policy in the first place. Likebox's edits can no longer be trusted, and we cannot assume good faith when Likebox himself admits to conduct that is bad faith.
    5. Likebox's deceit wasted other editors' time. Late last night, assuming that Likebox's source citations were in good faith (I don't have easy access to the sources themselves, so I assumed that the cited sources supported the statements for which they were cited), I spent almost 2 hours copy editing the content he added, adding missing wikilinks, fixing incorrect wikilinks, and fixing Likebox's citations (many of his citations were incomplete and therefore uninformative to the reader, he filled citation templates incorrectly, he cited a preprint without citing the published journal article, etc.). Headbomb spent time doing the same. (Almost half of what I did didn't get into the article because Headbomb made a lot of the same fixes at the same time, so I had an edit conflict when I tried to save a big block of edits. I copied my edited version to my user space to reconcile it later with what Headbomb did). All wasted time.
    6. Likebox has additional relevant history that implies that his editing of Infraparticle has a particular POINT:
      • A few months ago, Likebox had a bitter edit dispute with lots of drama over his attempt to insert his own mathematical (or logical) proof into an article. I think it was Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Likebox claimed that his proof was a simpler equivalent to existing, published proofs. But, the proof was his own creation, i.e., OR, and other editors disputed it. I vaguely recall that there was a dispute about another of Likebox's proofs in another article.
      • During or in the aftermath of this dispute, Likebox and a couple of allies, including Count Iblis, then proposed to weaken Wikipedia's policy on OR. More drama, but the proposal was defeated by a very substantial consensus.
      • Around the same time, Likebox was one of 2 or 3 supporters of Count Iblis's ESCA policy proposal. The core of the proposal was that science articles should be edited, and editing decisions made, based primarily on "reasoning from first principles", rather than based primarily on reliable sources. A very substantial consensus defeated that policy proposal on the ground that it would seriously weaken the Verifiability policy. So, ESCA was converted into an essay. (I haven't done a detailed comparison, but my impression is that the current ESCA essay places more emphasis citing sources than did the defeated policy proposal). (Despite that resounding defeat, Iblis proudly proclaims on his talk page that he edits science articles as though ESCA were policy.)

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

    Thank you, Finell, for your "few quick points". Perhaps you and Headbomb need to cool off? Infraparticle was making progress, which you've succeeded in reversing. Great work guys! --Michael C. Price talk 06:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I was trying to help in that process too, when I thought that Likebox's sources were for real. He made fools of us, so it is back to the drawing board with the article, since Likebox's content cannot be trusted until every line is verified, or until someone competent and trustworthy rewrites it from scratch.—Finell 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is a more concise version of all the brouhaha above, the only thing I have to add to this are links of convenience:
    Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I also had in mind the diffs for my item 6, Likebox's relevant history. It's all just a vague, but unhappy, memory.—Finell 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'll find [15] summarizes the most recent iteration of the Gödel's incompleteness theorems trainwreck, which has been going on for quite literally years. 71.139.6.157 (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Outside inside view

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

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

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

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

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

    Block review

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

    Almost. Likebox was actually saying that he inserted the references in spite of them being asinine. I've been on that end of the stick in writing here. While not the nicest thing to say, he was certainly not saying that there was anything intrinsically wrong with the references he provided, only that they were boneheaded and seemed to detract from the content of the article.
    Imagine writing an article about Abraham Lincoln for the Simple English Wikipedia and having a bunch of editors complain that they didn't understand the words you were using. "Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth president of the United States." you write, but they don't just want a source for that fact, they also want a source for the fact that the United States has a president and that there exists a number sixteen. Is it possible to find such sources? Of course. But if you are a historian trying to write about Lincoln, looking for such sources is really, really annoying. You might find some sources and insert them, but you'd find it ridiculous. The sourcing is a "joke" because it is so idiotic. That's what Likebox was saying. Nothing more. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I'm beginning to understand his point. He's explained it here himself now. Given this statement, I think we can safely say the charge of deliberate falsifying of sources should be dropped. This leaves the charge of edit-warring against consensus to be assessed. (Note: I only now notice Anome had actually already reduced the block from 3 months to a mere 24h for edit-warring, so maybe this part of the discussion was moot anyway, but then Anome didn't say he did so because he had dropped that serious accusation). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that's my fault. I already changed the block length and reason yesterday after reading the discussions many paragraphs earlier: I should have added a comment here when I did it. I still think this issue is just the tip of a much large science article iceberg, and I suggest that all involved should take this to an RfC. -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I've now unblocked Lightbox, in response to their unblock request. -- The Anome (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what there was to misinterpret in these 2 statements in Likebox's post on Jimbo's talk page:[16]
    • "At the moment, the opponents can be distracted by smoke and mirrors." That can only be interpreted as intentionally deceiving his "opponents". Further, his characterizing other editors, with whom he is supposed to be collaborating to reach consensus, as "opponents" is another demonstration of his edit warrior approach to editing Wikipedia. I certainly didn't think that I was Likebox's "opponent" when I insisted that he supply reliable sources for the material he added to Infraparticle. I thought I was another editor trying to be sure that the article was accurate, and that enforcing Wikipedia:Verifiability was the way to ensure accuracy.
    • "I am very proud of my blocks." These are his blocks for edit warring. He repeats that statement, this time in all italics for emphasis, in this AN/I.
    Maybe Likebox need some form of counseling or mentorship. There are plenty of places where he can write what he wants as he wants. He can publish in a peer reviewed journal, if his material is good enough, or he can self-publish anything for free on the Internet. But if Likebox wants to help build this encyclopedia, he needs to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.—Finell 00:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's absolutely no need of mentorship. Likebox's explanation of his meaning in User talk:Likebox#Blockedthis thread is clear, straightforward, and perfectly acceptable. What he did is completely within guidelines & policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to point out that the last five or six items on my block record are for similarly silly things. I hope that editors do not use the block record to bias their decisions on cases here, snce it will cause Wikipedia to lose editors who are willing to do the hard work of confronting biased or misleading articles.Likebox (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Offensive comments by NSH001

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Battleground editors warned and/or blocked.  Sandstein  06:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "We can not allow nazis to use dignified Palestinian cause as a platform to launch racial hatred. I beg you all to reproduce this cartoon all over Internet. Let's say louder that we are fighting against those racist Jews who deny human rights to Palestinians, AS WELL AS racists who deny human rights to Jews" Carlos Latuff, 27 December 2002[1]

    Today I came across an argument at the Talk:Carlos Latuff page between a number of editors about whether Latuff is a Holocaust denier. In the argument, User:NSH001 made extremely offensive comments that I believe are clear grounds for sanction, including comparing Israel to the Nazis (defined antisemitic by the European Fundamental Rights Agency), inappropriate soapboxing and incivility. I believe that, while all the editors in the dispute appear confrontational, the particular comment by NSH001 crosses all red lines on Wikipedia. —Ynhockey (Talk) 02:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just noticed Yn's notification on my talk page. I am extremely busy at the moment, so it will some time before I am able to respond properly, but I just want to say for now that this accusation of "antisemitism" against me is a particularly foul, obscene and malicious libel, wholly without foundation, the very opposite of, and totally contrary to, both my record in real life, and on Wikipedia. Disgraceful. --NSH001 (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have issued an arbitration enforcement warning (WP:ARBPIA) to NSH001 and advised him to stop the inflammatory political commentary, but do not believe that further administrative action is required based on this single edit.  Sandstein  19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the bigger problem is the sourcing used to attempt to call a living person a Holocaust denier, but that's just me. nableezy - 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not quite clear to me which edit you refer to, but such problems should be discussed at WP:BLPN.  Sandstein  20:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Nableezy. NSH001 may have engaged in a little soapboxing, but I see nothing "extremely offensive" in his commentary. Trying to characterize Carlos Latuff a holocaust denier using sourcing that does not support that conclusion is however a huge problem. Tiamuttalk 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Its also a slanderous lie given that Latuff is the author of this cartoon:
    Tiamut, I am afraid you cannot understand how offended it is to compare Jews to nazis. [BLP violation redacted,  Sandstein  00:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)] He did not even bother to say "racist Israelis" he just said "racist Jews".--Mbz1 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite sure its as offensive as someone comparing Palestinians to al-Qaeda (which happens all the time and I manage to deal with it). Wikipedia is not censored, Mbz1. However, Latuff is not an anti-Semite or a Holocaust denier and saying so without attributing that to a reliable source that says so explicitly is a BLP violation. Using EU definitions of anti-Semitism and a source that discussed Latuff's work within the context of Holocaust denial (without ever explicitly describing it as such) is WP:SYNTH and is not enough to make the conclusions you and others are trying to make on his article page. Tiamuttalk 22:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never compared Palestinians to al-Qaeda, and I never will. I will never compare all Palestinians to hamas either. If you call Simon Wiesenthal Center and European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights not reliable sources I am not sure what is a reliable source for you. I agree that Wikipedia in not censored, but, if it is non censored to host anti-Semitic propaganda of hate, it should be put to the right categories otherwise some could think that wikipedia is non censored only at one side. --Mbz1 (talk)
    Mbz1, I never said the Simon Wiesenthal Center or the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights were not reliable sources. What I said was that using those two sources to conclude what you are concluding about Latuff is WP:SYNTH and its a WP:BLP violation. Neither one of those sources says what you are saying about him. Tiamuttalk 22:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mbz1, I don't know an inch about the problems between Jews, Palestinians, Nazis or Israelis, but I don't find that this cartoon is calling racists to the Jews. I think when the author says "racist Jews" is saying "those Jews that are racists". The phrase "racist Jews" is ambiguous in this sense, but look at when the author says "AS WELL AS racists who deny human rights to Jews". So the cartoon is against racists, in particular those that are jews, in particular those that attack the Palestinians. Maybe the author, in general can be accused or classified in certain ways, but this cartoon doesn't seem to be a reason.  franklin  23:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again according to European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights its working definition for antisemitism drawing comparison of the contemporary Israeli policy to that of the nazis is an example in which antisemitism manifests itself. This cartoon is doing just that "drawing comparison of the contemporary Israeli policy to that of the nazis". Jews or rather Israelis do not attack Palestinians neither because they are Palestinians nor because they are Muslims. They do not attack Palestinians at all. They attack Palestinian terrorists. Call that "racism" is a racism on its own.--00:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    May I suggest we close this? NSH001 is warned and Mbz1 is blocked for the now-redacted BLP violation above. No further admin action seems to be required. This is not the place for general discussion about cartoons, antisemitism etc.  Sandstein  00:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Fernanoteroleono

    Resolved
     – Blocked by User:Blueboy96

    User:Fran Rogers has been adding incorrect information into two articles with a strong pro-transgender bias (see WP:NPOV). [17] and [18]. He is inserting information that says that men being attracted to men is heterosexual when, in fact, it is homosexual.[19] He then banned me twice for correcting those errors. He is also censoring discussion of his misdeeds, even going so far as to delete it from the page history. This is a very common tactic of corrupt administrators hoping to stay in power. He even created an edit filter to disallow criticism of himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernanoteroleono (talk • contribs) 03:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I was actually going to mention something about this, Fernanoteroleono (talk · contribs) has been creating a ton of re-re-redirects for some reason regarding this article, it seems disruptive. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit confused here. Are you trying to say you're a sock evading a block? I'm not sure if WP:DUCK or WP:FOOTS applies more here... --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    tagged most of them. Creating redirects with ', ", and whatnot won't help your cause. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, making these redirects will not prove the argument. Indefinite block right off the bat without a warning seems a bit harsh, but a week is warranted after a proper warning. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After Grawp any pagemove vandalism is a long-term block offense (since it's harder to reverse a move than an edit), especially when coupled with the breaching experimentation. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 03:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Chances are in this case the user will just get bored and not make any more accounts, but if they truly have an issue, an account ban isn't going to stop them from being disruptive. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I guess it's irrelevant. User was blocked by Blueboy96. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all. Say 'hi' to JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) .... again! - Alison ❤ 03:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ...I can't believe I mentioned him when we were discussing him. Now it makes a bit more sense - Fran Rogers has been going thru legal proceedings to get JarlaxleArtemis out of our hair, so it's only natural that he goes after her on a public page. —Jeremy (v0_0v Boribori!) 08:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh...Doesn't it get annoying to block and re-block the same person over and over again? I don't know the history of this person, maybe they can't be rehabilitated to the point where they can be a productive editor, but has anybody ever tried? Doc Quintana (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For your entertainment Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking, the only way to rehabilitate this type involves a chainsaw and several garbage bags... HalfShadow 04:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If rehabilitation or even the attempt at rehabilitation isn't possible, then you're right, it's best just to indef block, and revert without the drama. They'll come back and the cycle will continue, but the damage to the encyclopedia can be minimized, and that's the key thing. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This kid needs to find a girlfriend or something, jesus christ. Wiki is not World of Warcraft. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But seriously, would you wish him on any woman? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edited the section header to something more... appropriate. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was confused for a moment when that section header popped up on my watchlist as I thought that some editor was being bold. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bold. I changed it to something more fitting of how Administrators should purport themselves. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? If someone regularly does the same ridiculous trick, and ends up getting blocked each time, then why shouldn't we make the thread title slightly humorous in pointing this out. Nothing in the changed title was offensive (he wasn't called a troll or anything, just a sock ,which he obviously was). There is no reason why admins should be so extremely PC as you seem to prefer. Fram (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jazzeur/sandbox

    DASHBot keeps removing the fair use image from User:Jazzeur/sandbox, and User:Jazzeur keeps reverting it. I asked them how many times they were going to revert to include the fair use image in their User space, and they have not responded. Woogee (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted. It seems not only totally pointless to edit war with a bot, but it's also against WP:NFCC to have fair use images in userspace. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Jazzeur reverted DASHbot at 21:33 and 21:44, and removed the bot's talk page notice at 21:47, but hasn't edited since. Woogee posted their comment on Jazzeur's talk page at 21:53, and less than two hours later (23:25) posted this here, without checking to see if Jazzeur has been active or not. How about giving this person time to come back and start editing again and respond to the message? Coming here so soon hardly seems like the best course of action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article on which that image is FU is Down Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been tagged as unsourced since April 2008. It contains little other than laundry lists of the hall of fame inductees cited individually to the magazine's website. We do get the amazing and singular fact that this magazine rates things on a one to five scale (surely a unique feature, especially for a music magazine) but sadly this, too, lacks an independent source. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I always thought that a user could do all the testing that he wanted with a private Sandbox page. However, it appears that the Wikipedia ayatollahs have decided otherwise. So I will not revert such aggressions by DASHBot in the future.

    Concerning user Guy's editorial comment above, it is totally irrelevant to the incident being discussed here.

    Case closed.

    --Jazzeur (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think you have just violated Godwin's Law, in spirit if not in word. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    LoL @ Ayatollahs. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalistic renaming - cont'd

    Resolved
     – Changed to indef by Zzuuzz. Franamax (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal account details redacted - username may be mistaken for existing editor; details remain in history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalistic renaming of articles, like that one a day or two ago. Currently blocked for only 31 hours. Needs to be indef'd, as obviously vandalism-only. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Aha, I see that this relates to the Fernanoteroleono section above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved admin using their powers in a BLP dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Amber Agne is exactly right

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

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

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

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

    Now please be reasonable and do what Amber is asking. Durova412 19:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    She and you may be exactly right and I may just be dense. This is just the part I'm not comprehending. In this stalker situation how is it different for this roster to be published on the USCA site, easily accessed by google and to have that information duplicated here with no additional details. If I could see how this information wasn't already in the stalkers hands the second it hit the internet I'd eagerly hop to your side of the issue.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The BLP policy trumps the notability guideline. Obviously the notability guideline wasn't intended for situations where a national championship accepts walk-in registrations. BLP has clear relevance here. Anyone who wants to know specifics about the actual BLP/stalking problem needs to inquire by email; those details will not be forthcoming onsite for obvious reasons. Durova412 19:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I don't buy the beans for this reason. You type any of those names and curling together and the USCA site comes up. Game over for the stalker. Now we can talk about the value of the information, but the safety issue makes no sense. The stalker already knows the info before it was coppied to wikipedia. If we were talking about information that wasn't already press released on the web I'm on your side. If someone added home adresses and phone numbers I'm on your side. But once the USCA released the names publically they're public no matter if they're in the article or not. I really don't care if the names are there or not because without ANI I'd never have ever wandered to that article. I just think there's no logic in thinking it was all fine untill the info ended up here.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Add me to list of dense people right after to Cube lurker: I still don't see the problem here. Not only is the information available elsewhere in the Internet (as well as in newspapers, periodicals, etc.), but I don't see how this tells anyone where a given person will be in the future. If this event hasn't happened yet, then providing the names of any participants is looking into a crystal ball & making predictions -- it shouldn't appear, period. If it has happened in the past, then just because someone was a sports meet in Frostbite Falls, Minnesota or South Succotash, Indiana last week does not provide necessarily useful information where she or he will be next week. (Unless the given stalker is so well informed about the person that they can make accurate predictions with that information -- in which case, Wikipedia still can't help matters by suppressing information.) Invoking BLP or complaining about stalkers here only makes the matter more murky, it does not help any of us to agree to a solution. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Three times is the charm: if you don't already see the problem, email and ask. It's about real stalking; it's sensitive and can't be discussed onsite. Closure of this thread may consider all responses that disregard this invitation as invalid by default. Durova412 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Checked the inbox: zero inquiries. Durova412 19:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC) This needs trout.[reply]
    Something's come up and I'll be afk for an hour or more. Durova412 19:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cube/Llywrch, to answer your question, I think the claimed difference is, if you Google the names without including "curling", the fact that Wikipedia ranks so highly in Google brings these pages to the fore. Otherwise, the USCA pages are buried a few pages back. Now, I actually agree that it seems far-fetched that anyone is being stalked IRL, but their stalker is relying solely on Wikipedia to gather info. But I'm sympathetic in this case to the fact that this is not like the National Championship of, say, figure skating, and these people have a reasonable expectation that their names aren't going to show up in a top-ten website, and they are suddenly the at the top of the Google list.

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

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

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

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

    Then leave the article as a stub until it has happened. After it has happened, discuss who should be mentioned in the article. End of problem, no need to invoke WP:BLP or to send Durova an email -- & I couldn't do the latter since I was out shopping at the grocery store until ten minutes ago. (And I'm tempted to stubbify the article then protect it until the Championship has taken place, just to solve this problem without giving the BLP fanatics a precedent to steamroll over everyone else in future cases.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, fine with me. (You seem to think I've played some part in this dispute -- all I've done is read about it here an hour ago. I'm not remotely a BLP fanatic, but in this case I think people are going much too far in the other direction.) Propaniac (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Propaniac: my comment was addressed to the general readership, not to you. I'm just grouchy because people are treating WP:BLP as a magic passkey which will allow them to do whatever they want to a given article. Had Agne, Durova & everyone else concerned about this person's privacy mentioned that simple fact -- this event has not happened yet -- long before you did (instead of shouting "BLP! BLP!"), the most likely reaction they'd get to removing names from this article would have been a disinterested shrug & a murmur of consent. (Even if there wasn't a stalker involved, I think it's overkill to put the names of every player who will be involved in a future event like this; speaking as an inclusionist, there are times some of my fellow inclusionists go too far.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We do sometimes leave out information that may harm an individual's privacy, though this decision is done on a case-by-case basis. The classic example is Star Wars Kid (specifically Talk:Star Wars Kid#Why Not Named, where the real name of the subject is avoided in the article even though it is mentioned in the first source used in the article. -- Atama頭 20:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Checklist

    A simple three step checklist would solve this situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So far nobody has emailed me, which means either people are convinced or they're cycling through the checklist. ;) Durova412 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree with durova in this instance. Some common sense needs to prevail. This person is all but barely notable and is in my eyes inhereted purely from her playing once in the nationals not that she is a notable athlete herself. On top of this she has harrassment concerns. Lets stop playing games and take this RL issue seriously. There is no need for the list to exist. Remove and move along please people. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 23:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, common sense dictates that somebody should have mentioned that this is an event in the future which, as Agne27 points out, is not as notable as other "National"-level events, & that someone is trying to add a complete list of all of the people who might play in it. Wikipedia does not predict events, nor should Wikipedia try to cover every notable event exhaustively. (Quick -- what happened 28 hours & 25 minutes into the 1968 Democratic Party National Convention? Okay then, can you recite more than 10 people who were delegates to that convention? If your answer to both questions is no, then why should we list everyone who has signed up for this curling championship meet?) What Durova is not considering by using the BLP argument is, at best, she is creating another divisive issue for Wikipedians which will lead to the frustration & WikiDrama that attended the Free Image/Fair Use conflict not so long ago; at worst, BLP is being strengthened into a tool which will be wielded by public relations flacks to sanitize articles about unethical, if not criminal, individuals. If people continue to cut-&-paste slabs from the "BLP" policy to force edits they advcate, I will start replying with "But think of the children! We must remove all of that bad material from Wikiepdia!" -- llywrch (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposal aims to help real world stalking victims on a no questions asked basis and it's as simple as that. Llyrwich has made no attempt to substantiate his wild speculations. Please withdraw the scurrilous personal attack. Durova412 01:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As a close to my twisted path in this discussion let me back away with this. I've probably repeated too many times the arguments that I have trouble with. That said I have gotten a tad sidetracked because when it comes down to it I'm not really bothered if this page doesn't have every member of every team listed. I can't speak for others, but to quote Frank Pentangeli I want everyone here to know -- there's not gonna be no trouble from me!--Cube lurker (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You do know Merridew's Law, right?
    Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (who did not coin it;)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Background refresher

    For ease of reference, I'm reposting the section of this AN thread in which I outline the connections between Benjiboi, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, and gay porn studios:

    "Outside of how this manifests itself on WP, I truly do not care about Benjiboi's sexuality, what they do for a living, how many pseudonyms they use, who they know, or what porn interests them. Let's look at some of the facts:
    I will be the first to admit that this simply shows a web of connections between the Benjiboi/SPI and various gay porn companies and isn't necessarily indicative of a conflict of interest. Many editors believe that we should judge editors' contributions rather than any potential COI (or payment for editing). I hope those editors will take a look at the Benjiboi's edits to List of male performers in gay porn films and judge for themselves."

    (end of quoted material) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow that took less than two hours for you to post a repeated attempting outing et al. Would you mind giving the full background of your efforts to harass me including confirming /denying your offsite discussion of myself and my editing. specifically any involvement at Wikipedia Review. I think that would be much more informative than yet another round of baiting. Also for the record I have repeatedly asked Delicious carbuncle to leave me alone but they seem extremely interested in following me around and their only interest in this entire list seems tied to their devotion to following me around. The only place I really see them working is areas I'm already active in so I have generally been fine ignoring them when they don't edit in gay porn areas but would feel the same in all LGBT areas. They seem terribly interested in just deleting content and causing problems. Here they are repeating the same personal information to try to imply I have some vested interest in promoting this subject area or any of these people. I don't and this latest posting after it has utterly failed the last few times they also posted it would seem they simply have an ax to grind and are on a fishing trip. -- Banjeboi 01:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion war: Please stop this

    Resolved
     – RfC under preparation, a much more productive step in dispute resolution. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To whom it may concern:

    It is obvious at this point that Verbal is engaged in a contentious deletion campaign against outlines, in which he is trying to circumnavigate Wikipedia's accepted deletion discussion venue (WP:AfD).

    He tried to redirect Outline of Indonesia which has the same effect as deletion.

    Previously, he renamed Outline of geography to List of basic geography topics and stripped it of formatting that matched the formatting in the rest of the outlines. Then a few days ago, he redirected the outline link ("Outline of geography") to the non-outline page Geography. So the outline link, which is embedded into the overall OOK's structure, no longer led to the corresponding outline content. That is, he purposely made a major branch of the OOK's tree structure disappear. That's vandalism.

    He blanked Outline of England with a copyvio template.

    His most annoying tactic so far is to rename outlines to an earlier name, and then remove the formatting common to the set of outlines, genericizing them. The latter wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't any opposition, but there is - yet he keeps on doing it anyways. Outline of life extension is a recent example. See also Outline of culture and Outline of poetry.

    Verbal, if you don't like outlines, then nominate them for deletion. Quit trying to delete them by unacceptable methods, and please stop trying to convert them to non-outlines. I oppose your whole anti-outline edit warring campaign, and your systematic efforts to disrupt the WP:OOK and the stand-alone outlines that comprise it.

    I originally posted this notice on Verbal's talk page, but he deleted it rather than reply to it. As he is unwilling to address these concerns (the various methods he has been using), I see no other recourse than to post the issue of his behavior here for wider discussion.

    The Transhumanist    20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved from AN –xenotalk 20:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's another side to this story that should be carefully reviewed before any adminstrative actions are taken. A strong case can be made that every "outline" of something is merely a mistitled list that is being esparanzaed into mainspace. Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, isn't AfD the place for their value to be decided, not by subterfuge (if that's what's happening)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An interesting argument. I think a careful review of previous outline AFDs will show the obvious failures of AFD to deal with this issue. Hipocrite (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I have, perhaps a half-dozen or more times, suggested an RFC on outlines. Was there ever one? –xenotalk 21:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea. Has Verbal been notified of this thread by TT? Hipocrite (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done the needful. –xenotalk 21:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there was not. The draft at User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft never appears to have been advertised or taken live. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear gods, why not? –xenotalk 21:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the worst things about this User Verbal is the demeaning uncivil way he removes good faith comments from his talkpage with comments such as he used here, nonsense, he has left the reporter no option apart from to seek discussion of the issue elsewhere. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewing what was placed on Verbal's talk page - it was a direct, word for word copy of the initial complaint. I don't believe talk pages are designed to host "To whom it may concern:" requests written with the subject of the talk page in the third person. Talk pages are designed to communicate with the individual editor of the talk page, not to petition his TPW's to get him to stop doing something. Perhaps Verbal could have been more diplomatic, but I'm not sure how any of us would react to someone reverting our good faith edits as vandalism dropping something like that on our talk pages. Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would support the creation of a neutral RfC on Outlines (specifically), as I have requested several times. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I support the existance of outlines, but I agree that an RfC is necessary to clear this up. Highfields (talk, contribs) 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not fmailiar with the specifics of this, and given the way these things go not expecting anything much to come of it, but there has definately been an unfortunate trend amongst some editors to finding ways to delete articles without properly bringing them to Afd.

    Given that the articles existance has been put into doubt one solution may be to simply put it up for AfD yourself and see how it pans out. The attention from univolved editors tends to fo a lot of good and in the event of a keep result you have a very strong case for defending the article. Artw (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I highly advise against that. Nominating articles for AFD such that you can get "keep" results is a waste of other's time, and a violation of WP:POINT. If you don't want something deleted but are worried it will be, you can watchlist it's nonexistant AFD page. Hipocrite (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's cutting to the chase. AfD is basically Wikipedia as it should be, in that it's at least half way community based rather than working via the machinations of shadowy apparatchniks. AN/I is certainly so rabidly deletionist that I wouldn't expect much good to come from a discussion here.
    But possibly i am having a day of low faith in admins. Artw (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hipocrite, if I'm not mistaken, Artw was addressing Verbal, who apparently wishes "delete" votes. Artw is right, AfD is precisely where Verbal should take the issue. Nobody has yet to nominate the entire collection of outlines for deletion. If someone wants to get rid of outlines, as a whole, AfD is the place to do it. AfD'ing the whole lot would attract a great many participants. Discussions elsewhere about outlines, including those at the Village Pump have gone nowhere because they only attracted a handful of people, not enough to establish community consensus on such a large and centrally placed component of Wikipedia. The Transhumanist    21:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no, I was not addressing Verbal. It is my opinion that if someone is trying to delete something while avoiding AfD at all costs then AfD is a valid place to take it, leaving your own vote as neutral and giving the doubts about the article expressed as a reason.
    It should not be so, but it is so. Artw (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (Conversely, if I were a user trying to get something deleted on the quiet then AfD would be the last place I'd go. But the series of techniques that would be used there is something that no one is going to discuss. Artw (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

    The admin User:Karanacs is working with us (anyone interested) to slowly develop that RfC into an acceptable state. Please direct comments on an Outline RfC to User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft. If we could have more discussion, and less agitation-for-immediate-action, that would be great. Neither Transhumanist nor Verbal are being particularly helpful for moving things forward, in a positive manner, currently. Wet flapping Trouts for both - nothing else to see/do here. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Regardless of the topic of the case, it should be clearly articulate that "sneaky" deletion through the process of iterated content excision, renaming, and redirection (in any order) is reprehensible. It's not WP:BOLD. BOLD is deleting a ton of outlines, a la the recent fiasco with BLPs. Acting "under the radar" to reshape Wikipedia through minor, seemingly innocuous changes, is not collaborative or collegial. Underhandedness is not appropriate and should be roundly rebuked by the community even (or perhaps especially) if the advocated position is eventually established as consensus. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DBaba

    DBaba (talk · contribs) is again pushing his POV at Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, and disregards my objections stated at length on the talk page. He has admitted in clear words to having a POV against Goldstein in [21] and [22]. I have recommended him to refrain from editing this article because of that. [23] He states himself that he insists on editing against my reasonable objections. [24] In the past he has accused me of being racist here on wp:ani [25] I see no option but to ban this user from this specific article, because in contrast to other editors involved, he does not care for consensus seeking. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Debresser has been obstructing progress at that page. I have tried to reason with him. It is not my intention to edit war, I only thought that, if treated with cool reason and legitimate edits, he would let it go. His interest in the page stems from his association with the Chabad movement, which has often sympathized with the motive of the killer in question, and proffered revisionist historical views in defense of the massacre;[26] Debresser has stated in the past that his role of rabbi in the movement gives him a "POV towards Chabad".[27] I think his edits bear this out quite clearly. The intensity of his emotional involvement with the page his caused him in some cases to misread edits and difs and statements by me, including some he is referencing here (e.g., I "admitted in clear words to having a POV").
    I didn't quite call him a racist, despite his introducing sources associated with the racist Kach party ([28] see hyperlinks on page of that ref), and his suggestion that I must be an Arab.[29] It is a damned tragedy, Wikipedia's treatment of these murders, and the shame of it is that Debresser is only the most prominent obstacle to doing justice to the events...
    We do need help. Thanks, DBaba (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why DBaba hammers on about my "association with the Chabad movement" I have no idea. I find that quite discriminatory. My religion has nothing to do with this. I demand action against this discriminatory editor.
    I have not suggested that DBaba is Arab. I have asked him. It would be a possible explanation for his strong POV.
    DBaba's edits are POV and disregard reasonable objections presently under discussion on the talk page. That is called edit warring and POV pushing. In view of this I see no other option but to (temporarily) ban this editor from this article. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He has "no idea", I must just be discriminatory. DBaba (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser, your diffs do not support your accusations that DBaba has "admitted in clear words to having a POV"; very much the opposite. I see DBaba appealing to sources and asking that the text accurately reflect the sources. It reflects very poorly on you to yet again dig up that old ANI thread where DBaba called you an "ethnonationalist". He apologized, and you accepted. For you to bring that up again shows that you hold grudges and can't let things go, and want to stir the pot. I very strongly suggest you drop this. Also, if you insist that DBaba would have a strong POV because he is an Arab, you're just giving strength to the idea that you might be a racist, so I'd suggest dropping that line of reasoning as well.
    As to DBaba, the Chabad Movement arbitration ended with no proposed remedies, and nothing actionable; in essence it was a non-issue. Bringing that up to paint editors in a poor light is counter-productive, it's like calling someone a criminal for going to trial when a judge dismissed the case as having no merit. -- Atama頭 18:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you don't see DBaba's POV in the diffs I provided I shall quote (from those same diffs): 1. And as far as "putting Goldstein in a bad light", well, wow, I guess I did not know there was a neutral alternative. 2. it is important to articulate vividly this difference, as many extremists, including some affiliated with your own Chabad movement, have promoted and held sympathetic views of the killer. Which implies that DBaba sees it as imperative to prevent readers from forming a positive opinion about Goldstein. BTW, the reference to Chabad is unsourced and was made only to insinuate I have a POV myself.
    As to my grudge. I was only showing you a pattern of POV and agressive/discriminatory edits by DBaba, without implying any personal grudge. It is precisely this which I come to show here, and therefore the link to that old discussion was relevant. In addition, technically, although he appologised initially, he continued later in the same discussion with other insulting remarks in the same vein. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OFFER unblock request of MyMoloboaccount

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Oppose unblock:
      • Molobo (talk · contribs) aka MyMoloboaccount has been disruptive ever since he created an account in 2005 (block log, [30])
      • He was blocked for socking after he was conditionally unblocked from his second indef ban (see table above). This already was the n-th "last chance".
      • After he was blocked for socking, he continued to be one of the most active members of the EEML (Wikipedia:EEML#List_membership, WP:EEML/Evidence). Since I was the one who initiated the SPI that led to his last block, I was one of the targets of these activities, e.g. this attack Molobo initiated against me just after his block. His participation in the arbcom case showed no sign of acknowledgement of fault. To the contrary, he used his condidtional unblock during this case to sling as much mud as possible, particularily in my direction (see here). The case only closed in late December, and his participation there does not indicate any willingness to change his behavior. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to what I wrote above: second chances are fine and all, but with a user who was banned not just for sock-puppetry, but for persistent POV-related poor behaviour, with a block log as long as my arm stretching over several years [31], a "standard offer" of return should never work on the basis of a mechanical "has been quiet for so many months" basis. Instead, what we need from him is a firm commitment demonstrating understanding of the root causes of this disruption in his own attitude to the underlying content issues, and how he intends to approach these content issues differently from now on. If he can't make such a commitment, then all superficial "no more socking" or "no editwarring" or "no incivility" promises are worthless. – A second thing, if I'm not mistaken, when he was blocked for sockpuppetry last year he kept vigorously defending his innocence, and the dispute over the proof of his socking or lack thereof was causing quite a significant amount of meta-disrution. He now says he hasn't been socking "since last May". Does that mean he finally admits he in fact was socking back then? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that some kind of mentorship + articulation on intended good behavior is needed. I also think that WP:OFFER, from reading what it says, was actually specifically designed for cases like these, where you got a problematic user who at the same time CAN make positive contributions (which is where the mentorship comes in).radek (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request to uninvolved eyes - then consider this case take in mind this:
      • user's in question record breaking block log;
      • fact that user in question was already placed for indef ban for two times and only was saved by well know buddies of his.
      • fact that during his SPI case he denied being sock master, however now it seems that he admits it. Therefore conclusion can be drawn that he deliberately mislead community during SPI investigation back then.
      • that the most "proficient" defender of this user on this newest ANI thread, not only has historic ties per WP:EEML, but seemingly violates ban imposed on him by Arbitration as well. M.K. (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment On the face of it, I would be inclined to support the request (subject to someone mentoring them), as per AGF. However, although the unblock requests says that MyMoloboaccount will not sockpuppet any more, I note that MyMoloboaccount does not mention the editing restrictions, and I would be unwilling to support the request without MyMoloboaccount specifically mentioning these and confirming that they will keep to them, and that any further disgressions would result in an indefinite block, with no further "chances". -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF is fine as long as there is no evidence to the contrary. Molobo kept on editing throughout his block, via his EEML proxies. The last such proxy edit was in December, just moments before his EEML proxies got restricted [32] (eg Radeksz, who is participating in this thread and did some of the proxying for Molobo before he got topic-banned). It seems odd to restrict the proxies and unblock the one who ordered the proxy edits. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks like a reasonable application of the standard offer. Any editing restrictions that would otherwise be in place upon the Molobo account should be restored. Possibly new restrictions should be crafted as an alternative to mentorship, since it appears that no mentor is available. Durova412 17:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to the editing restrictions, MyMoloboaccount sent the following email through Wikipedia to me:
    If you mean the Revert restriction and civility restriction, then I am fine with them being in place. I didn't mention them since they were not the reason for block and therefore not a issue in unblock. But I assumed they will remain in place.
    I am going to leave a message on their talk page asking Mymoloboaccount to confirm this there. However, subject to mentorship and/or further editing restrictions, I feel that this would be a reasonable use of the standard offer. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Mymoloboaccount has confirmed this statement here -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I remain unconvinced, and I am asking myself where this whole talk of a "standard" offer comes from anyway. How did people conceive of this notion that people get a routine get-out-of-jail card for simply "no more socking"? No more socking is the minimum requirement for not having one's block extended to indef, and nothing more. Any reasonable "standard offer" must include an editor addressing the root causes of what got them sanctioned. The root cause here was POV-pushing, and I'm not seeing any statement from Molobo indicating that he will be editing in a substantially different manner than before. Shockingly, I'm not even seeing anybody asking him about that. Revert limitations and civility paroles are just superficial make-up designed to contain a fundamentally disruptive editing disposition. What we need in such cases is something different; it is a fundamental change of stance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Step 2 of WP:OFFER is "Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban." The standard offer isn't just "no more socking", that's only the first step. If the editor doesn't address the root cause of what got them sanctioned then they aren't honoring the provisions of the standard offer and it's rendered moot. -- Atama頭 21:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick review please

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

    • Good block. —DoRD (?) (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was involved in some discussion with this user on this users talkpage. Please feel free to review if you wish. My feeling is this user was given a double helping of WP:AGF but showed no editing to make me think he had any real intentions of editing productively.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree this was a good block. Rlendog (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Spamming

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

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

    User:Fatherofnew01

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

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

    Appears to be a Legal Threat, but isn't

    Resolved
     – Not a legal threat - direct user to OTRS. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi All. Kalindria (talk · contribs) posted this on my talk page, informing me that they were discussing with their legal counsel and marketing VP, and requesting that the page they created (and now deleted as an advert), Reverse 911, be salted. I'm not sure how to react, so I'd like to ask for input/help from the community. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 01:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He's just asking for info. Direct him to WP:OTRS, they're set up to deal with these kinds of things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's no legal threat. Similarly, if someone writes "I don't know if the treatment for swine flu is chicken soup, I'll ask my doctor". That is not a medical threat.
    If the request is granted, it should be for a fixed period. We don't know in 2 years if Reverse 911 will become a generic term or one that has many reliable sources. At one time, Microsoft was just a tiny and unknown company and would rightly be declared as a spam page. This is no longer true. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:R12056

    Despite many messages regarding this on their talk page last night, R12056 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making bizarre protection requests again. His last three protection requests have been to fully protect pages that are already protected. O Fenian (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned user. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Something smells odd here. This was an intermittently active account that suddenly resurfaced after 4-5 months of inactivity to request rollback rights and start requesting a large number of page protections and deletions, seemingly without much grasp of protocol and/or policy. Worth keeping an eye on. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 03:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Informed R12056 about this thread. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 03:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did that already, he blanked his talk page after. O Fenian (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    His latest trick is giving a templated unsourced warning to an editor who has not edited for two years. O Fenian (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not new, yesterday they reported Diligent Terrier Bot (talk · contribs) (which hasn't edited in a couple of years) to AIV. —DoRD (?) (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough of this silliness, blocked user for 48 hours caknuck ° needs to be running more often 03:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If this bizarre pattern resumes after the block expires, I'd seriously consider an indef here. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 03:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps revoking his twinkle access may slow down future incidents from happening? Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

    Having reviewed this editor's recent edits, I think revoking Twinkle/Friendly is an excellent idea. I suspect they have taking some of their unhlepful actions just because the automated tools make it easy for them to do it. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've opened a quick SPI on him as I have suspicion that he is another editor. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Block - indef if disruption continues. Rklawton (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block - indef, if the user ignores all our attempts to stop his disruption, and continues after block expiration. Does anyone think this could be a sockpuppet? Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block - Indefinitely, as obvious troll or possibly compromised account. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, based on the stupid undo autoblock request on his talk page, he's using an IP address from AOL. Who do we all know trolls and vandalizes from AOL? Speaking of that, what ever came of the AOL rangeblock discussion? It seems to have vanished. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR and Insertion of inappropriate POV material in lede of BLP Joseph Massad

    I am requesting Administrator assistance regarding edit-warring, aggressive inappropriate editing and refusal to engage in discussion by Plot Spoiler. Briefly, certain editors have attempted to insert inflammatory POV material into the lede of the BLP Joseph Massad. I should note that the incident to which this material refers is discussed at length within the article, but myself and another editor strongly believe that caution and conservatism in writing BLP means it does NOT belong in the lede. The reasoning is laid out on the talk page -- although despite several invitations to participate Plot Spoiler has adamantly refused to contribute to the discussion.

    The relevant section of the talk page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Massad#Discussion_regarding_insertion_of_.22Columbia_Unbecoming.22_material_in_lede

    And Plot Spoiler's revert history here:

    User:Plot Spoiler reported by Tirpse77 (talk) (Result: )

    Joseph Massad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 17:51, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 345583606 by Tirpse77 (talk) Why is this irrelevant POV info?")
    2. 22:08, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 345738143 by Tirpse77 (talk) Sorry, there was no consensus. You and another editor argue one way, others argue differently.")
    3. 03:15, 23 February 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nhoad; That's the purpose the lead -- to rehash info in the article. And substantiate what claims?. (TW)")

    —Tirpse77 (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't an issue for AN/I; it's one for RfC. Rklawton (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a message for Plot Spoiler an hour ago asking her/him to stop reverting and join the discussion on the article's Talk page. Tirpse77 neglected to notify Plot Spoiler about this discussion. I'll take care of it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Rklawton. Editors on both sides of this issue have behaved imperfectly, but both sides appear to hold their positions in good faith. A content RFC is probably the way forward, and ANI is definitely not. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue will be resolved. I don't want this to devolve into edit warring. AND I didn't violate 3RR because I didn't make more than 3 reverts so I REALLY don't appreciate this being taken to the board and I think that the individual that is attempting to sanction me should be warned about making false claims. We will resolve this peaceably. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disturbing edits

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

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

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

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

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

    User:68.19.160.34

    Resolved
     – Blocked 31 hrs by Materialscientist -- 7  06:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    68.19.160.34 (talk · contribs)'s vandalism has been on WP:AIV for almost two hours now. Could somebody please block? Woogee (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    check user backed up

    Checkuser/SPI seems to be getting backed up. I tried poking one CU who I thought was online but got no response from them. Anyone know if there is a way to poke the team and get someone to attend to it?--Crossmr (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be the functionaries-en mailing list. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've sent a message. I've never sent one to one of those lists before, so hopefully it works.--Crossmr (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    New account vandalizing

    New account by Special:Contributions/Smoovce has just been vandalizing articles since 05:06 and revert warring. He is up to 6 now.Megistias (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So why no warnings? Is this a special case? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I put this, ani warning, talk. Megistias (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a warning, that's a notification. See the requirements and processes at WP:AIV (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so this is a warning? diffMegistias (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's a warning -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given the editor a welcome and some advice re edit warring. Mjroots (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    quick short block

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

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

    User:AJona1992 and Selena discography

    Over the last several days, this editor has been attempting to force a non-free image to depict Selena onto this discography. I attempted to discuss the matter with him, raised the issue at the article's talk page, to naught. Today, he finally started talking with me, a discussion that had been going on well enough at User_talk:Hammersoft. Then, in the middle of the conversation, he decided to revert yet again and push the image back onto the article [34].

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

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

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

    User Off2riorob

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

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

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

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

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

    persistent POV at 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa

    I am currently involved in a content dispute with a Portuguese editor(possible multiple) on 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa. The editor started off by dramatizing the events to focus on Portuguese "bravery" as an annon and now has one (maybe two) accounts:User:Goali and User:Olivença. Most of the user's claims have been unverifiable and he insists on mainitainig the number of Portuguese v/s Indian troops as 3300 v/s 45,000(more likely 30-35,000). Doesn't seem happy since I pointed to a Portuguese source that puts the number of troops at 4500 with a citation. Has reverted my edits claiming that the source doesn't cite the numbers[35],[36] while I have clearly mentioned it on the talk page [37]. Editor has now carried over his POV to other related articles: [38] and [39]. Im at my wits end.Im tired of this, please help --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is sooo not worth the time.

    This kind of activity is what drives any sane person away.[40][41][42][43]. Wholesale revert, deletion and silence. That the well referenced and supported text could be improved is not even in the same universe as making every character printed vanish from the article entirely.99.141.249.226 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh. What a surprise.[44] _99.141.249.226 (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is there no discussion of this on the talk page? –xenotalk 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a range-blocked IP user 99.1xx (see SPI case and ANI report) back to his usual tricks. Re-blocking the IP is the best solution, but the 3-month durations seem a little light. Now he's flaunting the 3RR as an act of "civil disobedience?" Xenophrenic (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 24 before I saw this. Feel free to increase. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Comment : I did not find this to be controversial at all and did not expect ANY controversial responses. So, if I was involved in such a debate, it was purely on an accidental basis. I also forgot about my pledge, and was not aware that it was still binding after over a year without problems. I think most Jews on Wikipedia should not consider me as their enemy, and should also peacefully acknowledge that there have been abuse problems in the Jewish community, just like in the Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a particularly compelling defense. Indef block reinstated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    71.196.72.160

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

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

    Note: rights alteration

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

    Rollback can be removed at any time. Using it to remove copyvio warnings on your talk page seems like as good a time as any :) No problems here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised you only blocked for 24 hours, but I suppose that's your call. As for the rights removal: I'm not so sure on the revocation of rollback. On the one hand, what you say is true; on the other, removing things from your talk page for any reason is generally considered acceptable. But considering that he was using rollback to try to hide copyvio concerns, I suppose it is fair to remove it in this circumstance. NW (Talk) 23:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Haida Chieftan's socks

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

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

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

    (Mysteriously?) Deleted User:Praxidikai

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

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

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

    User ShortstopVM and the case of the serial uploading

    Could an admin have a word with

    Rayden Alto
    Born
    Rayden Tucker Hale
    OccupationJournalism student
    SpouseDerek Alto (2010- )

    Rayden Tucker Alto (born March 21, 1990) is an American college student.

    Life

    Hale was born in New Orleans, Louisiana to Angelina, a interior designer and Mark, a physical therapist. She has two younger twin sisters, Aria and Abele (born September 3, 1993). Both of her parents are of Italian descent and she is also Russian, French and German, and she was raised Jewish.

    She currently attends Metropolitan State College of Denver, majoring in broadcast journalism, and she hopes to someday work for ESPN as a baseball analyst.

    Other things

    Hale is an avid baseball fan, rooting for the Philadelphia Phillies (her favorite players are Jimmy Rollins, Carlos Ruiz, and Jayson Werth), and also enjoys watching football, and is a fan of the New Orleans Saints.

    Hale married Derek Alto, who is in the United States Army, on July 17, 2010.

    During her years in high school, she was a football and wrestling cheerleader, along with two of her best friends: Thenessa Harmon and Abagail Redd. During her senior year, the football team's Coach Geist won his 100th victory with their football team, and was treated to a small party with the football players, the cheerleaders, and also all the coaches.

    Hale graduated from high school in 2008, having accomplished much in both academic and extra-curricular achievements. In addition to cheerleading, Hale also played softball in her sophmore year, and was a member of S.A.D.D (Students Against Destructive Decisions), T.A.T (Teens Against Tobacco) and was one of the yearbook writers.

    She has a wide variety of bands that she enjoys listening to, including, but not limited to: Bloodhound Gang, cKy, Dropkick Murphys, Aerosmith, Cage the Elephant, Citizen Cope, Jimmy Eat World, Phoenix, and Shiny Toy Guns. Some of her favorite television shows are: Bones, Cold Case, NCIS/NCIS: Los Angeles, How I Met Your Mother, The Big Bang Theory, Two and a Half Men, Heroes, Greek, House, and CSI: New York.

    She also enjoys watching the Olympics (both summer and winter) and has stated that some of her favorite US Olympians are: Michael Phelps, Shawn Johnson, Nastia Liukin, JR Celski, Apolo Ohno, Shaun White, Julia Mancuso and Lindsey Vonn.

    Userboxes

    Hale has recently discovered the wonders of userboxes, and has become quite addicted to them.

    Oh no: this user has way too many userboxes.


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

    Done. This is Morton's fork: either COI or image policy violations. And creepy too if you really want my opinion. And it could be COI and image policy violations and creepy, in which case someone should win a prize. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and his disrespectul comments

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=346004743"