Taxus Baccata

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 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]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Delicious carbunkle's outing above, he should be blocked until he learns that deleting articles because you hate gays is not appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.185.1 (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Lest anyone take this trolling seriously, let me make it clear - although this concerns gay porn performers, it has nothing to do with the sexuality of the editors or the subjects of the articles. It has to do with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on biographies of living persons, sources, and external links. There is also some fairly overt promotional activity on behalf of certain gay porn studios and performers which muddies the waters a bit, but that is not the issue under discussion here. The concerns and actions that I have presented here and on the talk page of the main list are based on violations of Wikipedia's norms. My feelings about gays are irrelevant. Having said that, I am not homophobic nor do I "hate gays", but it's nice to have the charges clearly stated for a change. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has assembled an extensive list of off-wiki sources in order to reveal unnecessary information about the sexual orientation and personal life of another editor which has not been revealed (or linked to) by that editor on Wikipedia. This appears to be the result of obsessive stalking and a deliberate and unambiguous violation of OUTING. That this information was posted by Delicious carbuncle in a previous ANI thread does not stop it being a policy violation in this thread. This information should be removed from this notice board edit history with follow-up removal in the earlier archived thread and appropriate action taken to ensure Delicious carbuncle recognizes such disruptive editing and personal attacks are unacceptable behaviour. Ash (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What rubbish. Benjiboi has a conflict of interest with the gay porn industry. He created two autobiographys about himself on wikipedia that made his identity clear as well as exposing his extensive business and personal ties to the porn industry. He's also a political activist who seeks to use wikipedia to further his agenda. That wikipedia tolerates all this is disheartening, but par for the course. But if you think you're going to convince many people that it's "outing" (what a good choice of words given benji's activism) well, good luck.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be repeating these claims unnecessarily. This information is not posted on the editor's user pages or elsewhere on Wikipedia. I am have no intention of convincing anyone of anything, I am not making a case for a defence here. COI was not demonstrated (or claimed) in the previous thread or this one. If you wish to make allegations against another editor then follow the normal dispute resolution processes. Making unfounded claims of COI amounts to a personal attack. Ash (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fact that benjiboi made his glaring conflict of interest and personal identity known through his own activities on wikipedia is inconvenient for him, but not something that can be swept under the rug with false claims of outing, stalking, harrasment, homophobia, etc... (though i understand these tactics often work). As long as we're here, Ash: What is your connection to the porn industry?Bali ultimate (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are attempting to make a personal attack against me, I suggest that you try it somewhere other than on the Administrator's Noticeboard. If you have some evidence, then create a new thread or follow one of the dispute resolution processes and make the claims formally. Ash (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me: If I was trying to personally attack you, you'd know it. In fact, I'm asking a reasonable question. Most of your content creation appears to be pr-like articles on minor porn figures that don't pass the general notability guidelines but do seem to pass Wikiproject:Porn Marketting's special guideline. So the question is, why are you doing this? The most plausible supposition is that you have a connection to the porn industry. Do you?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a reasonable question as there is no evidence to suggest I have a COI. Selecting my contributions over the last couple of weeks and ignoring my edits over the previous 3+ years is not indicative. Characterizing the PORNBIO guidelines as "Wikiproject:Porn Marketting" is inflammatory. You are off-topic and repeated accusations of this sort will be treated as harassment in an attempt to stop me from contributing to this genre of article which, according to your user page, you have a clear bias against. If you wish make a claim that I have a COI then follow one of the dispute resolution processes. Ash (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah i have no evidence. Well, i have the evidence of your behavior and I ask the question. Your response? To accuse me of harrassment and personal attacks and refuse to address the question. Over and out.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I believe Ash's interest in this topic area is purely personal and it is unfair to insinuate that they have a conflict of interest simply beacause they are editing gay porn performer BLPs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Please see this ANI thread which is contemporaneous with the posting of the information that Ash has "temporarily" hidden. Short version - I was blocked, everyone had a good talk, decided it was not outing, and I was unblocked. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point remains the same. You even admit that you are weaving together a flimsy web and by all accounts it amounts to nothing but yet another attempt to out another editor needlessly. Why? Because you have only COI accusations to work with when policy and consensus don't go your preferred way. It's tiring and disruptive and Ash and I are simply the latest targets of your personal vendetta parade. You obviously seek attention or drama. I don't know which and I don't care. You escalate and drag one dramafest after the next to admin boards yet take no responsibility for actually causing the drama and disruption. Sorry but all your chest-bleating concern for BLPs rings quite hollow when you so willfully bite in to other editors and attack their character rather than actually working to collegially improve content. That myself and other editors who have been working in this area are actually working to improve the content despite your venom is a reason to see if those who actually know - or have bothered to research sourcing - more about it may actually be right. Instead you prefer to wikilawyer applying BLP to people who are dead; apply the same PORNBIO guideline to people when clearly it won't cover porn stars who worked before any awards were even created, etc. etc. No, this is simply the latest admin board thread to dismay, disrupt, disparage and otherwise overwhelm your opposition in a continuing battleground mentality that has no place on Wikipedia. You may feel some editors deserve your wrath, but Wikipedia does not operate on vengence. Wikipedia is not group therapy and other editors are not your personal punching bag. What you do on other websites is between you and your comrades but on this website WP:Civility remains a core pillar. -- Banjeboi 15:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Иван Богданов has just blanked User:Иван Богданов/Sandbox of information that he has had on it for around a month. I am extremely concerned about this blanked text. I did not want to alert the user of this and I did not know who to go to for a translation. Putting the text into google translate it looks like it may have been some sort of threatening attack page in Serbian, possibly even for use externally to wikipedia. I may be wrong but I think this needs attention. Polargeo (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the user since posting here of course [1]. Polargeo (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some highlights are that it includes an address (which is not good), some information about sexuality and some nationalistic stuff including Nazism and Hitler. Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A machine translation suggests he is anti-Nazi ("This garbage is burnt along with Hitler and his whore Eva Braun") and that the address is his own; it also looks as though the address is his and either he is generally talking about gays or he is stating he is gay himself. I sure would love it checked out by a native speaker, though. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes anti nazi would fit in very well with a Serb nationalist editor attacking a Croat for example. Polargeo (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Ustaše and Ustaše#Modern usage of term "Ustaša" exactly the sort of anti-nazi stuff that is used to defame Croats and other opponents for that matter. Polargeo (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that text myself, in my own sandbox. I didn't send that text to anyone, nor I planned to use it in some "attacks". I wrote it just for fun; I had no other bussines at that time. Text contain my address, and some of my personal beliefs (I am firm anti-Nazi). I'm not gay, if you really must know that! I never expressed any form of hate aganist Croats or any other people. That text, wich I deleted today, was totally private toughts written in my sandbox. --Иван Богданов (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your sandbox is not private and can be accessed internationally. I think this is still worth a better look by another native speaker to make sure it is not a threat and maybe it should be permanently deleted by Wikipedia:Oversight. Polargeo (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)FYI, anything written on Wikipedia, including user space, is not private, whatever the writer's intentions. Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, its not any kind of threat. I myself deleted that text from my sandbox. If anyone wants to delete it permanently by Wikipedia:Oversight, it's fine with me. --Иван Богданов (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalistic beliefs are not banned here. I saw no obvious attacks in the page either. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph (although one of the natives should provide a better translation): My address is [address deleted]. As you can see, I'm not afraid of you! If I was a faggot and I was scared, I would never give you my address. Obviously, this means that you're obligated to come and attack me, that is, that you try to. I can hardly wait! But you should know: my deceased uncle, who worked in the Army and was privately a hunter [note: potentially, sniper], left me a few little things which I'd readily like to "try out" on you when you come! But, I'm telling you this in vain: Faggots like you are only brave in words! You'll never have the guts to show up!!

As it was in the sandbox, I doubt it was aimed at anyone in particular. The choice of language is obviously troubling though. As is the denial above that "it's not a threat". It quite clearly is.--Thewanderer (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a better, cleaerer translation than the one I got. It is certainly more troubling. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a monologue that I wrote for no particular reason. As I already said, I had no other bussines at that time. Remember, I deleted that from my sandbox myself. As Thewanderer said, it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. I understand that choice of language is troubling, so it's OK to be deleted permanently by Wikipedia:Oversight. --Иван Богданов (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can probably close this. Иван Богданов, just to be clear, you understand now that the language wasn't appropriate and why even pages in your userspace can be a problem? If you realise where you went wrong, then we can forget it and move on. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"you know what you did was wrong"...? I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say it incorporates probably the worst language available to mankind, sandwiched with open threats with actual firearms. imho its pretty damn naïve to assume the target of this "monologue" was nonexistent. Its likely that the unforntunate user involved in a content dispute with User:Иван Богданов got the message. Threats of sniper fire are not funny in the Balkans. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full translation [2]:

My adress is [adress removed], as you can see I am not afraid of you, abomination! If I were a faggot and afriad I would not have given you my adress. Of course, this means you are now obliged to come over and fight me, that is, to try. I can't wait. Just so you know: my late uncle, who worked for in the military and hunted privately, left me a thing or two I'll be more than happy to try out on you when you show up! But I'm talking for nothing: faggots are only brave in their words, you won't have the guts to show up.

Of course, you were fucked by your faggot doctor of ONO, Šešelj, and don't you dare ever to set my king HRM Alexander II Karađorđević in your filthy mouth you radical piece of shit. [note: the Republic of Serbia has no monarchy]

COME ON DOWN I'll BE WAITING.

LONG LIVE THE KING, LONG LIVE THE FATHERLAND, LONG LIVE THE SERBIAN PEOPLE! DEATH TO THE REPUBLIC, DEATH TO ŠEŠELJ, DEATH TO THE RADICALS! [note: the user considers the person he is speaking to "a radical piece of shit"]

You piece of shit, you play the great Serb but you advocate national socialism!!! YOU SAY: NO I'M NOT A RADICAL, I'M A NAZI???!! If you had anything in your empty head you would know that Hitler draped our people in black! GO TO KRAGUJEVAC AND KRALJEVO WHERE HITLER'S MURDERERS KILLED 7,000 PEOPLE AND GO PRAISE NATIONAL SOCIALISM THERE! THE PEOPLE THERE WOULD SLAUGHTER YOU LIKE AN OX, YOU FILTHY WHORE! No, you degenerate, nazism is a thing of the past! That garbage burnt down with Hitler and Eva Braun in the ruins of their hole, Berlin, just as your Fuhrer Goran Davidović will burn. AS HE IS BEING BURNED, OUR KING HRM ALEXANDER KARAĐORĐEVIĆ SHALL SIT UPON HIS THRONE, WITH A CROWN ON HIS HEAD THAT SHALL BE PLACED BY OUR PATRIARCH IRINEJ!

LONG LIVE THE KING, LONG LIVE THE FATHERLAND, LONG LIVE THE SERBIAN PEOPLE! DEATH TO THE REPUBLIC, DEATH TO ŠEŠELJ, DEATH TO THE RADICALS!

P.S.

Rather, stop acting brave and come on down here to Zvezdara that I may "tell" you live and in person what I think of Hitler, Šešelj, and Davidović.

As you can see, half-breed, your blocks aren't helping. You have two choices in front of you: to let me voice my thoughts as I please, and to stop deleting my opinions, or to go on forever with the blocks. YOU WILL TIRE OF BLOCKING BUT I WILL NEVER TIRE OF BREAKING YOUR BLOCKS. The choice is yours, retard.

This is honestly, without competition, the single most repulsive post I've seen thus far on Wikipedia. Open threats of violence with firearms, the worst insults that could possibly be used, and a taunt to top it off.

(I've seen worse. But don't let me derail you.) DS (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be useful to note that User:Иван Богданов responsible for this (rather cleverly hidden) display, is currently blocked for one week, having created a malicious sockpuppet User:DIREKTOR SPLIT (a mock-account apparently directed at me) [3], and has recently been revert-warring for days in blatant violation of policy (WP:MoS, WP:CFORK). [4] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The translation shows that he is wishing death upon a specific (but off-wiki) named individual—namely Vojislav Šešelj—and is also making personal attacks against unnamed Wikipedia editors involved in blocks. It's hard to tell whether the attacks are against the administrator who blocked him (User:Rettetast) or against some other editor who was blocked and whose edits he doesn't like. Does wishing death upon someone count as a death threat? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does when you taunt them to come to your house where they would only come if they were not a gay/faggot and you have "sniper" type tactics waiting for them. None of us know for sure who this is aimed at. Anyway, when it comes to this sort of stuff we have to realise that despite our usual wikipedia feelings this is beyond assume good faith. We cannot afford to assume good faith with such a serious situation and I am afraid that with threats like this bad faith has to be assumed unless conclusively proven otherwise. I assumed potential good faith and that I may have been wrong even when posting this ANI. Now I am convinced that it is more serious than I guessed. Polargeo (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm particularly defending him, but I don't see any "unnamed Wikipedia editors involved in blocks" explicit or implied in that text. It's a youngster's rant against someone in particular, who is probably not an en-Wikipedia editor (maybe sr:?), and who is perceived to be a Neo-Nazi by Ivan. I think that last paragraph in Direktor's translation is not accurate: the original text reads As you can see, Krizan, which is more likely a person's surname or nickname (indicated by title case, probably Križan in Serbo-Croatian), and certainly not a "half-breed". In any case, it was an extremely stupid thing to keep here.
Ah, I see what blocks are you referring to: I don't think it's "blocks" in Wikipedia sense. Instead, the original "blokade" means "obstacles" or "blockages". No such user (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real threats are in the first paragraph though and in a way interpretation of the last paragraph does not alter this. Polargeo (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. My point was just that they weren't directed to anyone on-wiki, if it makes a mitigating factor. Most likely, it was prepared for someone on another Internet forum who pissed him off. Keeping it in your own sandbox here deserves a Wikipedia equivalent of Darwin Award though. No such user (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said that the last paragraph - including the epithet 'half-breed' is aimed specifically at User:Rettetast - and I do not understand why we are still talking about this, rather than blocking indefinitely until the threats of continued disruption and (it would appear) socking are withdrawn. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked indef, with rationale left at their talk page. As a summary, I do not feel that a user engaging in impersonation of other editors, attack pages such as those discussed above, and an edit warrior is here to help build an encyclopedia. Personally I don't think it really matters if that attack page was targetting an admin, a user, a person off-wiki, or a group in general. It is simply not tolerable by our policies. I have informed the user that they make an unblock request if there is truely a good explanation for this, or misunderstanding. --Taelus (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No it is not, for Christ's sake. 1) As I said, the translation is inaccurate, and neither "half-breed" nor "block" exist in the original text 2) Even if it were accurate, the edit in question [5] is made on January 26 and Retteast's block was on 12 November; ranting in the sandbox 3 months after the fact does not make any sense at all. I don't necessarily oppose indef-blocking, but at least get your facts straight before doing it. No such user (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, when I was considering my block, I assumed that no specific user was being targetted. Either way it struck me as unacceptable, an attack is an attack whether it targets a Wikipedian, an off-wiki person, or even a generalised group. --Taelus (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, this user has been repeatedly asked to post his comments in English, regardless of whom he is addressing, on this, the English Wikipedia (example request). He's never taken this to heart. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block. There's no room this project for people who post threats to use firearms. That overshadows the other points. Durova⁴¹² 16:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case any of you were wondering, his page translates as User:Ivan Bogdanov. RM (Be my friend)

Good block, notwithstanding my initial response to this. As all the details have come out, it became very apparant this user needed to go. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(in considering the following, please note that I am no fan of the blocked editor in question, in fact quite the opposite) This editor has been blocked indefinitely. This editor has made substantial contributions, including the creation of 60 non-redirect articles (President of the Parliament of Montenegro, as an example). I do not condone his actions and attitudes with regards to other editors. That said, I don't condone a permanent ban on his editing activities here. Therefore, I'd like to know under what terms his block will be lifted. I for one would make it a requirement that any future contributions to this project by this editor to any page, or in any edit summary, be done in English. Other opinions? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just declined his latest unblock request and pointed him to WP:OFFER. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Six months? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of threat should receive zero tolerance. With all of the support for this indef block it would be wrong for a single admin to make the decision on their own to give this user another chance. Good faith has to stop somewhere. There is always ARBCOM if the user wishes to make an appeal at some point. Polargeo (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFER specifically excludes situations where law enforcement could become involved. This was a clear threat of physical violence. Polarego is right: this is over the line and deserves zero tolerance. Durova⁴¹² 07:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – A rangeblock was agreed to, and it's now in place. EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an anonymous user (from the 82.43.89.x range) that has stubbornly refused to sign his posts, pretty much 100% of the time, for months now. Sinebot has warned them probably dozens of times. However, their IP address jumps around every few weeks (because of his ISP, I think). His most recent IPs have been 82.43.89.27, 82.43.89.90, and 82.43.89.14. It really shouldn't be that big a deal, but it has unfortunately become disruptive on more than one occasion, so I feel something needs to be done. He doesn't vandalize, but on several occasions things have gotten ugly:

• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 67#Mocking the OP (see the collapsed tangent)
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#2 Trolls
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Correcting typos or grammar

In these three discussions, while most editors simply ignore them, one editor (a different one for each incident) have gotten fed up and called him on it, though they unfortunately took the form of ad hominem attacks in the midst of the rest of the discussion. 82.43.89.x got defensive, and things become incivil (almost identically each time). After the first two incidents, I tried to resolve it, but didn't get anywhere:

• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Two previous discussions
• User talk:82.43.89.90#Discussion on WT:RD

Even though I tried to address these concerns outside of the conflicts that they had already had, people were still bitter, and he remained defensive and irreconcilable. His IP then changed to the current one, and I forgot about it for a while, but after I saw the most recent incident I thought it should be dealt with.

I didn't want to go ahead and directly ask for an IP range ban (because of the tag here), so I wanted to see if we could use SineBot to enact a sort of conditional topic ban, by automatically removing any unsigned post made to the reference desks from this IP range, instead of enabling them by continuing to just sign their posts. I posted this proposal at slakr's talk page, but I have since learned that he hasn't been active on Wikipedia for over a month (I guess you could say slakng off ), so I decided to bring it here. —Akrabbim^talk 17:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is just not that big a deal, and is best dealt with by ignoring it. Penalising people - especially those unfamiliar with wikipedia or who just do not parse helpful information we push their way, is not the way to go. Given that SineBot signs unsigned posts, is there actually a problem worth our time to consider? And whether there is or not, is AN/I the right place to discuss it? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are not newbies. It's basically one guy who jumps from IP to IP and consistently takes an "up yours" attitude toward registered users. He knows he can't be indef'd, which is why he sticks with an IP address. He knows that IP's get special treatment that's not afforded to registered users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anon editors get a special treatment, true, but it's both good and bad. They can "get away" with more because it's difficult to track their edits, and they are less likely to be indefinitely blocked for even the worst offenses because of collateral damage with shared IPs and because it's usually easy to just get another IP so it has less effect. But they are also restricted from certain things, they have no input at RfA, their arguments are given little weight or outright ignored at AfDs, they can't edit semiprotected pages or create new articles, they may have years of unrecognized contributions (the downside of being unable to track edit history) and are often treated with suspicion in general. As I see it, the benefits and penalties of anonymous editing have a reasonable balance and it's really their choice whether they want to register or not. -- Atama頭 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. There is a double-standard. If you have an account and refuse to sign your posts, you get blocked. If you are an anon-IP and try to start fights by refusing to sign your posts, everyone says it isn't a big deal and praises you for being an asshole. So, I'm using civil disobedience by refusing to sign my own posts. Perhaps I'll eventually be regarded as a praised editor like the 82.43.* pest. Replacing this post from User:Kainaw, inadvertantly removed when I posted elsewhere on the page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? If you don't sign you'll get blocked? Does that really happen? WP:SIGN is a guideline, not a policy, and it certainly doesn't say anything about blocks as a penalty for not signing. Do you block people for not signing? Staecker (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were threatening to block Docu indefinitely because he wouldn't sign the "prescribed" way, even though he always ended his comments with "Docu" in plain text. The poor depraved dears had to make a couple of extra keystrokes to be able to link back to him. But the IP's? Oh, that's different. They can do anything they want. Except to vote in AFD's and the like. Big freakin' deal. They get treated special. And they know it. And that's why they don't create user ID's, because they know they can get away with trolling, and unlike a registered user, they can't be stopped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kainaw, above, has decided to stop signing his posts in protest of 82.43.*'s behavior. In addition to being a clear violation of WP:POINT, Kainaw's refusal to sign is considerably more disruptive, because his posts are not auto-signed by SineBot (cf. Atama's post about downsides to IP's). Kainaw also persists, despite correction, in claiming that his Reference Desk colleagues "praise" 82.43.* for not signing his posts. Most of us have criticized 82.43.* for his failure to sign, and simply feel that the response by Kainaw et al. is disproportionate and unhelpful. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His pointiness is a good point, though. The user Docu, who actually did sign his posts, was about ready to be court-martialed for not doing it the prescribed way. IP's? No problem! They can leave it unsigned, and even if Sinebot signs it, you still don't have a clue if it's the same guy that refused to sign earlier. Every IP could be a different user every time, yet they demand to be respected at the same level as if they were registered and identifiable in some sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Docu signed his posts in an unlinked manner, and in so doing, prevented SineBot from automagically adding links. Kainaw is apparently unsigning his posts entirely (I'd been assuming thus far that it was some kind of glitch). 82.x is skipping the signing functionality, but is not inhibiting identification or linkage. One of these things is not like the others. — Lomn 19:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you knew immediately that it was Docu. With the IP's, there's a delay, and also there's no way to know if it's the same guy or a different guy - or if another IP is a different guy or the same guy who was just on another IP - because IP's in general never provide anything resembling an identifier. Yet they complain when they're treated like the drive-by trolls that they often are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SineBot doesn't act on users with over 800 edits, which is why Kainaw's are not getting signed by SineBot. Also, I doubt Slakr is going to modify SineBot as proposed above. Even if he had the time, I doubt he has the inclination. –xeno^talk 20:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, I think your commentary on this matter would improve if you'd drop "drive-by" and "troll" from your responses, as they're an unnecessary prejudice to the discussion. In particular, 82.x is unquestionably acknowledged as a single editor, thus "drive-by" is entirely wrong. A good portion of his contribs have been perfectly reasonable apart from signing, and what bad behavior exists is largely being matched by registered users in this thread, so I dispute "troll" as well. If you prefer, I'll grant that trolling behavior exists -- though as noted, it exists on both sides.

That said, I don't see this drastic difference. I'm inclined to recognize 82.x as being this particular personality. I'm well-versed in other individuals who I might identify as 69.y or 327.z. I'm aware that this may lead to a mistake in identity, but (a) that's part of the risk of being an IP editor and (b) user text signatures are no guarantee of identity, either.

I'll try to reach a conclusion: content is the primary driver. If 82.x posts good content, allow it to stand. If the content is bad, consider stripping it out. At the same time, though, I strongly advocate removing the deliberately baiting responses that show up around 82.x. I imagine a good thorough removal of both sides would largely end the drama. — Lomn 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that if 82* posts a baiting comment, we can zap it as trolling and put the brakes on it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If and only if we also zap your baiting comments. — Lomn 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could do that. Or you could ask me about it. Unlike the IP family in question, I actually respond to questions. Maybe it would be better to line through the IP's comments or alter them to small print when they're irrelevant, just as many of us have taken to small-printing side comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

82.43.89.x should not be compared to Kainaw or this Docu guy. The main point of WP:SIGN is that it is good practice and polite, which is why we have come up with this guideline. Now we have someone who intentionally ignores this guideline, and people are offended, because it has been agreed on that it is impolite. 82.43.89.x knows this, but continues anyway. This is the nature of the disruption. I am certainly not condoning Kainaw's actions, but he isn't the root of the problem here. He is just responding very poorly to the original problem. —Akrabbim^talk 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links I saw here indicated not only did he refuse to sign in some way, he didn't even acknowledge the request. I recall another case (maybe the same guy, maybe not) who objected to being called a "drive-by" and said he would start signing if I would stop calling him a drive-by. As if his signing were about me somehow. That's the kind of arrogance we have to put up with from some of the IP's. You can talk to me. You can't talk to an IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the same individual. See the first discussion that I linked to in my first post. —Akrabbim^talk 20:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, surprise. It may sound hard to believe, but names are distinctive, and IP addresses are not. From my viewpoint, they are at once all one guy and each one a different guy. There's literally no way to know, unless they say, "Hey, I'm the same guy as earlier", and even then you would have to take their word for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an "overall general problem" at the RD - it is one specific person, covering a specific IP range, that has consistently refused to sign his posts, and so has on several occasions provoked incivility in his own as well as other editors' conduct. He has so far acted with impunity, because, as Kainaw is so impolitely demonstrating, every time he is called on it, it is overshadowed by the misconduct of the other editors. Note: I have switched from "they" to the less gender-ambiguous "he" to clear up the possibility of people thinking that this is a general anon-IP problem, and not the behavior of a single person. —Akrabbim^talk 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the admins won't impose a long-term range block, the best solution might be to delete any posts from that IP range. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The double-standard is very clear. If an IP makes a point of not signing his posts, he is just impolite. If I don't sign my posts, I am being disruptive. I have made it clear that this is merely civil disobedience. I am not attempting to get anyone to argue with me about signing my posts. I am only trying to bring attention to the fact that we have this double-standard firmly in place. 82.43.* is highly protected and will continue to try to lure others into arguments that disrupt any conversation he joins. I feel that is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainaw (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the better solution would be to simply stop using the registered user name and start using IP addresses. Don't bother signing or indicating who you are, as IP's in general can do whatever they want. And then instead of being hassled by certain users, they'll defend us against those mean old registered users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Civil disobedience is a blockable offense, Wikipedia doesn't have any Bill of Rights giving you a right to protest. I hope you know that you can be blocked for this. I'm not going to do so, at this point, but someone else might. -- Atama頭 22:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It's come to this? I'm extremely disappointed. For what it's worth, here's my advice for dealing with the problem. When 82.43.* doesn't sign his posts, ignore it. When Kainaw doesn't sign his posts, ignore it. When someone makes a comment during a discussion of another topic about either one not signing their posts, ignore it (or if multiple comments, maybe collapse them so they doesn't clutter up the discussion). I think that if we don't make such a big deal about it, it will cease to be a problem. Buddy431 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are demonstrating what is frustrating with this user. It isn't about the fact that he doesn't sign his posts. If you are stuck on that, then you simply don't understand the problem. He complains and chastises other users for not doing things that he decides are necessary - and then refuses to sign his posts as he does so. It is painfully obvious that he is attempting to bait others into an argument with his "You need to do X while I refuse to do Y" tactic. The big problem is that people do take the bait. They do argue with him. The simple solution is not to ignore him. The simple solution is to remove his baiting arguments. However, that cannot be done because there will always be someone who doesn't know the entire situation and makes the claim that a few users are ganging up on some anon IP just to pick on him. Hence - we have a double-standard. A well-known anon-IP can act in a manner that purposely disrupts the reference desk and users run to his protection. If a user with an account simply decides that he doesn't want to sign his posts, he is threatened with being blocked or banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainaw (talk • contribs) 23:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to explain the problem better. If it's not about signing, then don't call this section "Disruptive refusal to sign". If 86.* is guilty of other offenses, then enumerate them. When does he say "you need to do X"? I don't see him making any demands in the links you gave, other than demanding that people not edit other people's posts, which is pretty uncontroversial. I'm a regular reader of the RD talk page and I have nothing to complain about 86.*. He's certainly no more demanding than other RD regulars when it comes to the way people act at the RD. Staecker (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) (@ Kainaw, mostly) You're absolutely right. The biggest problem is that people do take the bait... Hence my post above.

(@ Everyone) And honostly, it doesn't matter at all to me whether it's an IP or a user account who doesn't sign, as long as sinebot gets them. I realize that my view may not be the majority one, but I have no more problem with Kainaw not signing (providing the post does get signed by someone) than an IP or new user not signing. It's hard to make a point if you can't get a rise out of others... Buddy431 (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The big problem is that people do take the bait." And this is, of course, the problem with any troll. Over many painful years we've learned how to, and how not to, deal with trolls, but the lessons are hard ones that we keep forgetting, like when we let a troll work us up into a lather like this, attacking each other and all. WP:RBI, or if r and b are for whatever reason problematic, then please, just i. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or delete. Or collapse. Or range-block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection prevents editing by unregistered contributions. It can be applied by an admin to the Ref. Desk discussion page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then unregistered and new users can't ask questions. Sort of semi defeats the purpose of the reference desk, doesn't it? —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would amount to mass-punishment resulting from the belligerence of one guy. It might be worth trying, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be worth trying. If the suggestion is serious, then we have lost all sight of what the reference desk (and discussion page) is really for (here's a hint, it's not a clubhouse with a "no gurls" sign hanging on the front). Buddy431 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's for hit-and-run IP's to post anything they bloody well feel like, because anybody who stands up to them will get yelled at. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. In my opinion (which may not reflect the consensus), the ref desk is (in part) for new users, or even people who have never edited Wikipedia and never gotten an account, or people who have edited Wikipedia but don't have an account (basically, anyone, including Bugs' "hit-and-run IPs") to post questions about anything they are wondering about. Semi-protecting the desk or discussion may take care of this particular problem, but at the cost that this 'solution', as DoRD puts it, "semi defeats the purpose of the reference desk". Buddy431 (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering for a while since this whole not-signing started whether I should bring this up or not. I presume I'm not the only one who is aware of this. But for what it's worth, 82.43/82.44... is the former Avril Lavigne troll who has been back under several names including User:Avrillyria and been semi constructive under those names but been blocked for various reason. I'm not going to bother to provide any evidence other then [6] since from previous discussions with them they don't deny it. Personally I feel that 82.43/44 is resonably reformed but the occasionally do silly things, this signing example is one however poorly it's been handled. They also have rather strong views on various issues which many find problematic for a variety of reasons. I left a very, very long comment to User talk:82.43.89.27. While directed at this user, this paragraph "Your views are clearly on the extreme side..." somewhat explains my views of this user and the rest of the paragraphs after that is my suggestion to the user of a course of action from here Nil Einne (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A rangeblock of 82.43.89.0/25 (anon-only) would cover the recent IPs that were causing trouble at the reference desk. I am willing to enact this rangeblock unless people think it's unwise. There would be little or no collateral damage. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give it a try. He can still edit his talk page(s) if he wants, right? In case he feels like actually talking about it. Then we could archive this megillah. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to state that when a similar block against Freewayguy's use of a range of IP addresses came up, there was a very loud opposition. Then, I realized that the opposition came from 82.43.*. My opinion from the start (which was long before the recent rash of problems) is that this user purposely tries to see how close he can get to retribution for his behaviour and then sticks right at the line. My further opinion is that those who purposely toe the line over and over should be treated more harshly than those who accidentally bump it now and then. Therefore, I suggested a while back that this user be blocked for a very short time - not long enough to really stop anyone from using Wikipedia, but just a block. It would be a notice to the user that nudging too close to the line will result in a block - so stay away from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainaw (talk • contribs) 02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's unwise. What I think is unwise is Kainaw's repeated and loud taking of the bait that keeps getting laid out. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion to semi-protect the Ref. Desk discussion page is a serious one (@Buddy431). The main Ref. Desk pages would not be affected and questioners there would notice no change. (@DoRD). The collateral damage is that very new or unregistered users would not be able to post on the discussion page but they can still pursue any subject on the main Ref. Desk pages or contact an individual responder. This is damage reduction not a panacea. (@Baseball Bugs) It is worth trying because we can expect an immediate cleansing of the present situation, the semi-protection can be applied for a limited time and it will preserve the usefulness of the discussion page as a unique forum for working responders (gurls too, @Buddy431). @Kainaw, what do you think of my suggestion?Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops a range block resolved this while I wrote the above. It's good that admins don't waste time. I am still happy to hear any thoughts from Kainaw. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that a semi-protect will stop persistent vandalism. It is a good tool for that. This particular case is not persistent vandalism. The user is not dumb enough to do that. His method of operation is very simple, but hard to recognize. He scans the talk page. He finds a way to make a comment that follows the basic pattern: You aren't doing XXX. For example, he chastised one user for not providing diffs. At the same time, he doesn't sign. So, it is bait. He wants someone to say, "You told him to XXX and you didn't sign." Then, he follows a very basic trollish argument method of ignoring what the other user said and making baiting comments to continue the argument. A semi-protect will keep him from extending an argument, but not for laying the bait in the first place.

My opinion is that the bait should be deleted. There is a big problem though. Most users do not recognize it as bait. It looks like a simple request to add a diff or post a message or use a template... It does not look like bait. So, deleting one of his comments will look like users unjustly ganging up on someone just because he uses an anon IP.

Further, there are some very good editors who purposely use anon IP accounts. The most common one (who I think is gone) is the one who used 74.something. I discussed it with him and he feels that having an account is counter-productive to the purpose of Wikipedia. So, he refused to create an account. I disagreed with all of his arguments that he based his opinion on, but it was his opinion and choice to use an IP. I don't like the idea of blocking someone from him from using the talk page. -- kainaw™ 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the people involved in this fight should go back and read their comments about "IP editors" while substituting "the N word", because judging a class of editors as is done above is about the same. Focus your comments on individuals, if really necessary, but don't apply your comments to groups. --LarryMac | Talk 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you enjoy solving complex disputes where few or none of the parties are completely clean? Are you committed to the principle that all editors should be here to build an encyclopedia, and we should encourage as many people as possible to do so? Can you cut to the pith of conflicting claims of reliable sourcing, civil POV pushing, baiting, off-site encouragement and coordination, and bad faith conduct accusations in the service of content disputes? Then there is an opening for you in the fast-paced and exciting topic area of the climate change probation!

• Starts: immediately
• Payscale: N/A
• Benefits: the satisfaction of not pleasing everyone anyone Fixed. NW (Talk) 01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Open to: everyone, but experienced administrators receive a 1.618x pay multiplier

Swing by Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement or recent changes related to the climate change probation area today! - 2/0 (cont.) 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be masochistic, but I'm not completely insane. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... so you're saying BozMo, LessHeardVanU, Guy, NW, 2/0 and I are??? hmmm... ++Lar: t/c 04:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masochism Tango? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I don't agree with Jehochman's response here. I hope other admins will take a moment and give it a look. I believe this incident was fairly simple. Cla68 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the sanctions anyway as I believe they get in the way of the smooth running of the area and were imposed without any real advertising of the debate (I was not aware that it was going on and I am active in that area!) so they are not a community consensus at all and hence should be invalid but I promise if I ever get admin status that I will steer well clear of this topic, which I edit in from time to time, and I encourage admins to just treat the area as they would any other area of wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haida chieftain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry before finally being indefinitely blocked on 16 February. In the last 30 hours, at least three IP addresses from the same subnet have edited the Canwest article in patterns consistent with the blocked user. He all but admitted to using the sockpuppets today. One of the IPs, 199.60.104.100 (talk · contribs), also made a blatantly offensive unblock request.

Multiple editors have tried to work with him. His response has turned from ignoring our help to outright defiance and incivility. It occurs to me that some combination of the following four steps are the best process from here:

1. Denial of recognition of his disruption by quiet reverts and blocks of the IPs in question.
2. A range block of the addresses he is using to evade his block (downside: collateral damage to other users in a public library).
3. Semi-protection of the Canwest article.
4. A formal community ban of Haida chieftain.

Recommendations? Other options? —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article for 3 days, hopefully that will be enough to discourage him. I think the first option in your list is a pain considering how relentless he is, the second one isn't needed since there's only one article being abused, and while the last option isn't a bad idea it won't do anything to stop him from using IP socks. -- Atama頭 00:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rather liked the idea of contacting the public library myself, and asking if they have a regular who is a slightly wild looking, English as second language speaker, with shares in Canwest. If so, can they please ban him from using the computers. Other than that, the article hasn't been edited by an IP who isn't Haida Chieftan this side of Christmas, so I'd vote to extend the semi. 3 days is no way long enough. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second the approval of the contacting of the library. Maybe we should just ask them to keep a log of who signs on to the computer, and then compare it to the vandalism, thus catching them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: he's now frantically refactoring his talk page (17 edits in as many minutes). Don't know what that's all about. And he still thinks we've located him by GPS, rather than doing a WHOIS lookup on the IP addresses, which of course are all registered to that public library.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that his user talk page is in clear violation of WP:UP#NOT #9. I think a courtesy blanking is in order. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 03:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect the article for two weeks and protect his talk page as he shouldn't still be pushing for article changes without addressing his block. The IP's whois record gives 3 email addresses, 2 of which seem to go to specific people. If others think it's a good idea, I'm willing to email the contacts and explain how one of their patrons could be causing issues for their other visitors wishing to use Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportElen of the Roads (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I was trying to be cautious with the protection, but probably too cautious (I know that's a fault of mine). I think the extension of protection and attempts to contact the library are a good idea. -- Atama頭 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's adding accusations of meatpuppeting and paid editing [7]. Some please lock his talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, here come the sockpuppets. Ravenfeathers (talk · contribs) starts editing with Talk:Canwest and the talk page of one of the blocked IPs. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a legal threat on the IP talk page at that. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I told you guys getting rid of him was going to be like dealing with a roach infestation. Enjoy your new problem, because I wash my hands of it. HalfShadow 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – does 'culture clash' cover it? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[8] [9]

It's nearly 2am, I'm not going to write out a thinly veiled partially inflammatory rant to explain why this behaviour is obviously inappropriate. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not notifying a user about an ANI thread involving them is also inappropriate. User notified here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKudpung&action=historysubmit&diff=346220026&oldid=346183993 Frmatt (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing more to say in this matter other than this edit summary by Sceptre who after a continuous history of immature action, obscene and inflammatory editing and talk participation, right up to the present, ironically, now complains to ANI:

• Revision as of 18:28, 29 July 2006 (edit) (undo)

Sceptre (talk | contribs)

(→You're cool.: Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, but Shirley was all behind the bike sheds sucking off Matt so she could show him her Egg McMuffins)

and this:

• ...you're fucking joking, right? Isn't every AfD brought about by the nominator thinking an article should be deleted? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Kudpung (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to provide diffs for those claims, or retract them immediately. Woogee (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Halo&curid=3948992&diff=66510087&oldid=66509470
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sceptre/Archive14#Edit summary
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Davis

Some of Sceptre's edits are positively disgusting and obscene. If according to Sceptre's opinion, children should be protected from appearing in an adult world, then probably our stance ought to be that they (Sceptre) should also be protected from becoming editors and admins of this encyclopedia. Rather a lot of Sceptre's comments on his own and other's talk pages, and on other discussions, are unnecessarily combative, and inflammatory. It's no good Sceptre preempting his own insulting behaviour by providing an advance blanket apology: "But be warned, I am rather sarcastic or sneering at times," Continuing trying to look clever by using foul language on this encyclopedia will not gain him more respect from his more mature peers, and will ultimately cause some mild mannered editors, such as me, to lose patience. In spite of his many years of contributions and high edit count, this kind of thing only gives more fuel to fire of the contenders that the Wikipedia is being run and administrated by children. A lot of the work Sceptre has done is good, and he should keep it up, while perhaps avoiding inviting situations that spoil it and scar his reputation. Such voicing of personal prejudices and ideology might not be shared by others, or aye, may even be politically uncorrect.--Kudpung (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh grow up. This is fatuous. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto. None of it excuses essentially making your userpage an attack page. Especially when, as far as I can tell, the only diff you even provided here did not involve you and appears to be a joke that was either a movie reference or an inside joke among wikifriends. --Smashville^talk 14:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In fact, the diff given would be instantly recognisable to any British person with a television to be a Little Britain reference. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Whaddyaknow. I even linked to the Vicky Pollard article in that edit! Sceptre ^(talk) 16:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give Kudpung the opportunity to apologize for the personal attacks, in light of the explanation given by Spectre and others for a racy edit summary. If not, I'm blocking for a clear violation of WP:NPA. -- Atama頭 19:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done--Kudpung (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Kudpung (I'm surprised to see you reply so quickly since it's 4 AM where you live). I will assume that your attacks were a misunderstanding based on what was admittedly strong language from Spectre. I suggest we all just drop this now? -- Atama頭 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And one of the "supporting" links is an archive page from 2006. But apart from that, what have the admins ever done for us, eh? Guy (Help!) 19:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Nothing left to do here. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:John has been very impolite and abusively using reverts, as well as starting a personal vendetta against me. He insisted on using a German word for "Nazi Germany", reverts a common infobox addition to a long list, and used automatic warnings on me, an established user and frequent editor of philosophy articles. All of my recent edits to any article was reverted by him. He also threatened me with block. Administrators please take action to stop his behavior. Wandering Courier (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it looks to me like John's correct. You seem to have not fully accepted our core policy on verifiability and our guideline on what constitutes a reliable source. Providing credible sources for your edits is not negotiable. We are all aware that many (if not most) Wikipedia articles fall below this standard, but it's site policy nonetheless. I appreciate that it can be frustrating, especially where you've been working from personal knowledge because it may seem like an attack on your integrity. However, it isn't - we're all subject to the same rules and it really isn't all that arduous to take the extra few minutes to produce a source (in fact, eventually it becomes habit). I see no evidence that John has been discourteous to you or targeted your edits, bearing in mind that when potential issues are noticed with an editor's work, it's normal practice to to check other contributions from that editor. This isn't a vendetta, just common sense. I suggest the only solution is that you provide sources as required by policy. EyeSerene^talk 09:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first diff, two edits later he made an edit that merely put "the" in front of your word choice, leaving it in place rather than what he reverted to the first time, that doesn't look like "insistence" to me. Regarding your second diff, did you provide a source at the time of the first insertion? No. And your response: "if John insists on adding reference to infobox listings, i will add a reference, but John, you'd then require ref for ALL infobox listings of influence, which is impossible, sir" is unreasonable. As EyeSereen says, articles may fall short, but that is no excuse for making the problem worse. I note from your talk page that John is not the only person to have warned you about this matter. I think you need to up your game. No problem found with John's actions, I endorse them. Recommend close, no action. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I have said yesterday was too polemic, and I think my intention was misunderstood. I am not here to argue that it is not necessary to use references. From my edits I used many, many references from different places, book and web. However, it is quite unreasonable to populate infoboxes with reference tags. For philosopher articles under the "influenced" and "influences" row generally there is a list, and there has been no imperative in the past whatsover to put reference tags into them. It is shown by precedents and common practice that references are only used inside articles for substantive facts, and not summaries on infoboxes, as anything inside the infobox is implied by Wikipedia article. When Plato is put into the "influences" section of Aristotle, there shouldn't be a demand for a reference tag for that. If John is willing to be consistent, he would need to delete all infobox "influences" and "influenced" rows, and a massive truncation would be done on philosophy articles. I believe in established consensus and tradition as shown in continual agreed-upon practice. There has been almost no reference tag in any of philosophy infoboxes, so I think it is inappropriate for John to start a revolution on the practice with all of my edits. Besides, many of my additions to the influences section are simply reciprocations, in which the article on philosopher A indicates he was influenced by philosopher B, it would be common sense to add on the entry about philosopher A that his influences include philospher B. Wandering Courier (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy that references are required for any item that is at all questionable is very clear. That an area didn't have references in the past doesn't mean that new additions are not subject to policy. (It also doesn't mean that we MUST delete every unreferenced thing all at once). However, infobox items don't need refs if they are repeating things sourced in the article body. Are these additions already sourced in the body of the article? If not, could they be? (if they can't be sourced, why are you adding them?) I'm still not seeing where John did anything wrong in enforcing policy in this area. To a certain extent this may be considered a content dispute, but in my view, policy is pretty clear. ++Lar: t/c 04:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much my take too. That references haven't been insisted on in the past is no indication they aren't needed; consensus can't override policy. Incidentally, most of my article work is on military articles where infoboxes do tend to be referenced along with everything else (see, for example, Battle of Villers-Bocage). Taking the example you've given—that philosopher A was influenced by philosopher B—that's certainly something that requires a reference and ideally an in-line citation, coming as it does under the "material that is [...] likely to be challenged" clause of WP:V. Whether that citation is on philosopher A's article or philosopher B's, it should be easy enough to transpose it from one article to the other. This does't mean we have to remove every such item from every infobox immediately, but we have to start somewhere. Citing these claims can be a gradual process, especially if it affects many articles... but it should be done. EyeSerene^talk 09:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, if an edit changes a German word for an English one, or if it inserts an unsourced item in a bunch of other unsourced items, it is OK to use rollback ("the rollback feature is a fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense.") and template the author? Way to go. I thought ANI was about user counduct, not about content disputes. (End of helpful comment). No such user (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and feedback. This was the edit that brought this editor to my attention (note the edit summary, note that this is a BLP article, note the poor-quality source, note that it was a revert). No such user is probably right that technically I should have used undo rather than revert. When I investigated, I saw quite a few problematic edits from the same editor though, which all needed to go, so it was more convenient for me to use rollback to accomplish this, which has exactly the same net effect. Note finally that several other editors besides have removed poorly-sourced contributions from Wandering Courier, and there are a bunch of other warnings to the user over quite a period regarding poorly sourced additions. I'll continue to keep an eye on this editor, though it looks like they have raised their game and are no longer doing the sort of edits I had to warn them for, which is good. --John (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone, I will be much more careful in the future. Wandering Courier (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came across HoundsOfSpring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a little over half a year ago when he made a few edits to Tokusatsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Most were beneficial. However, he began inserting {{fact}} and {{whom}} tags in November, such as adding {{whom}} after the word "dubbed" when it does not refer to being called something but the filmmaking technique. In January, after he added all of these tags back, I put a message on his talk page concerning his errors and how all of the tags he added were covered by other referenced statements in the text. He added all of these back tonight. I left another message on his talk page and then I went through more of his edits and found more superfluous additions of these kinds of tags. I even found a {{whom}} tag added to hidden text because the word "considered" was used.

I can see these edits and other problematic edits (such as only stating that "cl" or "edit" and other simplistic edit summaries) as well as edits that break the formatting of the page (putting in extra carriage returns around ref tags, thereby making the text pressed together). I can only find one edit he has made outside of the article space and that was making his user page. He has been at this for a year. He does not respond to talk page messages and he certainly does not contribute to anything other than articles where he repeatedly makes the same mistakes in editing and comprehension of the article text.

What should be done? Also I am aware I have not left a message on his user talk concerning this discussion. I find it highly unlikely that he will pay attention to it, as he certainly has ignored all messages to him in the past.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified them of this thread - hopefully they'll drop by and explain themselves. However, if they don't, I think a block to forcibly get their attention may be the only option left to us. EyeSerene^talk 10:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing problematic with my edits. "Fact" and "whom" tags aim to encourage more detail and to avoid weasel-worded passives. Extra carriage-returns break up the text in edit-mode and make it easier for all editors to see the structures, especially where we have imbedded references. Since a lot of my edits simply fix up sequences of little details here and there it can become difficult to imagine more meaningful edit summaries, but I'll certainly listen to suggestions. Hope this helps. HoundsOfSpring (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the "Fact" and "Whom" tags are either covered by the text, other references, or are not relevant where you put them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that he's still using {{whom}} despite what has been said here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's crossing into WP:IDHT and WP:DISRUPT territory. I notice they've also reverted the removal of some of their tags; I'll leave them a final request to stop. EyeSerene^talk 09:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)While I agree that it is time to close the discussion, I do not believe that you were the person to do it, as you have been involved in the discussion and have made your opinion quite clear [10], [11], [12]. The discussion having been closed by someone who refers in said discussion to "a stupid useless banner" and suggests that a number of editors "take process wanking over inhouse niceties and LGBT pov-pushing and article bagging elsewhere" is completely inappropriate. Wine Guy~Talk 10:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Direct and sourced connection to LGBT issues: [13] --Cyclopia^talk 18:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Un-indent] Isn't there a way to communicate an article may be potentially interesting to LGBT project editors without putting the banner up on the talk page? I looked here [14] and saw Christina Aguilera listed, and there is no tag on her talk page. Can the same not be done for Weir? I believe that would serve the LGBT Wikiproject editors' interests while mitigating the potential BLP issues arising from directly tagging the subject's talk page. --SimpleParadox 18:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I went ahead and added the article to this page [15]. This action, I think, ensures that LGBT Wikiproject members see that the subject may be of interest to LGBT Wikiproject editors without placing the tag on the subject's talk page. Is that acceptable to both sides of this debate? --SimpleParadox 18:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion is currently tangling two related but separate issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott MacDonald should realize that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• He should be given kudos. The POV-pushing at that talkpage was out of control, especially by Cyclopia. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Scott MacDonald! Click here for my flower. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truthseekers666 (talk · contribs) has been involved in an edit war over at RAF Rudloe Manor. He has began linking to his personal website[16] More importantly he has began canvassing on his youtube channel, naming users and literally describing how to edit the article to his favour.[17] Ryan4314 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just flagged that video as abusive on the grounds of "bullying". Not sure if that's the best way to describe "attempt to coordinate a denial of service attack", but it seemed reasonably close.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also protected the article for two weeks at its current version, without looking to see what the current version actually was.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek, you should know by now, it is protected at the WP:WRONGVERSION. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. :-) I feel guilty when I try to protect the wrong version and get the right one. :-) If someone wants to put in an {{editprotected}} request, that should cover it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin with an interest in military and images and following comments at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests by Truthseekers666 I made comments at the Talk:RAF Rudloe Manor talk page and related unfree file discussion. User Truthseekers666 has questioned my motives and started personal attacks despite me giving him a warning on civility. Not sure why users ask for help and then dont accept it. The user has also started to make personal attacks against me and another user that disagree on the related talk pages and even questioned my unrelated image uploads. Evidently my warning about personal attacks was part of a consipiracy to ban him and his attack continued on the ground that I worked for MoD or was a Freemason or even had vested interests. Perhaps somebody else can look at the continual uncivil behaviour from this user. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I am a Freemason, but I had no idea that could be an issue here. In any case, he has 24 hours to think about his editing patterns, thanks to a 3RR violation after warning. Maybe it will help. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh fantastic :( As a member of the global conspiracy to keep the truth about UFOs from the public, I'll mention this on the milhist coordinators' talk page so we can help to suppress any further inconvenient revelations. EyeSerene^talk 20:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh am I mentioned? It's too dull to watch. Verbal chat 20:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And he asked for an unblock on the grounds that he asked to be judged by non-Freemasons. Obviously declined. Canterbury Tail talk 20:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if you declined his unblock, you're clearly a part of the Freemason/UFO conspiracy, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to conceal The Truth. Mind you, he hasn't actually said this yet, but you watch... — Gavia immer (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques de Molay, Thou art avenged! The Masonic Cabal is victorious once again! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for the record: I climbed over the crumbling wall of this near ruined site last year and had a good poke about (in the interests of architecture) and was not challenged nor did I see any evidence of guards, Freemasons, aliens or ghosts - in fact it's just rather a beautiful old derelict house dwarfed by derelict 1950s type buildings - I suspect the house will last longer than the buildings - all very sad, but deserted. I'm just delighted to see it here and at long last able to identify it. Sadly, I did not have my camera when I found it by chance - otherwise I would have written it up, and that would have kept the aliens and POV pushers off the page - wouldn't it?  Giano  21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably just as well -- if you had been taking pictures, the Weeping Angels might have come after you. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He says he's been previously "banned by IP" last year. If that is indeed the case, as opposed to merely blocked, then we can indef block him as a sock of a banned user. On the other hand, if he's simply trying to provide a link to a reliable source that the place in question had been investigated for UFOs by the British government (they've done sillier things than that, no doubt), then I don't see a problem with that. I'm still reading his comments. And for the love of God, will someone please tell him to take the lolly out of his mouth before he creates another video! Oh, and for the purposes of full disclosure (it's on my user page), I am a freemason. Rklawton (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find his YouTube video objectionable other than the fact that he's sucking. The problem I see is a matter of WP:RS WP:OR - both of which trump "consensus" - a point he doesn't seem to realize, as well as WP:UNDO. So yeah, I support keeping cruft off the page until such time that we can find a reliable source that indicates that this was a notable activity. Something title "RAF Rudloe Manor's Role in UFO Investigates" by the BBC would do the trick. Otherwise, it looks like a office that pushed paperwork, some of which includes "UFO Reports". Big whup. Rklawton (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that he's being honest when he says he was banned by IP, probably from Crop circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I have some memory of this. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for meatpuppets to edit for him is objectionable, to me. Woogee (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to blacklist Truthseeker's personal website? I know we've a couple of bots that actively remove unacceptable external links, but my concern here is that most of what is there is fringe theory stuff on or relating to black projects, secret proegrams, and defense subjects in general. I am not going to stand for such poisonous material appearing in milhist articles, and my guess is that if truthseeker has done this before and gotten nailed as an isp editor he'll do it again when the block expires.

On a related note, truthseeker's username is the same as his website, and in a broad sense that could be grounds for a permanent username block on grounds that his name seems to be promoting something (his personal website in this case). Has anyone considered implementing a username block on such grounds, or are we of the mind that this specific case is not a violation of the username policy? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course it's possible to blacklist it, but we might just as well simply block him for ban evasion, disruption, tendentious editing, spamming and generally being a dick. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say we're a day late and a dollar short on that, the username is about a year old now. It wouldn't be a bad idea to ask them to voluntarily change it, though. If they'd created that username a week ago and started spamming the web site I'd hardblock in a heartbeat. At this point, I'd say that if he keeps linking the site we should do it anyway, spam is spam. -- Atama頭 21:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Already blocked by another admin. –MuZemike 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please rein in Milanbijoux (talk · contribs). He/she seems intent on deleting "delete" !votes from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mona Lisa Brookshire.

I'ms sure the fact that they he/she wrote the article has nothing to do with it!!! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A footnote, we appear to also have had some IPs editing the AFD, all resolving to Uganda Telecom - the company for which the subject works. Seems under control now, but I've watchlisted the AFD just in case. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Question and notification combo: I reverted to an earlier version of Image:Mos.jpg and want to know if the version I reverted needs to be deleted, as the image licensing doesn't apply to it, and it may be unfree. If this is supposed to be deleted, then you are hereby notified, and also is there a WP:CSD template for this? I couldn't find an appropriate tag for the image. Thanks! — Bility (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted that revision under CSD G6 (housekeeping); it was clearly uploaded in the wrong place. EyeSerene^talk 11:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – not vandalism, but image deleted anyway Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the WP:VANDALISM page, User:OmniWikia added an image, marking the edits as minor edits [18]. There was no discussion about adding an image to the page, so I'm strongly suspecting this wasn't supposed to have been added. Not horrible vandalism, but a second opinion would be nice.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well given the user's history. I'm more than willing to concur that this is vandalism. Rgoodermote  00:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you guys talking about? I like the image, I think it's a good symbolic representation of what Wikipedia vandalism is, I don't see anything indicating it was done in bad faith but rather a rush to assume bad faith, and I don't see any reason to run straight to ANI without discussing it with Omni first. Not every edit must be discussed first, most users are comfortable with WP:BRD. I certainly don't see any need for any admin action on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether we like the image or not isn't really the issue. Changes to policy pages should involve discussion, shouldn't they? And when images are added, they shouldn't be marked as minor edits. That's what made me suspect the vandalism. Then I came to ANI and ASK for a second opinion. Don't start screaming about assuming bad faith. I wrote him on his userpage and asked for a second opinion second opinion here. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BRD huh? I guess we should completely ignore that banner at the top that says "Changes made to it should reflect consensus." Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second examination (the first I didn't to do well admittedly). It does appear to have been in good faith. Rgoodermote  00:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It may very well have been good faith. What made me suspect otherwise was the repeated marking of the edit as minor. Obviously adding an image is not a minor edit and he's been here long enough to know that. Had it been once, I'd have thought maybe it was accidental. But it was marked as minor multiple times. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, you know what they say: even a broken clock is right twice a day. doesn't really apply in the age of digital clocks, but still... --Ludwigs2 01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 5 succesive edits marked as minor. That was the main thing that made me suspect it wasn't on the up and up. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody explain how OmniWikia owns File:Wikipedia-vandal.png, when it's derived from the copyrighted Wikipedia image? Woogee (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a problem indeed. I do believe that image is a WP:COPYVIO. Rgoodermote  01:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as such (derivative work). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just out of curiosity, what was the problem here - I kind of liked the image. it was well done, and kind of cute in an irreverent sort of way. why couldn't we keep it? --Ludwigs2 01:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. - let me add, if other like the image I will happily recreate something similar and upload it as a freebie. --Ludwigs2 01:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I liked it too. But not liking it wasn't what brought me here. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just be sure you don't derive it from a copyrighted logo. Woogee (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, I can base it on the wikipedia logo, can't I? I assume that's public domain. I'll just find something appropriate on commons and play with it a bit... --Ludwigs2 06:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Wikipedia logo is not public domain. That's the problem. Woogee (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ah... well, I'll work something out then. give me a bit, and I'll post it over there. --Ludwigs2 06:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redid, re-uploaded put in appropriate license, my history I am sorry for, my preferences mark it always as mnor edit. Sorry for any problems. -~OmniWikia 19:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unforeseen issue is the use of this image as vandalism itself example. Rehevkor ✉ 19:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, still a copyright violation. You are not the copyright holder, and therefore it is not valid for you to be assigning any licenses whatsoever. This is still a problematic copyright problem, please re-delete. Woogee (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]