Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Equal treatment and stalking

spam
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was just attacked again.. the post removed.. apparently this is a correct fourm. I am repetedly attacked by numerous shill accounts whenever I edit. This person and wikipedia have been defrauding me of equal right to use this service by pretending (in bad faith) that any addition or deletion I make is bad. And any deletion they make is good. This is obviously not the case. They have MISUED the spam list to attack me. I do not and have never sent any spam to anyone. I have made nothing but apropriate contributions to wikipedia. In fields a diverse and earth sciences and anthropology and I am the inventor of a technology for safer smoking. I am apparently the only expert in this field. These individuals have simply been misusing the wikipedia service by stalking me and controlling the [vaporizer] page in order to maximize the sales of illigitimate theft operations on the internet. They file fakepatent papers and theft technology. Please stop them from abusing the spam list and stop them from railroading my company. I have as much right to be on wikipedia as anyone else. You have links to abscure mimes and 11 century actors and all manner of trivia. Brands of soda, cigarettes, motorcycles. In vaporizers, the flame-through vaporizer is a top technology in vaporizers it is lighter cheaper and more versitile than any other technology. And it is a potential savings of 27% of all cancer. (90% of the 30% attributable to smoking) You display links to all kinds of companies at your discression and omit people randomly. Wikipedia has been a haven for these criminals and Wikipedia has a responsibility to stop it. Wikipedia is responsible for it's spam list and I want AmericanSmokeless.Com Tim Sheridan and TheUbie.Com taken off your hate list. And my username restored (Abmin) with suficient privlages to be free of constant attacks. My patent with the United States Patent office (U.S. Pst. Smokeless Pipe)clearly shows that I am the expert. And these people are rsimply railroading and persecuting me to obtain a monopoly in the marketplace. Wikipedia is not the only place they are active. But I it is apropriate for you to make the necessary controls. I edit rarely. And often in areas that are highly "prised".. I rewrote(significantly shortened) the headder for [Vaporizer] (though it was erased and copied), I added the note about the SciNews report that humans have 1 to 4 percent neanderthal dna. And many other current and valuable things. The Ubie is simply the invention of the modern vaporizer, a technology that is the top of the field. Nothing lasts better or is more reliable than a liquid fueled ighter. The Ubie is the least expencive and it is even clear so you can see what you are doing. No vaporizer does all that the Ubie does at the cost, size and reliability.</ The Ubie is SO notable that it is constantly stalked and attacked in every fourm by theft gangs. The Ubie has becomenotable simply for the fact that it has been so constantly attacked. The Ubie has been is listed in: High times vaporizer reviews "A+" Ed Rosenthall's books. Skunk Magazine vol 1 p 103 The United States Patent Office "Novel and Useful" Fix amagazine Periodically on WIKIPEDIA (usually for days or weeks untill the gangs deleted it. While the vaporizer is not universally chosen by all smokers it represents a potential prevention for 27% of all cancer. it is irresponsible to deprive readers of this specific information or a link simply to enguage in an attack on a person or company. Please make wikipedia a real fourm for information and not some kind of plaground for the gangs that stalk me. Please add the Ubie so people will not see a fake artical. Tim Sheridan AmericanSmokeless.Com TheUbie.Com User: Abmin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.244.68 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Co-editor apparently banning me from pages

See /Smatprt. A topic ban from the topic of William Shakespeare has been proposed and has considerable support, and a mutual editing restriction on all parties is also under consideration.

Moved to subpage as it's rather big. --TS 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Datestamp of this comment is faked in an attempt to delay archiving of this pointer. --TS 22:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the two editors (I am both the plaintiff and, in the thread, subsequently indicted)for whom a topic ban has been proposed, User:Smatprt, has noted on the page that he is experiencing problems with his computer, and will be travelling until the 18th, and thus cannot respond to the charges or issues raised concerning his editing behaviour. I suggest the page here retain this notice until at least that date.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Meat, Libel, four AfDs, and assorted weirdness at David Bruce McMahan

We have a strange situation brewing and I believe that we will need an admin to come in immediately and sort it all out.

Issue One: Blog accusing Wikipedia of deleting articles for money

An IP posted a link to this article today at the talk for David Bruce McMahan. I responded that the process was all done legitimately to my knowledge. It was done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce McMahan (3rd nomination).

Considering that this is an issue of libel against Wikipedia, this might need intervention by the office staff. Or we can ignore the blogger, [REDACTED], and move on. More likely option is the first one, with all the chaos that entails.

Issue Two: Meatpuppetry or other Odd Beheavior

Someone with more experiance than I should look at the edit histories of user:SirBruce and the IP 69.140.102.40. SirBruce has not been seen since 9 Feb 2010 and then posted in the talk page warning another user not to remove sources. The other user (Melaen) seems above question and seems to have taken the correct actions, but SirBruce's appearance raises questions. This is compounded by the edit history of the IP which has been absent for over a month before posting the link to the voice and making accusations against Wikipedia.

Finally, the article creator Wikidpedia appeared today for the first time since 2007 to create this article. In 2007 he created several other articles that were deleted. The timing of all these users is suspicious. The admin User:Cirt blocked the account for 48 hours for disruptive editing, but I think this is someone's dormant sock, as there is no other explination as to why the account would suddenly come in and create an article like this.

Issue Three: The curious history of Bruce McMahan and David Bruce McMahan

There have been four AfDs for this article. Three without the David, one with it. I upgraded the fourth to a CSD G3 on account of it being deleted before. That being said, the first and second AfDs resulted in Keeps, and the third was a Delete. The sources seemed not to have changed, but the consensus shifted. In full disclosure I voted delete on the newest AfD, but was unaware of the other three except for the notification of the deletion history at the AfD. I wanted to bring this up in light of the posting from the Voice, and because the people that hang out here will know the best course of action in all three incidents.

I will not be participating in the discussion of these issues unless I am asked to do so. Please inform me at my talk page if I am needed. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Note

The page in question has just been deleted. Apparently this is not a problem for Admins, so I don't advise restoring it, as it can only cause more problems. All three issues are still valid though. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevant link to final AFD before speedy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bruce McMahan. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

So this guy gets his page deleted because he's not "notable" even though he's had plenty of articles written on him and lawsuits against him. What would make him notable in the eyes of Wikipedia? A reference on Family Guy? Does Peter need to go "Bruce McMahan? That's like that one time I slept with Meg!"?

Just because the content of the article is poor, doesn't mean the entire page should be deleted. This person is clearly notable based on the wide coverage this has received in addition to his role as CEO of a firm that has received coverage, philanthropy that has received coverage, etc. Most of the criticism leveled is hung up on the negative nature of the original article -- clearly, the article's content was unacceptable. But, that means a stub should be created, sources listed, and appropriate tags citing need for improvement, perhaps even created with protection given the obvious controversy, and so forth. In other words, deleting articles due to controversy is ridiculous. There are hundreds of thousands of articles with far less reliable (and far fewer) sources that we don't go around randomly deleting. We need to be honest with ourselves and admit that we are deleting the article repeatedly due to, 1) the article content being bad (even in poor taste), and 2) controversial. However, neither of this actually justify the actions taken. It means that it's just going to be a huge pain in the ass for an admin to maintain and a writer to create. Strom (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted this wretched and unacceptable article, along with its talkpage. They should not be restored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is all well and good, and I stand by the delete, but issues one and two are still important. Should issue 1 be taken to the office and issue 2 to the sockbusters? If so, can someone else do it, I'm not sure how to report things to the office staff or how to report possible meats without knowing who the leader is. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and salted the article on the reason that some extensive discussion will be necessary before considering recreation. –MuZemike 02:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a random policy question from a new-ish user. I know salting prevents recreating articles, but do the discussion pages also get salted? If so it didn't get done in either case... Just curious, Sven Manguard _Talk 02:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can someone explain this to me? NYB's deletion summary indicates that there are multiple AfDs that have deleted this, but I'm only seeing one (proceeded by 2 keeps where consensus was strongly on the keep side). Further I'm not having problems finding sources on this person. There is all the "odd" stuff like [1] and [2], but there are also things like [3], [4] and [5]on his world-record setting car and for his foundation work [6], [7]. Help? Hobit (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• • 3rd AFD, 2nd AFD, 1st AFD. As far as this last deletion was concerned, after looking at the deleted copy, I do have to agree with NYB. It was entirely negative in tone and would have likely fallen under WP:CSD#G10 as an attack page; it just happened to have been deleted a bunch of times before that. –MuZemike 03:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The 2nd and 1st were keeps. So if we do want this recreated we get a userspace version and DrV it? If so, I'd like to request the version deleted by the 3rd AfD be userfied to me. I'll dig back and find what was keepable about 1 and 2 and use that as a starting point. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I didn't see any of those articles, but I'm guessing that the most recent version was a gross violation of our BLP policies, and as such it shouldn't be userfied either - i.e., it should stay invisible to the public. If the result of the second AFD was "keep", then maybe that one could be userfied - if its content is not potentially libelous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Fine with me I suppose, but given that it wasn't deleted for being libelous, I assume that the 3rd should be fine too. I'll take either (assuming I get the history). Hobit (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly a page that should exist. David Bruce McMahan aka D. Bruce McMahan aka David B. McMahan has had several feature stories written about him in newspapers and magazines, including cover articles in New Times Broward-Palm Beach and Village Voice. He was the subject of multiple lawsuits and has tried to censor journalists and now Wikipedia from reporting on him. He is also a successful businessman and philanthropist who has multiple projects named after him.

The content of the article on Wikipedia was at one time up to standards, but got gutted. The article should be improved and not deleted. There is more than enough information, including direct source legal papers, to fill an appropriate article on him. The page just needs time to stay up instead of being deleted so it can be improved.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-09-26/news/daddy-s-girl/

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/10/memo_to_bruce_m.php

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/Issues/2006-09-28/news/feature.html

--66.246.94.130 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I really hate to do this, as the comment I am about to make flies in the face of many of my core policies, but it has to be said: I'm been to South Florida. I've had the distinct misfortune of reading the New Times. It is unreliable, and has such tremendously low journalistic standards that it is on par with trash tabloids. I would never use it as a source in anything. I'd sooner use the National Inquirer. The New Times is NOT a suitable source, ever, period. As for the other sources, anything with blog in the name is genertally viewed with skepticism. A few blogs are editor reviewed and have high standards. The NPR blogs come to mind. Most blogs are not editor reviewed and therefore are not good sources. Also considering this article my view of the voice as reliable isn't that high.

You need better sources. If the man is notable, they will exist. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

@66.246.94.130: Your edit here is higly inappropriate. Avoid attacking the closing admin, it never helps an argument. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Joe Arpaio article cites the Phoenix version of the New Times on multiple occasions, and has for some time despite some controversy on that article's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pugs Malone (talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

<ec>Two things. #1, as I listed above, there are plenty of other sources, so if the New Times is really that bad, we can cope. The discussion about the New Times can happen at WP:RSN. #2 Sven, do you have any WP:COI issues with McMahan? Given your relatively short history here (though lots of edits in that time) I figured it would be worth asking just to be sure. I assume you are a returning editor going for a WP:CLEANSTART, but the COI think also seems possible. Hobit (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no COI. I have the unfortunate habit of unknowingly stepping into existing conflicts, (see the above ANI that I posted in) but this is more of a "I saw something wrong and went after it" sort of thing. As to my knowledge, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006. I only got an account recently because I spent three months abroad and away from Wikipedia, and came back to a new review system, a dramatic increase in semi-protections, and an overall less condusive atmosphere towards IP editing. Before getting the account, I never used automated tools or participated in ANI or AFD, although I did launch one SOCK investigation from my iPhone. Hence my large general knowledge and low specific knowledge. Also I seem to bite off more than I can chew and have terrible spelling, but again, no COI. If you want to give me guideance on anything, please feel free to do so. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The "blogger who appears to be a hack" that Sven speaks of in his "Issue 1" above is Tony Ortega, Editor in Chief of The Village Voice, as it says at the end of the Ortega/VV blog that Sven linked to. Sven, since you referred to Ortega as a "hack", he appears to have now returned the favor by referring to you in an update to his column as a "minion" (see immediately preceding link, "Update" section). I'd very respectfully suggest that it might help keep drama to a minimum, now that you've made your opinion known, if you were to follow through on the intention you stated when you initiated this thread, and perhaps not continue to participate in this discussion. You're free to do as you think best, of course, and perhaps it'll be necessary for you to comment further, at least briefly. But it would be unfortunate if you (or any individual editor here) were to in any way "become the story". This thread shouldn't be about your opinion of Ortega, or his opinion of you: It needs to remain focused on whether we are to have a McMahan article on Wikipedia.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note: Tony Ortega did not claim, nor imply, that Wikipedia deleted the article "for money". If he did say or imply that, please do let me know, because that's absolutely false and libelous. But I think what he said was also false, and it is worth me saying so plainly. His claim appears to be that McMahan's money allowed him to intimidate Wikipedia into deleting the article through legal threats. That's absolutely false. There is no prohibition on creating the article from either the Foundation or me. Whether or not there should be an article about this topic is entirely up to the community in accordance with the usual procedures. I don't recommend having a brawl about it, and of course Newyorkbrad's wise comments should be very thoughtfully considered. For me personally, a big test for this article, and a challenge perhaps difficult to meet, is WP:BLP1E. Beyond that, the article would need to be thoughtful and respectful of human dignity and would have to work really hard to draw conservative conclusions rather than following a single source as if it is the gospel truth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would be appropriate to quote what Ortega is saying about Wikipedia, since I'm not clear that everyone in the discussion is actually reading his blog post (and just to point out - yes it's a blog post, but also the bloogier who wrote it signs his blog posts "Tony Ortega is the editor-in-chief of The Village Voice" - for those not aware of the Voice, it is considered a "reliable source," and not just in the wikipedia context.

From the blog post Memo

UPDATE: Wikipedia's reason for not wanting a McMahan page? According to one of their minions, I'm a "hack."

The last time, while they were under constant attack by McMahan's lawyers, they pulled down references to our articles because, they said, The Village Voice was not a legitimate source of information for biographies of living people.

Say what? I tracked down the Wikipedia minion who had written that, who turned out to be an electrical engineer in England. He sent me some long explanations about the nature of journalism and what information is reliable. But eventually, I got him to admit that Wikipedia was wiping the McMahan page simply through fear. They were afraid of being sued by McMahan, but it was easier to say that the Voice wasn't a legitimate source. You can imagine that my respect for Wikipedia took a nosedive at that point.

This time, we get a Wikipedia minion saying that McMahan isn't "notable" and that I'm a hack. You can almost smell the fear, can't you?

Not notable? Well, OK, Wikipedia, how's this for notable. It turns out that moneybags McMahan put on a show earlier this year with his new $3 million race car, and unveiled it with the help of 2010's Playmate of the year, Hope Dworacyk. Notable enough for you?

I don't know. Hedge fund kabillionaire, noted "philanthropist," race car dreamer, Westchester County bigwig, and...oh, he married his own daughter in Westminster Abbey. Is that really not notable enough?

UPDATE 2: And now it's down. Well, we learn once again that Wikipedia is afraid of McMahan (which is fine, we don't expect others to take on these kinds of stories), but that they will continue to slime the Voice as their reason for taking down information about him.

For the benefit of Wikipedia editors, who still may not understand this situation, the Voice is doing things the old-fashioned way here. We are reporting what court documents revealed about a relationship between a very notable super-rich old guy who abused his grown daughter for years. Those facts are contained in court documents which are available here and elsewhere. Normally, that is the bedrock of what Wikipedia considers legitimate sourcing. In this case, however, McMahan's money talks.

(emphasis added)

I'm sticking my nose in because I find this particular incident fascinating on many levels. The collision between journalism & wikipedia, and the awful, awful story that this whole discussion is about.

You guys should really get a handle on your "minions" =) illovich (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet, the identity of this "minion", their source of said "minion's" information, the reason their word (if it was ever actually given) should be believed, or why it's impossible any of the other provided reasons would not justify any particular course of action, remain mysteries. I was tempted to just slap a bunch of {{fact}} tags in the above, but re-factoring someone else's comments is a faux pas. Between several plausible and supported motives versus unsubstantiated hearsay, I think it's fairly obvious what further discussion should be predicated on. - Vianello (Talk) 22:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knO5Ad7cD0M is this an appropriate source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.201.102 (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

National Cristina Foundation

As long as this is being discussed, someone should have a look at this edit. I reverted, but perhaps the IP who made it should be dealt with and a revdelete imposed. Also, please examine the link to the Village Voice story recently inserted. Admins should watchlist. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've revision deleted that edit, and a similar edit to the talkpage. I gave the IP a final warning, as the edits were from several hours ago. They have, however, already had one block for a similar (deleted) edit. If someone else feels a block here is warranted they'll get no objection from me. I haven't looked at the Village Voice link yet. TFOWR 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the talk page history. The libelous edit summary is still live. IMO the talk page should be deleted entirely. Also please look at the link to the Voice story in the article. Perhaps that should be revdeleted, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries have been deleted as well, now - thanks for catching that. I'm still catching up with the Village Voice link/ref. TFOWR 17:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a link to the same Voice story mentioned in the first post of this thread containing the accusations against McMahan. It's not relevant to the Cristina Foundation. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've revrted it and semi-protected the article. I have not revision-deleted the Village Voice ref, however. (I may yet, and have no objection to anyone else doing so). TFOWR 17:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Further to this issue, some time after TWOFRs post an IP posted a link on the articles Talk Page to a YouTube video alledgedly about "Bruce McMahaon's dark past". I have deleted the link and related comments - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

External publicity

This whole sorry mess is now being posted about on Reddit, which has an unfortunate habit of publicizing "interesting" Wikipedia vandalism - see discussion here and be sure to view the image linked at the top of the discussion page, which is visible to anyone who sees the link on Reddit's front page. When we spend our time dickering about what we should do instead of just nuking the offensive material, this is how the world sees us. That's apart from the harm being done to a living person (again, see image linked in the discussion there), which is horrendous and irreversible. This whole lengthy discussion did nothing to prevent either issue - whereas immediately deleting the BLP-violating material and reconsidering it afterward would have prevented it. One ounce of action beats any amount of debate, every time. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• The original Reddit link to the Village Voice article, from yesterday: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/dooud/rich_guy_has_an_affair_with_daughter_gets_called/ - as you can see, they're pretty miffed about this guy's behaviour. This is what a person who claims to be the original editor of the Bruce McMahan article says about it:

Thank you for linking to Tony's article. I'm glad to see this scumbag's past dredged up again.

I can offer some possibly interesting perspective on this incident. I was the Wikipedia editor who first created the Bruce McMahan page several years ago. I used the original Broward/Palm Beach New Times articles as my main source and was even nice enough to not call him out on his mail-order PhD.

Once the article entered Google and became a first-page hit for "Bruce McMahan", Bruce's hired gun from the law firm of Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor LLP (www.linerlaw.com) emailed me proposing changes to the article. What a fuck up! The idiot didn't even know he could edit the article himself. I ignored him.

Bruce's PR firm wised up, and vandals began blanking the page. I kept restoring it, and we went back and forth. His PR firm soon figured out that they could actually re-write the pages instead of vandalize them. A resume was posted over the article. When I and several editors pushed back, several new but deeply concerned editors began inserting outright lies then tried to weaken the language of the daughter-fucking incident and bury it under mounds of glowing hagiography. They accused me and a handful of editors as being members of a conspiracy to destroy Bruce. One of his daughters even jumped in with a ridiculously long apologia in the discussion page. The volume of edits and sock puppets knocked the fight out of me, but a handful of other editors kept up and actually expanded the article to cover far more of the daughter-fucking incident than my original stub.

Eventually, Bruce contacted Jimbo Wales, who directly intervened and had an admin settle the debate in favor of scrubbing ALL references to Bruce's daughter fucking from the article. For the next couple of years, the article became a paean to Bruce's charity work with the National Cristina Foundation and other bullshit. Bruce won. It stood this way for a long time until someone noticed that there was a random fluff piece floating around Wikipedia and proposed to delete it. Fuck it, I decided, and I voted to kill it.

Reddit, I implore you: vote this link up. Get it to the front page. Make Bruce McMahan and other rich people realize that when they try to suppress information with the tools of coercion and deception, free-speech-loving individuals will turn around and blow it up to the stratosphere.

So, yes, thanks for caving to the guy with the money, Wikipedia. 94.193.244.17 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

When do I get my money, and how much will I get? TFOWR 12:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, to be clear, I have nothing to do with this. Bruce did not contact me, I did not intervene. There is no prohibition by me or the Foundation on creating an article on this topic, and never has been.. Years ago, Brad Patrick had conversation with some people about this; he may be able to explain more if he is interested. But he did not, to my knowledge, intervene back then. As always, I am a strong proponent of WP:BLP and WP:RS - those policies are clearly relevant here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• As for what Tony Ortega thinks of us: [REDACTED]. HalfShadow 22:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Insufferably long comment

I believe I've now discovered and examined all or nearly all the articles and web sources that are at all relevant: I've probably sifted through and read well over 200 pages, including court documents. I do not choose to provide my opinion of the facts presented in the media; other editors can examine the available evidence for themselves. I will say, however, that I don't think it's a worthwhile or justifiable exercise to attempt to shoot the media messengers in this instance. Nor do I think it's useful (or appropriate) for any of us to try to stand in moral judgment, based on our interpretation of the facts we have available. If anyone here finds he can't refrain from doing so, can't think of or discuss this issue without moral indignation coloring his thinking, this article and related ones available on the web may be of considerable use. The suggestion is not to be construed as indicating any opinion about the facts that have been presented on either side in this matter.

A procedural note is probably in order. While the article was in its most recent (4th) AfD, a user tagged it under CSD G4, and it was, in fact, deleted as a "speedy". While that tagging was no doubt made in all good faith, the article probably didn't meet G4 since the just-deleted article has been described as being very negative, while the previously deleted version (AfD three) was anything but: it was described as having been "whitewashed", and as a vanity piece. CSD G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version".

Some of the "external publicity" about this has already been mentioned and even quoted. There's a very great deal of it, and it appears this thread is being followed pretty closely in some corners of the web. ( A good reason for choosing one's words deliberately here, I think. ) As might be expected, some people are hoping for and trying to promote a "Streisand effect", and others believe just as strongly that the allegations should never have been published at all. There has been some suggestion of a conflict of interest re one editor along with a corresponding reference to a previously disclosed real-life identity ( I do not say "credible" suggestion, note ) and there's a different, previously-involved editor who has expressed great indignation off-site at what he sees as the improper suppression of this article. That editor has made accusations that target that indignation back to Wikipedia; and it's my opinion that it wouldn't be very extraordinarily improper ask him whether he might have some potential conflict of interest, given certain individual factors. I mention this not because I think it needs to be investigated (I don't) but because I think it's appropriate that editors should be forewarned of it. Each side in this conflict is sure it holds the moral high ground, each side just knows it's on the side of the angels.

As I see the question, there are two distinct ways we can decide whether to have an article about this. We can base a decision on rules, or we can base a decision on values.

If we're to base our decision on rules then I think Jimmy is exactly right that it comes down to BLP1E. That question resolves to (a) whether McMahan is also notable in our very-specific and admittedly idiosyncratic sense of the word on Wikipedia for his race-car development, his success as a hedge-fund manager, his wealth, or his philanthropy, OR (b) whether the coverage about the father-daughter controversy has been broad-enough and persistent-enough in reliable sources to call for inclusion in Wikipedia. If either condition (a) or (b) is met then our rules dictate that a carefully-written, non-sensational article that includes the topic currently at issue here should not be deleted.

In the course of looking into the question, I saw a great many mentions re "condition (a)" about McMahan. That's it exactly: there were a great many mentions re that condition. The NY Times mentioned the sale of a $30 million condo (furnishings and artwork included), Playboy mentioned his race car development, some trade publications mention his work as a hedge-fund manager, there were a few mentions of his philanthropy, and one or two of his great wealth. I saw nothing in-depth about these topics, however, no "feature" articles about McMahan in any of these contexts or roles. It's possible I missed something, of course, but I tried carefully to be thorough. It's a borderline case, a judgment call, and I'm not going to argue the point with anyone, but it's my view that McMahan's notability apart from the one big issue that's current is probably not sufficient to warrant an article.

So what about "condition (b)", then? Well, there's a great deal of material, multiple articles, from Village Voice, and the follow-up official blogs. ( The New Times in other locations is also Village Voice Media, btw, as I understand it. ) And there are two articles in the New York Post that I know of: one essentially follows after the Village Voice and one introduces denials and counter-accusations against the long-lost daughter, made by a different daughter and (same) half-sister. A lot of editors will disapprove of the Village Voice and the New York Post, of course, because their respective editorial outlooks don't suit. I have nothing to say about that, but it's my opinion that they're both reliable sources, have sufficient editorial oversight, etc. There will be editors here who disagree with that, of course, but I think any such debate would be moot. A case could be made that it's due to McMahan's success in getting civil lawsuits sealed in multiple jurisdictions, perhaps quite a strong case, too, but for whatever reason I was unable to discover any other reliable sources that touched this story. The Village Voice directly addresses the issue, of course, this apparent lack of extensive coverage elsewhere, but the fact remains. Oh, there was a new story today in English at thaindian.com, too. That's all I'm aware of: It's my overall opinion that our condition (b) probably isn't met, either.

What, then, if we base our decision on values? Before I really looked at this in-depth, I was sure that the "values" decision had to come down in favor of having an article: I completely understood the great indignation that the Editor of the Village Voice has expressed. I'm fairly sure I still do understand that, actually. I would almost certainly feel the way he does, were I in his shoes. But I can't work myself into the same state of indignation after looking at this as closely as I now have. There's no moral high ground here, in my view; the angels aren't on anyone's side. They're probably all just quietly weeping somewhere. Whatever you believe about the facts presented, whether you believe in guilt or innocence or some combination of the two for the accused or accusers, what we have here are terrible, devastating personal consequences, a real tragedy. If we're going to base our decision about this on values, then it seems morally right to me to leave the personally involved to suffer through the grief of this as best they can without all of us here shining a spotlight their way. I realize that others may disagree in perfect good faith, of course, but that's my view of this matter. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as an exceptionally thoughtful, well-reasoned, and empathetic comment. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Amazing. Makes me proud to be a Wikipedian.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully supporting Ohiostandard, after spending an hour or so familiarizing myself with the previous article versions and some of the online articles. And i'm an inclusionist. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ohiostandard makes a good case that the article falls into a "grey zone" of notability, between articles that pretty unambiguously need deleting and those that pretty unambiguously need keeping. Within this grey zone we have a collective choice, and Ohiostandard raises the issue of "values". I'd suggest that there are two concrete things to inform the choice: i) WP:NOTNEWS (the fewer sources there are on a BLP subject, the more a Wikipedia article takes on the qualities of a news source rather than an encyclopedia - especially in view of Wikipedia's typically high Google ranking) ii) the notion of the "Public interest". Within the grey zone, we're balancing a subject's desire for privacy with the public's right to know. The moral strength of the latter depends on the interest involving more than prurience; for example, it's more reasonable to say that it's in the public interest to have corruption in public office reported than, say, adultery. Bottom line, McMahan falls into the grey zone, and on both considerations I've suggested, I think the choice should be not to have an article. Rd232 ^talk 08:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Other article venues where this has spilled to

• The Village Voice
• Streisand effect

Just an FYI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I haven't really edited many articles, in fact I finally just created an account because of this incident. Doesn't the fact that there is such a fervent discussion over McMahan's inclusion/exclusion point out that he has enough notoriety to warrant inclusion here? Is it simply because there are no major articles giving a complete biography in several publications that means he shouldn't be included? As soon as you willingly step into the public light, i.e. a public unveiling of a car with the help of a playmate (which absolutely is an attempt for attention for his product), you lose your right to anonymity. Certainly, the article should be balanced, giving all available information. But deleting an article of a notable public figure because they're not famous enough ignores all of the other articles on Wikipedia that certainly have garnered much less attention. I'm not implying that anything untoward happened, but given the allegations, simple deletion smacks of impropriety. BTW, if I've made any faux-pas's regarding my post here, let me know, still trying to figure this all out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriffjt (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a touchy subject. One group of Wikipedians are against keeping articles from deletion just because their notability is Wikipedia-related, & they often win the discussions. (I don't always think their opinion on the matter is correct, but that's besides the point.) In this case, I would believe you have a point here if this squabble over an article about this guy makes it to the news beyond The Village Voice or the New York Times -- for example, it gets picked up by one of the major media networks in the US or in Europe. Or the incident gets picked apart in the next book on Wikipedia. Until then, while I weakly agree with you on this there just isn't enough evidence for notability; or to put it another way, if I'm going to spend time writing an article on a living person, I'd rather work on one of the major government officials of Ethiopia -- we don't have an article on their Minister of Agriculture, for example. In the long run, an article on the Ethiopian Minister of Agriculture will help more people than on this guy. -- llywrch (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible DRV

I know this is going to be wildly unpopular, but our primary concern here should be adherence to our own policies, primarily, WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:N. Deleting one-sided attack articles is certainly beneficial and desirable, but if a subject satisfies the WP:BIO section of the notability policy, and the article is built from verifiable facts, does not violate BLP, UNDUE or NPOV, then I think we should have it. We should never prevent creation of an article that satisfies the requirements of these policies just because the subject is controversial. I hope this will be taken to DRV and thoroughly discussed after all these meat/sock issues are resolved. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Bigger than one article

A cursory search led me to find mention of McMahan in Genetic sexual attraction and Streisand effect (I removed it from the latter), but I have a feeling some POV pushers may have, upon deletion of the BLP article, peppered mentions of McMahan throughout WP. I am far from an expert on BLP policies, but if McMahan is not notable for his own article, then I doubt that using his alleged "controversial relationship" as an example in other articles is appropriate; possible vandalism. Anyway, just wanted to bring this to an Admin's attention The Eskimo (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And just an aside, I was simply casually browsing the ANI thread, and am now fully aware of the controversial information about this non notable individual without actively "looking" for it. I for one hate when I follow a discussion only to find the gossipy stuff courtesy blanked or whatever (just out of sheer curiosity), but I understand why that is the case, and if this information is potentially libelous, well, I'm just saying... The Eskimo (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, though, this information is not libelous as he has already settled all court cases (at least according to the Village Voice). If in fact it is still available through the CT courts, the information in the article should be verifiable. Also, I understand the need for multiple sources, but ignoring a source because of a purported yet unproven bias is another. The Village Voice and The New York Times are both legitimate sources, whether or not one agrees with what they say is a different matter entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriffjt (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what needs to happen is that a BLP article should be written based solely on the notability of his business ventures, ignoring the controversial content for now. If the article stands up on its own (and doesn't get deleted as non-notable), then a discussion should be started on the talk page about whether or not to include the controversial material. At that point, certain important issues can be discussed, such as policies regarding biographies of living persons, how much focus, if any, should be giving to the controversy, and whether or not the Village Voice is a good source for the article. Let consensus work it out before including any controversy, because, in the future, you're going to need to link to those discussion to defend any deletion attempts that will surely pop up if the thing about his daughter ever makes into the article. A slow and non-controversial re-start would be the way to go if someone want to try another stab at this. The Eskimo (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User: Dweeby123 - misuse of both Twinkle and the term 'vandalism'

Dweeby123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has been repeatedly asked to stop labelling edits that he disagrees with as 'vandalism', e. g., [8], [9], [10], [11]. He has been edit warring at Tony Curtis over the wikilinking of Curtis's birthplace, calling some of the reversions against his preferred version 'vandalism'. He refuses to stop, and does not respond to other editors' entreaties on his talk page. Radiopathy •talk• 23:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good-faith but inexperienced editor here; over the last month or so, I've seen the vast majority of his edits being constructive, at least in intent. Some advice as to the nature of "vandalism" would be in order, and maybe even adoption or mentorship, but I don't see it as being that destructive at present. Perhaps if you notify him of this discussion, that would focus his mind a tad. Rodhullandemu 23:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle, Rod, but it's been spelt out on his talk page a few times already, and the behaviour continues. Radiopathy •talk• 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

He's done it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dweeby123#More_pretend_.22Vandalism.22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.140.186 (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The user appears to neither heed nor read messages or warnings on his talk page. The only way to make him aware that anything is wrong will probably be a block.--Kudpung (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done so. I imagine it will get his attention. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he will request for an unblock sooner or later. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 16:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Umm, isn't an indef a little strong for a first-time block? Radiopathy •talk• 16:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's an indefinite block, not an infinite one. It'll last only until he enters into some kind of reasonable dialogue. Usually this happens within 24 hours, sometimes the user never responds. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• My guess is that he just needs to slow it down. He's offered to stop using Twinkle, I'm thinking maybe we just add him to the Twinkle blacklist and require him to get an admin's permission to turn it back on once a reasonable amount of time has passed without a recurrence of this problem. I'm going to place his unblock request on hold pending the outcome of this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I really think you should give him a one more chance then, if he messes up then that's his problem, isn't really??, okay I don't know this person (at all), but it look's to me that he's passionate about Wikipedia, like we all should be --83.218.31.112 (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

He is being given a chance - see Elen's comment above. TFOWR 15:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

83.218.31.112 looks suspiciously like Dweeby123... AnemoneProjectors 16:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to comment on the same thing. The edit summaries from Dweeby123 ([12]) and the IP ([13]) are strikingly similar. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And it started editing straight after Dweebly123 was blocked. Oh dear.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Emmerdale" is a dead giveaway. Could you block the IP as well? Radiopathy •talk• 21:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at both Dweeby123's and 83.218.31.112's contribs, the (do'h) and (tweak) edit summaries sound a lot like quackery. Ishdarian 07:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got to wonder how an IP user who "doesn't know this person (at all)", who consistently misspells Homer's catchphrase "D'oh!" in the same way, and who persistently "tweaks" page, also came and found and then contributed to this discussion, and made a strong point of not knowing the person. It is an astonishing set of coincidences. More seriously and like Radiopathy, I thought the block was a little harsh as little chance had been given for him to respond to this discussion, he had done just a handful of clean edits apart from calling something good faith but writing "rvv", but that could simply be not understanding or a typo. But now that he appears to be sockpuppeting to sway a discussion about him, forget it. Disappointed. Halsteadk (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've formally denied his unblock request and directed him to consider WP:OFFER. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Threat against WalMart

Are we supposed to report stuff like this? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It geolocates to New York City, though that may not prove anything. For what it's worth, December 27 is the Monday following Christmas, when one might expect to see white sales. And FYI, Clark County contains Las Vegas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in contact with Clark County Law enforcement. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

They're probably laughing at you. They have more important things to worry about than some website. October First (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Last year, I reported this threat to police in Goshen County, Wyoming; they responded with a notice that they'd investigated and caught the threat-maker, and I even got an apology email from the kid who'd made the threat. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be oversighted? Buggie111 (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't think so, it's not offensive or anything, just dumb. It's already rev-deleted. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see it; it hasn't been revdelled. It should deleted as RD3 though. Oversight shouldn't be necessary though, it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:OVERSIGHT. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought revdell and Oversight were synonymus. Ok then, learning lesson for me. Buggie111 (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I couldn't see it the first time. I'll rev-del it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I fried the edit summary, too. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In these kinds of situations, things like this probably shouldn't be oversighted or revdeleted, in case whatever authorities have been notified would like to have a look at the edit themselves. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

They can contact the Foundation for that, I feel. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What I can't figure is why 66.66.119.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not blocked. It's edited sporadically for 2 1/2 years, and every last one of them was useless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sporadically in this case being an average of about 3-4 edits per year; it's most likely a dynamic IP address and has had some occasional vandalism. We shouldn't block it based on a total of about 10 edits, spread across 2-3 years; it could deter constructive users at the IP in future. This is why AIV insists on recent warnings + vandalism before blocking IPs. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Road Runner IPs are quite static. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to check the contribs for a range of IP's all at once, to see if a pattern emerges? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Here are contribs for 66.66.0.0/16. Antandrus (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. And while it's only a 3-4 day sample, the topics for each IP suggest a degree of stability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You must be using a different type of road-runner ISP, because mine changes every time I'm forced to unplug the router for fluctuating internet(the wireless dies, so I have to unplug everything and plug everything back in).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I used to have RoadRunner in NYC...I kept the same IP address for two years. It only changed when I moved. 170.149.100.10 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I use RR in Rochester NY, and I don't think I have a static IP (whenever I reset the modem, anyway). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Should there be an automatic one year block for threats? Just blocking for a few days or weeks is too short. Anyone who threatens has a psychiatric problem but that can change in a year, but not in a few days. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of an IP, we only block for longer periods when we are quite certain that the editor behind the IP remains the same. Many IPs are dynamic, and many others are used by many editors (schools, libraries, ...). Fram (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And even if it's a stable IP, we might have reason not to block for very long; if the authorities are able to catch the threat-maker, as they did in the link I posted near the top of this section, there wouldn't be any need. Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Grundle and his IPs

User:Grundle2600 has been community-banned for disruption and has a huge list of sockpuppets, as seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600/Archive. Most recent was October 7. Now more often he pops up with IPs, mainly in 71. and 72. range, and today a 96 (all Verizon, Pittsburgh). Some IPs are [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. For those of us familiar with Grundle, it's easy to tell when it's him. Is there anything that can be done other than revert on site? Is it even worth reporting for a short block? Grsz¹¹ 14:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The ranges you mention are too busy and dynamic for IP blocks to work. Two possibilities: 1) WP:RBI, or 2) WP:Abuse report.
Amalthea 16:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Has there ever been a single situation in which filing an abuse report has accomplished anything beyond the server going "That's nice; go away now."? HalfShadow 01:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Amalthea, what about a rangeblock or would there be too much collateral damage? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I meant with "too busy". Amalthea 18:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought so, but my brain wasn't quite working up to speed yet (not enough coffee). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Grundle2600/Sandbox should be deleted (along with history) since he enjoys linking to old versions of it that reproduce the contents of deleted articles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, people have legitimate grievances but they did something the wrong way. For some people, not all, the opportunity for the banned to explain their original grievance is a way to reflect and help the situation. I don't know if this is the case with Grundle.

People say "banned is banned" but I have seen many bans in ANI that were just railroaded through. Most of the time, I said nothing because the people were bad. But there is merit in having fair processes.

In the USA, there was a debate about Bush being bad for letting terrorist suspect rot in Cuba. With Wikipedia, banned is banned would mean that the Bush actions are to be praised. Without dragging more Bush into the question, we should allow banned people to make a statement once every 12 months, which would not result in repeated messages but just open the door to appeal. There are those that say secret appeal by e-mail exist. Likewise, the people in Guantanamo can appeal secretly. Yeah, right. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Grundle certainly has that right. It most certainly wouldn't be accepted given his history of socking. But he isn't coming back to try and appeal, he's coming back to continue to disrupt. Grsz¹¹ 00:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:STANDARDOFFER applies for Grundle as much as anyone else. If he stopped trying to edit Wikipedia for an extended period of time (6 months-1 year) and returned under an agreement to avoid all editing regarding topics of a political nature, as broadly construed as possible, then he would be more welcome here. The fact that he refuses to play by the rules, and egregiously so, is why he is a persona non grata. --Jayron32 05:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@Suomi: It's certainly possible that some bans have been railroaded in, but Grundle's most certainly was not. It was a very long process, with three or four withdrawn indefs before the end.

A problem is that Grundle doesn't see himself as a disruptor; he sees himself as Robin Hood. He's totally convinced that his badly-cited synthesis is necessary to defend wikipedia from the liberals. He's proud of his socks, and rarely if ever tries to hide them. And he's actually quite likable. Any ideas about anything to do beyond silent reversion till he gets bored? PhGustaf (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really. He's familiar enough with Wikipedia to know how to be maximally disruptive when he wants to be, and his IP range is impossible to block. Just revert, block, and ignore is all we have. Rinse, repeat. --Jayron32 05:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

StandardOffer is an essay, not a guideline or policy. There are a number of banned editors where I wouldn't support an unban even if they meet the standard offer. Fram (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone said it was a policy, and in the case of any community sanction only another community discussion can overturn it. The standard offer is meant as a "road map" for those that honestly want to reform. At this point Grundle has shown no sign of that, he would have to quit with the socking before overturning his ban would even be considered. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "any ideas"...we should all chip in and get him a Netflix membership so he can find some more usable usernames. Seems like it's been a cavalcade of IPs for awhile now. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:V and WP:Before

at Talk:Charles Kuralt, User:Cresix states:

Regardless of the accuracy of the information, it is more than a little serious (and possibly libelous) that there is nothing to back up this information. I know that Kuralt is deceased, which limits the applicability of WP:BLP, but he was a major public figure in recent times. I've placed a tag specific to that section. If there is no sourcing and no comments here within two weeks, I plan to remove the section. If anyone thinks he/she can find some sources within a reasonable period of time but you need more than two weeks, please leave a message. This can wait, but not for months.

questions:

1. does WP:V apply?
2. does WP:before apply?
3. does WP:GRAPEVINE, or WP:BDP apply?
4. is questioning a proposed section removal, a personal attack?

Accotink2 talk 16:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V always applies on Wikipedia, especially for disputed material, and even more especially for unsourced, potentially libelous information about a public figure's personal life. Even if the information is true, asking for sources is far from unreasonable; it is supported by clear policy.

The "personal attack" to which Accotink2 refers has nothing to do with questioning the policies. It refers to his/her repeated false accusations that I made threats, and especially Accotink2's false accusation that I threatened to nominate the article for deletion here. Apparently Accotink2 didn't like it that I asked for sources instead of adding them myself, and decided to personalize this content issue. Cresix (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

questioning an editor's statements is not a personal attack. i consider the "ticking time bomb" method of directing other editors, to be a "threat". i understand that this method is in use in the BLP Prod process, but now we have an example for WP:BDP where there can be no libel. i understand that WP:before is widely flouted. does it apply to contentious material deletion? if not, then should we not do away with wp:before, since noone follows it? it's unclear to me, that the "ticking time bomb" method increases the quality of the wiki, is it really policy for contentious material for non-BLP's? Accotink2 talk 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Falsely accusing an editor of making threats is a personal attack. You weren't just questioning which policy applies; you were accusing me of making threats, including a threat to AfD the article. You're use of the phrase "ticking time bomb" is a straw man that you have contrived to portray me as using threats to edit. I simply placed a statement on the talk page that unsourced and sensitive information about the private life of a very public figure needs sourcing, that I didn't think the unsourced information should remain in the article for months (and it had already been in the article unsourced for over four years), and that I would wait a couple of weeks to see if anyone wanted to add sources. I stated that if anyone felt he/she needed more than a couple of weeks, there would be no problem if I knew that someone had the intent to add the sources. My so-called "tinking time bomb" was simply a statement that the information did not need to remain in the article indefinitely with no one even attempting to source it. Even if I did delete it, the information is still available to be sourced in the article's history, and my comments on the talk page serve as a reminder for editors to be aware that the information is available. Here's the bottom line, Accotink2: You didn't like it that I suggested adding sources without adding them myself, as seen in your edit here, telling me I should edit the article instead of the talk page. And because you didn't like that, you decided to personalize this matter by accusing me of making "threats" and setting up "ticking time bombs". I have no problem with your questioning which policies apply, even if I disagree with you. It's your innuendo and false accusations that are the personal attacks. Cresix (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing that Cresix said (as presented here in this thread) is inappropriate or a misconstruction of policy. While the "ticking time bomb" metaphor may have been misunderstood, it's not an inappropriate description of the potential damage that unsourced allegations in a biography (even of the deceased) can cause. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Without deciding between one side or the other here (they both look equally as bad, though for different reasons), I have to note that a) Material a resonable person may find questionable or controversial should be sourced or removed from the article until reliable sources are found. b) Nothing here that has been said could be construed as a personal attack. Nothing at all. --Jayron32 05:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Jayron32. So I assume that you consider it acceptable if I repeatedly accuse you with no basis of threatening to AfD an article simply because you disagree with me, that is acceptable to you. Similarly, if I assume that every citation-needed tag that you place in an article without taking the time to find a source is a threat to delete with no justification, and I announce that as your intent -- that you consider that acceptable behavior. I respectfully disagree. Cresix (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless one harbours extreme WP:OWN issues (or maybe is the subject of an article), a "threat" to AFD an article is a threat to an article, and not to a person/editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

conclusions:

1 wp:V applies

3 wp:grapevine applies

4 no

2 given the silence - WP:Before is a dead letter, i was wrong to mourn it, or be upset; this pattern of behavior of setting timetables for deletion will continue to be a widespread practice. (agreeing with user:DGG), "For old articles, a procedure of summary deletion is particularly reckless."[22] (in whole or in part).Accotink2 talk 14:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A false accusation toward an editor of making threats is more than a threat to an article. It is making false statements about what an editor has done, has said, or intends to do. By your line of reasoning, I could repeatedly announce on talk pages that you are a chronic vandal on Wikipedia articles, and that would be OK as long as you didn't vandalize. I would like to see someone's rationale for making repeated false statements about an editor as being appropriate behavior on Wikipedia. So far that hasn't been provided. Cresix (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

BEFORE is not a dead letter, BEFORE applies to article deletion discussions, not discussions of individual elements of content, where WP:BURDEN is more applicable. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

if you don't like the "threat" characterization, how about: "stern warning with consequences"; "offer the world can't refuse"; "negative feedback"; "deadline enforcement" i understand your interpretation that WP:before applies to AfD only (i didn't mention it) you've taken a rationale used at BLP and used it at BDP where there is no urgency by slander. how long until "all unreferenced contentious material PROD deleted" + contentious in the eye of beholder?

what i object to is not you, but the pervasive behavior. you are above average, i note we have an ocean of admins who edit "article space" less than 50% of the time, choosing to issue warnings and tags. i wonder how we're going to improve "article space", by writing in "talk space", ANI and at AfD? it seems a very indirect approach.

Before: Ignore at Leisure, i have my answer, i had hoped that deletion was a process that included inquiry. the problem with wp:burden is that it applies to new material. we're talking about old articles that are not improved fast enough for some. quality improvement is going to require a process of editing articles, not stern warnings with consequences Accotink2 talk 17:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is your false presentation of my intent that is a serious problem here, regardless of whether you call it a "threat" or some other term. Read all of my comments above. The unsourced and potentially libelous information was in the article for over four years. How long do you think is a reasonable time to wait before removing it? Another four years? Or maybe just another year? As I have already said, the information is always, ALWAYS in the article's history waiting to be restored as soon as someone is ready to provide some sources. And my talk page comments would be a reminder that it would be there. But I suppose you think I should have simply said, "Could someone . . . please . . . maybe . . . if you don't mind . . . add a source before Wikipedia is sued for libel? Please . . . if it's not too much trouble." I'll repeat what I said earlier: you weren't reacting to any "threat". You were simply pissed off that I didn't add the sources myself. That's how all of this got started. That's obvious in your own comments on the talk page (already linked above) telling me I should edit the article instead of the talk page. Now, I've beaten this dead horse enough. Unless other editors have new comments, I'm finished here. Cresix (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

BDP = can't libel the dead + it was verifiable, but unverified - but the "four years" is the same excuse as for the BLP. the fact that the inline reference standard was rolled out without any process of implementation, doesn't validate acting out of frustration, that articles haven't improved. i'm not "pissed off", i'm profoundly disappointed, that people imagine that articles can be improved by "persuasion", (threats) rather than editing articles. as i said before, i really meant the "edit the article" for the 71.36.204.109, but if the shoe fits wear it.

this is not a personal attack: it is a philosophical attack upon the dysfunctional mindset. how's it working for you wikipedia: are you tired of the vituperation and edit wars yet, are you capable of showing some leadership? are you tired of fixing problems, will you start fixing the system? i don't see it, and without leaders, the inline reference problem will continue. Accotink2 talk 22:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be frustrated, which is your right to feel, but that never justifies making false accusations, which you clearly did. And you have no idea what I have and haven't done to "fix the system" by simply looking at my request for sources on one talk page. I don't consider that question a personal attack, but I do consider it arrogantly presumptuous, as if you know what other editors do to improve Wikipedia. How many problems have you fixed on Wikipedia? How many articles have I added sources to? How many has every editor on this discussion page fixed? Have you done more or less than everyone else on this discussion page? The answer is that you don't know.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying: An anon makes a comment more than one year ago, and you pick the very same time that I commented, immediately after my comment, in the very same statement in which you said you added the sources that I requested, and without naming a specific editor that you're responding to -- and you say it's a response to the anon? For anyone who believes that, I have some really cheap beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.

You never answered my very simple and straightforward question about how long the information should have remained in the article unsourced. Three weeks? Three months? Three years? Or do you think it should remain there indefinitely? I doubt that you will ever give us a specific answer. My guess is you'll talk all around that question without ever giving a very specific time period, or give a cop-out answer such as "I would have sourced it", which of course isn't really an answer. If that's your tactic, how long in any bio article should unsourced, sensitive, and potentially libelous information about a public figure remain in an article, because I doubt seriously you plan to fix that problem in all of Wikipedia. How long? Cresix (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

forever. since it was a true statement, and a verifiable statement, but temporarily unreferenced, three years is the blink of an eye. i don't share the widespread fear of libel. this is the nightmare of lawyers. repeating: he's dead already - there is no libel. i may even go to Colbert's "keep fear alive" march. while i may respond to your "offer i can't refuse", or even source some BLP's, i don't find the process functional, hence the statement. are you really defending the functionality of "stern warnings" on talk pages? how is it working for you? i am disappointed, not frustrated. we agree that we need to reference all the old articles. will you join in a referencing effort similar to the BLP = Category:Articles lacking sources only 279,000 articles to go, or Category:Delisted good articles only 1973. we'll give out a "RefCup" for edits in article space, and you will do well. Accotink2 talk 02:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether libel or some other legal action, it is clearly a legal risk. So you think potentially legally damaging, unsourced, personal information in a bio article can stay forever, as long as there are sources floating around somewhere but not in the article. I think it's a very safe bet that 95% of serious editors here disagree with you, and that number would be very close to 100% for administrators; Jimbo would probably have a stroke if he knew you are editing with that attitude. But that attitude explains a lot about your behavior. No futher comments. I prefer to discuss matters with editors who are actually concerned about the protection of Wikipedia rather than entertaining their pet theories about legal action at Wikipedia's expense. Have a good life. Hope we never cross paths again. Cresix (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

actually it's the lawyers on Arbcom not Jimbo. they were already coddling the mass deleters in the name of "libel prevention". however, Defamation: "Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a defense." this kind of fear mongering is why i take such a radical iconoclastic eventualist approach - all the hyperventilating doesn't fix the problem. when is wikipedia gonna stop the crisis management, and start the preventative leadership? "editors who are actually concerned about the protection of Wikipedia" - p-l-ease. this is an attitude that will kill wikipedia: you will protect it to death. all the firewalls, and legalistic policies will not deter the plaintiff's bar, they go where the money is, regardless of the facts. reductio ad absurdum: lets delete all 279,000 unsourced articles, since they may contain false statements someone may sue over. Accotink2 talk 03:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I almost agree that you're an extremist. A more precise descriptor would be a dangerous, reckless extremist. Fortunately for Wikipedia, there are enough reasonable people (even some of the worst editors fall into that category) who are here to rein people like you in from time to time. I won't say any more of what deserves to be said because I don't want to violate WP:NPA. As I said, I hope I never cross paths with you again. Cresix (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You speak as one who obviously never heard of Charles Kuralt nor of the litigation that already occurred. There was no question that this woman was Kuralt's "other wife". There is no possibility of "libel" against wikipedia on this already widely-covered story. The question to be decided in court was strictly about the intent of Kuralt's will, and the handling of the estate. Deleting something that's widely known, just because you're too lazy to look for a source, makes wikipedia look stupid. So don't call others "extremists" when it's your own perspective that's out of whack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Before" is just some guy's essay. Ignore it at leisure. "Verifiability" is a policy, though not enforced sufficiently.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:BEFORE is a restatement of WP:Deletion policy, and is part of the instructions at WP:Articles for Deletion. Some people still choose to take it as a recommendation only, which is allowed by the wording, so it is high time that the wording be revised to make it an explicit requirement. This change has been discussed every half year or so, and gets nearer and nearer to consensus. Opinions like the above about it being an essay only are to be discounted as ignorance or, worse, as the persistent refusal to participate in improving articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Nearer and nearer to consensus? That's not my impression. And nothing in it is enforceable anyway. Are you going to make it an explicit resuirement that people "consider applying a tag" and "consider sharing your reservations with the article creator [...]"? Or do you intend to change the "considers" into "you must"? The first is a list of advices, not requirements: the second will never get consensus. In many cases, first applying tags, talking to the article creator or related wikiprojects, ... is a completely unnecessary intermediate step. Share your concerns with the wider community in an AfD, and let them decide whether you were correct or whether the article can stay. But don't start "voting" "keep: nominator has not first tagged the article for notability before nominating it for deletion" or "keep: nominator has not checked all interwiki links"... Fram (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That said, it does not literally apply to the removal of content from an article, but even here, an effort should always be made to source it. Everyone shares the responsibility--at least those who want to improve Wikipedia. With respect to the particular material here, CNN seems to be like a perfectly good source. If this were a BLP, the question would be whether it was negative and unrelated to his career, but this is considerably relaxsd subsequently. I don't see what all the fuss is about--is the source disputed? The transcript seems perfectly clear to me, and supports the material DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm confused. How was DGG able to shift the focus of the discussion? Both of the policies/procedures DGG is referring to have to do with deletions of whole articles. The governing rule for content within an article is this line from WP:V: "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately" (emphasis added). Even if it doesn't fall under BLP as a recently deceased person, it sure seems to fall under the first part allowing removal. It looks to me that the OP was actually being extremely generous in giving some amount of time for others to add the source; xe could have, per clear policy and standard editing behaviors, removed the source and required it to stay out until it was sourced. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
      • "Anything challenged or likely to be challenged..." So who's likely to challenge the widely-circulated and unrefuted news stories about Kuralt's once-secret life? The idea that this could be "libelous" is silly. It's also extremely lazy to take a few minutes to threaten to delete something that's a well-known fact, rather than taking a few minutes to find a source... as another editor noted in the Kuralt talk page... and then taking parts of several days arguing over it just because he felt stung by the accurate word "threat" (maybe he should have said "promise"?). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• DGG is beating the WP:BEFORE drum again? Color me surprised. As I recall, you have had this suggestion soundly rejected in various venues. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The WP:BEFORE item seems to be about entire articles, not about specific text within articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • i'm sorry, his views strike me as common sense, so i invoked them. if we require a minimum amount of work and sourcing before adding material, should we not also require a minimum inquiry before deleting? Accotink2 talk 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
      • But we don't require a minimum amount of work of sourcing before adding material, everyone is free to create completely unsourced articles or to add unsourced material. It may be removed, it may be sourced by someone else, it may stay unsourced for years and years: but there is no minimum requirement for the moment. 14:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
        • That's not quite true, as there is an ongoing effort (last I heard) to blank out BLP articles that lack sourcing. The Kuralt article is obviously not a BLP situation, and Cresix's threat to delete the well-known story about the "other woman" wreaks of fanatical deletionism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
          • That's also not quite true, we only delete BLP articles that lack sources, that are created after somewhere in March this year, and that have been tagged as a BLPprod for seven days without any improvements. But even these exceptions happen after the fact: nothing has stopped the creation of these articles.Fram (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
            • In any case, that's about BLP's, and there is no BLP issue with the Kuralt article, and no possibility of wikipedia being sued over reporting this old-news story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there an admin needed here, or are we just having a community discussion for the sake of having one? –MuZemike 17:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oversight needed

Resolved

Can someone suppress this edit and block the user who made it? It's a blatant attack against EnDaLeCoMpLeX. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The first rule of Oversight is do not talk about Oversight. Skomorokh 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oversight requests should be made in private using one of the methods listed at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Requests for oversight should not be posted on ANI, which is wide open to the public, and gets over 2,000 views each day. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this edit needs to be oversighted, to be honest. Deletion seems sufficient in this case. TFOWR 15:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock of banned user?

User:Bobsaget1qw and his dynamic ip army seem like sockpuppets of abanned user? Anyone know who this might be?Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In connection with this, I have semiprotected User talk:JamesBWatson for 6 hours. Otherwise, it doesn't look like anyone I recognize. The IP range looks too large to manage by rangeblock. --Jayron32 06:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is indefinitely blocked genre troll Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs), operating from a mobile device. Tagged as such. –MuZemike 14:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Here [23] from ReformAmericaNewYork‎ (talk · contribs). I can confirm that the previous whois info posted by Wookieinheat was accurate at the time and has since been updated to the value posted by the user. However, the talk page refactoring and legal threats are definitely not kosher. Notifying user now. User notified. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked ReformAmericaNewYork (talk · contribs) for making a legal threat but there seems to be a bigger WP:BLP issue going on here. Toddst1 (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what possible BLP issue there might be? Is the posting of whois records with contact information when sorting out spam sites not allowed on talk pages? I don't see any problem with the article itself. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, yes, disclosing contact details like that is a huge BLP issue. Although, I suppose it is public Whois details. So not that huge, I'd suggest just removing them to be on the safe side (Wikipedia is search engine indexed while Whois records are not) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any legal threats here, yea, he's posting a whois, and some legal language from the whois site, and yes, he's refactoring comments, so yes, the block is fine, but not on NLT (just my two cents KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 16:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is this article really worth all the trouble it seems to be causing? It's apparently giving the subject grief, and notability is marginal at best. Deletion may be an option here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, though it passed an AfD less than a month ago. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, looking back now i see why my posting of the article subject's personal data is a no no. i wasn't thinking of it in that light when i did it, i was mainly focused on the creation dates of the websites which supported my conclusions about the wikipedia article(s) being discussed. i simply copy-pasted the whole record into my comment, the personal data was really irrelevant to the main point on the dates; i'll be more careful in the future. with that said, i would take the legal threats from the new account pretty lightly, after looking over their edits they bear the hallmarks of the COI editor who was the root of the issue. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Grossly offensive user name

Resolved; socks blocked. WP:DENY.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Suarneduj, then Juden Raus, now 유태인 아웃 ("Jews out" in Korean), has returned. I did leave a note for Sandstein who did the original block. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of automatic revert tool, Twinkle, reverting good faith edits

Resolved

I was making edits to the Leonard McCoy (Star Trek) article and the next day my two good faith edits had been reverted by editor User:EEMIV and I noticed the (TW) after the edit synopsis. This was my first experience with someone using this tool. I read the tool's article and noticed that users have to be careful of it automatically reverting good faith edits. I wrote to the editor on his/her talk page, and mentioned the tool had done this. I received no explanation or apology. Yesterday while editing the Data (Star Trek) page, I noticed an anonymous user made an edit. It may not have been the greatest placement of the information, but it was true, wasn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, and looked like a good faith edit to me. Editor EEMIV's TW tool came in and reverted it. Now, I respect this editor because they are obviously a Star Trek fan :) but I am losing all respect for this automated tool. These are dits that a human needs to look at and decide if it is vandalism or good faith. Akuvar (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there are three incidents of this, the first was on Jean-Luc Picard. Akuvar (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because twinkle has been used doesn't mean a person hasn't looked into it. You need to talk to EEMIV, but as far as I can see, he has a point: You're asserting a fact (sawbones is no longer common slang for a surgeon) that he believes needs a citation. Talk to him, see what you can find... but WP:BURDEN applies to your addition. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I don't know how to do this (I'm sure there is an easier way) but look at this edit I made at Jean-Luc Picard http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean-Luc_Picard&diff=389581060&oldid=388133602 I added a wiki link to what enterprise he commanded and corrected syntax by adding the word "the" Twinkle reverted that edit. It was after that revert that I contacted EEMIV on his/her talk page and received no answer or explanation. You may be right, perhaps I am assuming that they are not looking into it and that the twinkle isn't doing this indiscriminately and automatically, but the evidence says otherwise. Akuvar (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

EEMIV should be answering your questions, though I don't think these are the most controversial of reverts. I can see a case for the Picard one, because the sentence refers to the Enterprise in general (i.e. E as well as D) and has most likely already been wikilinked earlier in the article. The 'the' is neither here nor there. I would advise seeing if EEMIV will get back to you now they have been notified of this thread. _{Star Trek is awesome} S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify for Akuvar - in case he hasn't realised it yet - but Twinkle isn't an automated tool as he seems to think - certainly his posts imply that's how he sees Twinkle. As well as talking to EEMIV, I suggest he also pops along to The Twinkle page, for better understanding of that too. a_man_alone (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Akuvar left a message on my talk page that I just haven't replied to yet. [My contributions that last couple of days have been minor, my time spent mostly doing rote chores; probably tomorrow I'll have time to give him a thorough response.] The conversation should continue on my talk page, and it will; I don't see any need for an ANI thread, and will not be watchlisting ANI for subsequent responses. --EEMIV (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds good. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle isn't a bot; a user is still behind the helm manning the controls. All Twinkle does is make certain tasks easier.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User:A Radish for Boris

Resolved

 – No further action needed; duck-block reinforced by checkuser and IP also blocked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor as a WP:DUCK sock of User:Otto4711. Behavioral evidence:

• Wikistalk w/ Are You The Cow Of Pain?
• Wikistalk w/ Otto4711

No further administrative action anticipated, posting here for notification. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Confirmed, and  IP blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 17:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, pretty obvious. I'd preserve that Doctor Who trivia AfD though, it was a good spot even if they're banned. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't closed the other AfD he started, either. He took care to start pretty reasonable AfDs, but the contributions in other fictional AfDs were pretty obvious. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed; it was just in case someone took it upon themselves to revert everything they'd done. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up re: John Donovan

From his blog: [24]. Anyone know his user account? His blog says he's pursuing legal action. Is this matter being addressed elsewhere? Are his concerns being addressed anywhere? Rklawton (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And no, it's not this user User:John Donovan. Rklawton (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine it's Johnadonovan (talk) (already blocked), as the blog refers to this article. TFOWR 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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

See User talk:Johnadonovan for the current status. As TFOWR notes, this editor was indefinitely blocked in September for making legal threats. I see him as a credible critic of Shell, but in practice he has not been easy to work with. (His COI editing was not quite blatant enough to deserve a block, but he wasn't very cooperative either). His editing of Wikipedia was first discussed at WP:COIN in early 2008. Other noticeboard discussions can be found through this search. The comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns show that his recent contributions are seriously lacking in neutrality. If the legal threat were to be withdrawn, I suggest we should have another discussion as to whether he belongs on Wikipedia at all, given the recent trend of his editing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Rklawton (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

POV tag in Nair article

Background: mention of what academics call polyandry in nair article. this is the third thread. User:EdJohnston and User:DGG had commented on the previous discussion. I have listed their comments here. User:DGG said, "I do have an opinion on that. I think covering it in the main article, both with respect to any current and also to historical practices is required by NPOV"

In the mean time, some users Robynhood.Pandey (talk · contribs · count), Pichaiyan Nadar (talk · contribs · count), Bhattathirippadu (talk · contribs · count) and 203.131.222.1 (talk · contribs · count) have been blocked as socks.

Current issue: I added a POV tag and suggested we resolve what needs to be added in the talk page (as recommended by User:EdJohnston). Shannon1488 (talk · contribs · count) who has no edits outside Nair related topics removed the tag for a reason i dont think appropriate. --CarTick 14:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am simply stating that some one who is neutral and having a good knowledge of India-related topics should oversee the tagging and related issues. The problem here is-

• Polyandry was practiced as a mandatory form of marriage by only the Kammalan and related castes in Kerala.
• For other castes (including Nairs), single marriage was the preferred form of marriage, but in rare instances polyandry was practiced along with polygamy.
• Therefore, the over-emphasizing of polyandry in the Nair article is outright confusing. This question was asked to Cartick many times, but he refused to answer.
• Polyandry of whatever type fell out of use in Kerala during the 19th century and not many people even remember it now.
• The language used in the Polyandry in India article is deeply offensive.
• The relevance of the type of marriage in Nair article should be reviewed by an admin who is having good knowledge about Indian ethnic groups.

Please look in to these facts. I will abide by any decision the admin takes on this. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not content dispute, this is about removal of maintenance template.

even a casual search in google books or google scholar or jstor gives so many references.

I have access to all the academic references which discuss in detail about nair polyandry and can send it to Shannon if he wants (through an administrator, dont want to reveal my e-mail to him). The only issue is, in what form the information has to be included which will be discussed through WP:NPOV notice board and WP:RFC. whether polyandry existed in Kammalan and other castes are irrelevant here and User Shannon can raise the issues in relevant articles.

In the mean time, the POV tag needs to stay in place to alert the readers. --CarTick 15:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You are again running away from the questions asked to you. I am not talking about searches and other things. I am asking you what is the special relationship between Nairs and polyandry. I can give you hundreds of examples for instances of polyandry practiced in Europe, Middle East and North America. Similarly, you might also be able to provide some references about polyandry among Nairs. But as long as you are not able to prove that polyandry was unique in someway among the Nairs, I am not going to agree with you. How can you add a link to polyandry in the Nair article, when it was practiced primarily by someone else? This is like saying that Turks are the major population group in Germany, when they are just 3% of the population. I will make it a bit more simple. Say, there are 100 instances of polyandry in Kerala. Out of these 25 were Nair, 25 were Thiyya, 25 were Kammalan and 25 were other. Now here it seems that Nairs are one of the major practitioners of polyandry. But if you look at the per-capita rate, then it will be something like this: 2% of Nairs practiced polyandry, 2% of Thiyyas practiced polyandry, 100% of Kammalans practiced polyandry, 2% of others practiced polyandry. Now, to which group is polyandry relevant?

And if admins feels that the removal of POV tag is wrong, then they can revert my edits. Shannon1488 (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

pls familiarise yourself with wikipedia policies first. relevance not uniqueness is the criteria for inclusion. --CarTick 16:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about relevance. It might be relevant in the Polyandry in India article or the Marriage Ceremonies of Keralites article. But what is the relevance of some obsolete marriage custom last practiced many centuries ago, which even at it's peak had no more than 2% or 3% of Nairs practicing it in the Nair article? If 100%, or at least one-third of the Nairs practiced polyandry during the 1500s, then it might have been important enough to get an inclusion in the article. But this is going way overboard. If you want to malign someone you don't like, then you better find some good tactics to do that. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry if this information is offensive to you. I am afraid i could not find any wikipedia policy or guideline which discourages inclusion because it offends somebody. There is also no policy which dictates your "percentage calculation" or "many centuries ago practice" as a criteria for exclusion. If an arbitrary one-third participation is a criteria, lot of information in the article and very many articles should go. --CarTick 16:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline which discourages inclusion because it offends somebody. But there is also no policy which says that irrelevant and disputed views should be added to an article just because another user doesn't like the ethnic group. Let me see if the admins agree with your views or not. I am just remembering you, the answers for my questions are still not here. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand how Polyandry among Nairs is not relevant in Nairs. but, that is your view and i dispute that and User:DGG agrees with me that not including it is violation of WP:NPOV. so the POV tag needs to go back. we will sort the issue out in article talk page. --CarTick 16:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am saying if admins feel like POV tag is needed, then they can add it. A minor dispute should not be used to tag an entire article as neutrality-disputed. Just wait till we get more comments here. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DGG is an administrator and he said not including it violates NPOV. --CarTick 16:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Any admin (including DGG) can add the tag. But it will be better to wait till some one with more knowledge on this issue comment here. Shannon1488 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Lot of time is getting wasted on this non-issue. This is a very minor dispute and users like Cartick are hell bent on inflating it to their own needs. How else can anyone explain a dispute to add a link going on for two weeks now? If the admins were willing to spend a few minutes on this, the disruption caused could have been easily averted. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like two admins have spent time on this issue. Accepting what they said would seem, to me, to be the best way to end further disruption. TFOWR 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. I had earlier stated that I'll abide by whatever decision the admins take. Therefore I have added the link back in. But I don't believe it is relevant in the article. Also, the comments by the two admins were vague and inconclusive. I hope the remainder of the discussion, whether to keep the link or remove it, can be done in the Nair talk page. It will be better if someone with a good knowledge on this issue can help out on this matter. Shannon1488 (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Admins aren't going to settle a content dispute. What they will do (and, indeed, have done) is recommend how to solve a content dispute. For example, EdJohnston (talk) recommended a "request for comment" ("RfC"):

The degree to which Nair ought to link to articles which discuss polyandry is a valid question that could be discussed in an RfC at Talk:Nair. If 'polyandry' is not the right way to describe the former customs, as an IP argues above, this could be worked out (with sources) on the talk page.

Likewise, DGG (talk) recommeded—if at all possible—compromise and moderate coverage, and if that fails then raising it at the neutral point of view noticeboard ("NPOV noticeboard"):

I think covering it in the main article, both with respect to any current and also to historical practices is required by NPOV. When I saw the subhead of this section it immediately came to mind that it must be about this particular topic, & I was right--those who know only a very little about the Nairs, know about this. There has been frequent efforts to include disproportionate coverage of the past or present customs of various groups--usually religious groups-- that are different from the common Western norm and might seem disreputable; reciprocally, there have been frequent efforts to give these aspects as little coverage as possible. Both are gross violations of the principle of NPOV, which is arguably a matter that does concern administrators. But if the discussion is to be continued, I 'd suggest the NPOV noticeboard as the appropriate place. I do not recommend it; I recommend compromise and a moderate degree of coverage.

Both these suggestions are sensible. I'd suggest you strive for compromise and a moderate degree of coverage. If you remain unable to reach a compromise consider either an RFC or taking it to the NPOV noticeboard. TFOWR 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Impostor alert

Resolved

 – Boomerang took out both the sock/impersonator and the OP. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello community. Apologies if I'm interrupting the more serious discussions that are the norm of this noticeboard, but there's an impostor here that needs to be blocked: PirateCrackK (talk · contribs). Thank you. --GoogleUnderscore (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Imposter of whom, any similar usernames? –BuickCenturyDriver 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Notified user, as the page requires you to do. Hasteur (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess that he's referring to PirateSmackK, who's banned. Don't know anything about said user (I'll have to look on the list to see why), but I think that's who GoogleUnderscore is getting at. I'll move this to WP:UAA, which is where this should have gone in the first place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know if it's PirateSmackK, seems more like an impostor to me, perhaps Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has had a history of reporting himself to ANI just to cause a fuss ... trolling in its purest form, really. GoogleUnderscore was the creator of the userpage for PirateCrackK, as well as the creator of this thread, so it seems obvious to me that the two accounts are at least working together and quite likely actually the same person. They are now both blocked (one by me, one by another admin). —Soap— 16:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it seemed way too easy to be a legit sock... marking resolved. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

PirateCrackK (talk · contribs) and Hole Puncher (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed. CU investigation continuing. –MuZemike 17:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

All three are confirmed. Also blocked the open proxy this person (whomever he is) is using. –MuZemike 17:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Forceful intervention in an on-going discussion

I started a discussion on Talk:Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games regarding how the article was emphasizing low-priority concerns while neglecting the severe adverse impact of the Games on the city hosting it. Perhaps it was my frustration which made me cross the line of civility while starting that discussion. Anyways, the point is that User:Lucy-marie has forcefully intervened twice in the discussion: first blatantly deleting my comments and then archiving it. According to her, the comments raised by me were not "related to the content of the article". I'm still learning how to have a meaningful discussion with other Wikipedians (I admit that I cannot give diplomatic replies) and this experience definitely didn't help. Not that I'm keen to participate in the discussion but "closing" or "archiving" it was rather too extreme and deeming my concerns as "inappropriate" and "irrelevant" was uncalled for. I'm pretty sure that Lucy would archive the discussion again as it doesn't serve her point of view. Therefore, I would like to seek administrators' intervention in this issue. --King Zebu (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't notify the user about talking here, as the page's rules mandate. I have corrected this for you. Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have previous with Lucy-marie so won't take any action either way here, but as far as I can see, with comments like "Some people have twisted brains. It is absolutely disgusting to see that some Wikipedians here are rather too keen to highlight "clogged toilets", "empty seats" and "Delhi Belly" but the article barely mentions the fact that India (home to the world's largest concentration of poor people) spent billions of dollars on a 12-day sporting event. For any sane person, the latter is the biggest controversy related to the 2010 CWG.", "I will just strive to improve the article and not bother much about starting discussions because they will ultimately be "deemed irrelevant" without any logical explanation" and "Ah, I see that you are not an administrator. Interesting." (and editwarring with one of our most experienced sports writers, with an edit summary of "It seems that some people do not understand the difference between an encyclopedia and news outlet") the only one heading for any kind of block or warning here looks to be you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not your personal soapbox. – iridescent 18:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Nair

an user posts non-English comment which appears to be offensive and unhelpful. --CarTick 17:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please let users know when you raise issues concerning them.

I've warned the user, and I see you've already reverted them. I'd suggest that this could be marked resolved. TFOWR 17:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

i will next time. thanks. --CarTick 17:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

user Disranter

The context of this is a series of edits made by Narwhal2 (talk · contribs) on the 8th and 9th where he added several references to the fringe self-published author Ralph Ellis, and when I removed them went off to various forums complaining about me. Note that he has uploaded File:Baalbek- largest stone.jpg where he identifies himself as Ralph Ellis. 4 days later along comes Disranter (talk · contribs) reinstating an edit Narwhal2 had made (as an aside, the edit was basically redundant as the material is elsewhere in the article). He's been edit-warring to get it back and attacking me at Talk:Joseph of Arimathea, eg "Your fame is spreading though the blogsphere as an opponent of historical research, and there are many who are not impressed." (very ironic) and at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. This is pretty clearly WP:DUCK *as well as WP:COI. I'm too involved to block him myself. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Confirmed the following are socks of one another:

• Disranter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Arnatorim (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Samosterat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoogson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Narwhal2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Tiptoety ^talk 18:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd wondered about Hoogson but hadn't connected him with Ellis. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)