Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:04, 11 November 2013

COI Notice

I have a Conflict of Interest arising from my ownership interest in Suburban Express Inc.

November 2013

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:24.15.78.1, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Arri at Suburban Express! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Block

During the course of the discussion at WP:ANhere, you have been warned and cautioned multiple times about restricting yourself to factual concerns with specific statements in the article and refraining from discussing and attacking other editors. This warning was repeated at the talk page of User:Arri416.

Despite these, you have continued your campaign of personal attacks, innuendo and intimidation, which would already be unacceptable if your focus was merely on correcting factual inaccuracies (eg. , , or ). However, your more recent interventions show a tend to use those tactics to sway and change the tone of the article itself, which combined with bullying and intimidation tactics is simply not going to fly.

Correcting factual mistakes or inaccuracies is a perfectly legitimate endeavour. However, since it appears those cannot come without all the rest, please address those by emailing info-en-qwikimedia.org . Include both the address or title of your article and specific information on the problems you have with it. MLauba 23:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What a drama! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Response to Block

Arri at Suburban Express (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

Reviewing administrator: LFaraone 19:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Request reason:

1) Name change from Suburban Express President (unacceptable because it was judged to be a role account) to Arri416 was subject to a lengthy delay. I discussed that matter repeatedly with several users or admins and wound up registering a new username. Arri416 is essentially a dead account. Other than one unintentional login with the old username (Suburban Express President), that account has not been used since I registered Arri at Suburban Express. Was I supposed to close it?

2) I do not understand your use of the word "attack". It seems as if any discussion with a user with whom I disagree is characterized as an attack. I received a warning about it and have tried to tread carefully. Is it possible that "attack" is somewhat subjective and what I see as normal debate seems attack-ish to others? I really don't get this. I am willing to work towards conforming with Misplaced Pages norms.

3) As for the linked examples

• The message to IP user https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:24.15.78.1&oldid=580323275 was wrong and I received a warning and now understand that Misplaced Pages somehow sees that as an outing - even though no identifying information of any kind was post. I have complied with that warning and the situation will not be repeated.

• I have no idea what is wrong with this interaction https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:N2e&diff=prev&oldid=580469584. I was communicating privately with a user who has a similar background as mine - an economics professor. Talking about company history from an economic perspective seems proper. The moderator discussed in this section is a Reddit user. The description of the history of the Misplaced Pages article is factual, and I did not mention any specific parties. Nevertheless, I am willing to receive guidance and comply with local customs.

• This one also baffles me https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Suburban_Express&diff=prev&oldid=580484544. I asked an editor if he would support his claim. And I responded to a user who was questioning my prior post. I don't see how having a discussion constitutes attacking another editor. I'll have to ponder this one, apparently.

• Here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=prev&oldid=580509986 I pointed out that an IP user with an admitted COI who previously stated that he would recuse himself from the discussion had returned. That is a factual statement and was not intended as an attack. On the other hand, the IP user aggressively pursued me and attacked my statements in Talk:Suburban Express. I don't understand how defending myself against attacks constitutes uncivil behavior. I suppose the fact that this was cited in the block is meant to suggest that Misplaced Pages users are expected to ignore unsettling behavior by others. If that's what's required, I'll just have to adjust.

4) My goal here is to ensure that the Suburban Express article does not contain factual errors. I've been trying to learn the local lingo and follow the local customs as best I can. But it's sometimes hard to distinguish between useful advice and advice from editors who seek to cause harm. The fact that admins and regular users are indistinguishable doesn't help. If I knew when I was receiving advice from an admin, it would be much easier to learn the local customs.

5) The Suburban Express article is essentially a BLP, since I am the founder and owner. It seems unreasonable for me to be unable to participate in the talk page discussion on an article that is essentially about me. For instance, this block precludes me from adding conventional media sources to the conventional media section which i recently created. Emailing comments into a queue doesn't seem like a practical solution.

I am willing to conform with the customs here. I need some guidance and a little patience.

Thanks for your time.

Once the reason for placing the block on hold is no longer in effect, do one of the following:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed | 1=Here are my thoughts:

Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed | 1=Here are my thoughts:

Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | accept=Accept reason here ~~~~}}

(Non-administrator comment) You're not blocked because of your username this time, nor because of your second account.

If you look at someone's user page, you can usually tell whether that person is an administrator (if "Misplaced Pages administrators" appears in the categories at the bottom, that's a strong indication).

You can still post to your talk page; if you use it suggest specific changes to the article about your company, without criticising other editors, you're unlikely to have that taken away. —rybec 07:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. How would anyone on talk:Suburban Express be aware of anything I post on my talk page? If I have sources to add to the Conventional Media Source List at talk:Suburban Express, I don't understand how posting it here would result in it being added to the list on talk:Suburban Express. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a few people who read this page; for someone else to make changes on your behalf is not prohibited. The policy is here. I'll keep this page watchlisted. —rybec 07:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey thanks. I'll post the additional articles as they become available. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If there are editors who you believe would make the edits on your behalf, you can ping them to bring attention to the post here as well, by linking their username. Like this Arri at Suburban Express Gaijin42 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, but only partially, with the unblock request. I do believe that the editor crossed a line or two, particularly in their interactions with (and about) the IP. I am not intimately involved with the ins and outs of the article's content (and have no desire to become an editor, or even knowledgeable). I do not agree at all that this article is somehow like a BLP, unless the article one way or another makes the case that this is somehow a kind of one-man operation whereby criticism of the company equates to criticism of the man. I also believe that the article is more important than any right the individual editor can claim. On the other hand, I'll take the editor at his word if he says that he'll comply with our guidelines and, more importantly, that he'll think more carefully about whether some posting our another could disagree with our guidelines and policies; in other words, that he errs on the side of caution.

  In my opinion, if the presence of this editor (even if just on the talk page, for instance) is deemed a net positive by other editors (I'm thinking of CorporateM, Gaijin42, North8000, and others), then I would not oppose an unblock. Conditions could be attached, like not editing the article itself, for instance--whatever such editors find to be fair. To prevent this from becoming yet another TLDNR discussion, perhaps interested editors could consider weighing in briefly; an admin considering the unblock request could take that into consideration. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Drmies The company is a "one-man" shop, but I don't know that the article makes that argument, it just says it was founded by a guy and that guy had the PR/legal issues. I think the ifdef might be long, but some block was needed - based on my experience, I would have to lean slightly to the "not net positive" side. Ari repeatedly made mountains out of molehils, claiming things were not supported by the sources, when in fact they were supported by the sources, but had some very subtle nuance that could be improved - often this nuance required WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR knowledge from Ari, and while he may technically have had an EXCEPTIONALLY minor improvement, getting there was a major disruption. This of course does not even touch on the personal attacks, outing, and other issues he has been the nexus of. The amount of time wasted by editors making one word changes to this article, after pages and pages of rants and AN/ANI discussions is not worth it. Put him in the corner, let him out after a while, and see if he can play nice with others. If not, to the ifdef pile he goes imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The editor has been given plenty of second, third and fourth chances. I don't see the value in giving them yet another. Behavior here on Misplaced Pages is similar to accusations of doing the same on Reddit and we have already demonstrated too much patience for it. I don't think their participation is in good faith at all - behavior suggests trolling for the sake of trolling.

However, I am also concerned about continued disruption on this page. Advocacy and micromanagement from disgruntled students, more paid editors, block evasion and so on. The Talk page is swamped with general battlegrounding and blatant violations of TALK guidelines, BLP problems, and so on.

I don't want to hand over the Talk page to become a forum for students to attack the company either. I would go further by adding full protection to the page, so I don't have to watch it like a hawk, paranoid that any edit may be from yet another covert paid editor or COI, as well as redacting most of the Talk page, which has many BLP problems and has become a forum for discussing the subject. CorporateM (Talk) 16:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm usually the softee / optimist for 99% of people. As a small aside, somewhat disagree with the guideline in that a name that is for an individual but includes the company name (where it doesn't look promotional) to me is full disclosure rather than promotional.

Ari's behavior has been horrible. They more than anyone have turned the talk page at the article into a drama fest. They see attacking/nitpicking the article (with no specific proposed changes) as a way to further their ends. Calling their message to 24.15.... harassment is an understatement, I would call it partial outing. On the reverse side, they probably didn't / don't realize how Misplaced Pages works. We in Wikiworld don't realize how differetn it is. We're here (and talk (ages exist) to develop CONTENT, and absolutely are not just another forum to expand battles/debates into. They may also not realize(d) how how wiki-serious what they did to 24.15 .... is. And what other wiki-rules they've been breaking. And indicated a willingness to conform. Also it might be good to have the subject of the article there to provide factual information and thoughts. If they came back, it should be with conditions and agreement to:

• only low key conversations with 24.15....
• at the talk page, only straightforward factual information and comments, and specific positive suggestions on potential content changes.
• Don't edit the article itself. Due to a combination of factors, especially a 100% confirmed WP:COI of the highest order. Plus 3-4 other factors.

With agreement to all of that I'd support a return / one more chance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

:I think North8000's proposal is sound, and unless someone objects, I would lift the block if Arri explictly agrees to abide by the three conditions North set forth above

This unblock will also go with the understanding that should he chose to stray from strictly limiting his comments to content, or continue vexatious finagling, in particular against consensus, or describing people he disagrees with to third party editors in disparaging terms, or frivolously taking others to noticeboards, the block will be reinstated immediately, and a permanent ban shall be sought against him as well as the whole SE IP range.

Upon an unconditional agreement to all of this, unblocking can proceed without further comment from me should I not be around to do it myself. MLauba 17:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Rescinded - see below. MLauba 20:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Arri still has pages on his website targeting me and a couple of other Misplaced Pages editors, where he has posted personal information about us. I don't believe that he should be unblocked unless those pages are removed. Gulugawa 18:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that's off-wiki, so whether we can take that into consideration is doubtful. As a side note, then--sheesh, that's some revolting stuff, a veritable Poo-Flingatorium, and that's all I'll say about it. Besides that it gives me even more more reservations about unblocking--sorry North8000. If they are unblocked, it should be on a very short leash (WP:ROPE), and some serious restrictions. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I was just giving some thoughts/ideas. North8000 (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of that (nor have I searched). Given the whole circus currently taking place at WT:ARBN at this very moment, and the complete lack of consistency of ArbCom in such matters, I cannot pursue in such matters. @Gulugawa:, it may be best if you addressed your concerns directly but privately with the arbitration committee. MLauba 20:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. This is a very small company and the criticism is directed at its owner, Dennis Toeppen, so the article is essentially a BLP, or rather two BLPs because a few months ago someone created Dennis Toeppen too. It's caused by an offwiki dispute between the owner and a group of students the owner feels have behaved badly on his buses or failed to pay for tickets. He has used the courts against them and they have discussed this on Facebook and Reddit. As a result (and perhaps at their request) those discussions were picked by up various online publications, and the students have used those as sources to expand the Misplaced Pages article.

BLP says: "... Misplaced Pages is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to engage in or continue their hostilities ... an editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual, or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the possible conflict of interest."

What's needed now is for all involved parties to remove themselves from the article and talk page. I made some edits today to make the article a little less focused on the dispute. If I were adminning it, I'd restrict the owner to pointing out errors via his user talk page; I'd semi-protect the article (already done by Orangemike) and talk page to prevent IP input (e.g. from 24.15.78.1); and I'd ask SPAs (e.g. AlmostGrad) to stop editing the article or talk page. I've already asked AlmostGrad to remove himself from the dispute, to no avail. SlimVirgin 03:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not an SPA. I have created a well-sourced, start-class article Shitty Watercolour, unrelated to Suburban Express, which has been through AfC and AfD, as well as made many other unrelated edits. I still don't understand why you are soliciting input from the owner (who has a CoI just as the rest of us do) while trying to make the rest of us go away from even the Talk page. Surely you can read the sources and check the accuracy of the content yourself? AlmostGrad (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's standard practice to allow BLP subjects to have input on the talk page. If this person's input has been problematic, we can restrict it to his user talk page. But there's no reason for anyone involved in an offwiki dispute with him to be writing about him on WP. We base articles on reliable sources, preferably higher-quality ones for living persons, and we can read those ourselves.

Having people involved in the dispute active on the talk page means the owner responds by wanting to know who those people are, then he gets himself into trouble for asking. But wanting to know who is criticizing you is perfectly normal, so rather than punishing him for asking this normal thing, the best thing is to stop the criticism and allow uninvolved editors to summarize the sources, as we'd do anywhere else. If the owner wants to point out that source X has it wrong, but source Y is better, he can do that on his user talk page and we can take it into account. SlimVirgin 04:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is essentially a BLP (though some editors certainly try to turn it into one), but given that SlimVirgin considers it one she's perfectly in her rights to ask for and address the concerns of the P involved. It's standard BLP procedure to allow the P at least some input, one way or another, and if we don't want them doing it in the article (there's clear consensus on that, I think) it behooves us to find another way to do it. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to reinvent the wheel - there's this talk page here at least as long as it doesn't have to be locked, and if all else fails, there's OTRS. MLauba 14:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not convinced that this is essentially a BLP, or that any BLP violation occurred. Also, isn't the magnitude of the supposed BLP violation important? Saying that a reliably-sourced statement to the effect of "Ars Technica reported that the Reddit moderator implied that puerile comments were posted anonymously by representatives of company X on Reddit." in the article about company X is a BLP violation of the owner of company X is a very far-fetched application of BLP policy, I think. It is not the same as an unsourced or poorly-sourced statement which says "Person Y committed murder/fraud/any other serious crime", both with regard to the magnitude/seriousness of the supposed BLP violation, and the "distance" (for lack of a better term) of the content of the claim from the person to whom BLP policy is being applied. AlmostGrad (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Another question about the BLP policy you keep citing - in "an editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual, or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person", what does "other material" mean? Does it mean another article related to the person, like the person's business in this case, or does it include talk pages? None of us with declared CoIs have been editing the article (however the possibly paid editors like Verdict78 and HtownCat have been making edits which are favorable toward the company). Where does it say we are not supposed to post on the talk page, especially if we aren't being disruptive? The talk page is about the article, not about the person. AlmostGrad (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That section of BLP doesn't specify what's meant by "other material about that person," but it does include any material about that person in articles, whether the articles are biographies or not. I interpret it to include material on talk pages too, because BLP applies to every page on WP.

It isn't in WP's interests to allow people to use WP to pursue offwiki personal disputes, and it's not in the interests of the users either. If someone were to use WP to pursue a dispute with you – editing articles about you or even creating an article about you (after asking reliable sources to publish material about you) – you would strongly support what I'm saying here. So please support it even when you're not the one who's benefiting. SlimVirgin 05:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think that this is the correct location for having these discussions. Maybe shift it to somewhere else?

As far as my understanding of COI goes, if a person with COI follows all relevant Misplaced Pages policies, there should be no reason for anyone to ask them to step away from the issue. The current scenario appears to be an unjustified and unidimensional interpretation of the rules to prevent those COI editors willing to work with others to work properly, while at the same time, giving more and more WP:ROPE to someone who has not been following those rules and probably been socking since a considerable period of time.

As an aside, I'd point out to the point that said Having people involved in the dispute active on the talk page means the owner responds by wanting to know who those people are, then he gets himself into trouble for asking., I'll just note that the same would be attempted even if disinterested editors edited the article, and I have reason to believe it has been done too. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea for user:SlimVirgin to discourage one COI and encourage another on an article where he/she has a strong point-of-view, because it creates the appearance of using COI to win an argument. OTOH, user:AlmostGrad and others should be careful to avoid WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COIMICRO. I don't find either form of COI more offensive than the other.

With COIs on both sides, the volunteer community has been placed at the center of a tug-of-war and each side is incentivized to find more disinterested editors to take their side. This puts us regular editors in a position of "taking somebody's side" and creates a battleground, rather than a collaborative environment.

Though it is an extreme interpretation/enforcement of it, I think there is at least some support for SlimVirgin's point-of-view within BLP rules. I think it was (sorry if I have this wrong) User:DESiegel and user:DGG that have previously told me that our BLP rules also do not necessarily have as much consensus as one would think. They amount to openly endorsing systematic bias to avoid lawsuits from article-subjects and out of sympathy for them.

I would lean towards leaving the article as it is for a couple months or so, then taking a fresh look at it with an eye towards balancing SlimVirgin's version with the "due weight" crowd after everyone has settled down a bit. CorporateM (Talk) 18:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@CorporateM: that's an odd thing for you to say. I have no "strong point of view" about student bus services in Chicago! I have a point of view about Misplaced Pages not being used to make life miserable for borderline-notable people. It's unfair to draw an equivalence between people using WP to further a personal dispute and the article subject who arrives to defend himself, as though they're just competing COIs.

Anyway, there seems to be agreement above that Arri at Suburban Express can use this page to point out problems on Suburban Express and Dennis Toeppen, so perhaps that resolves the unblock issue. SlimVirgin 21:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant a strong point-of-view about the article and what should be done about it, as oppose to the subject matter. I've been defending the article from COI on both sides for months and I am worn out from attrition. I'd rather wait for things to fizzle down and maybe we can hammer it out in a routine collegial manner, without all the battlegrounding and inflated disputes from COI participation. We are colleagues, but the COIs have put us in a position of taking a side based on who has the most offensive COI behavior. CorporateM (Talk) 22:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea about anything, but is it possible to let Arri edit the talk pages of the articles on him and the company even if you don't unblock him? Or maybe let him post anything here and let someone copy it to those talk pages? Everyone should have their say and right of reply in those talk pages. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I was involved in the debate about this article before (a few weeks back), but took a backseat as it spiraled out of control. I do agree the article should be left alone for a few months to let the debate fizzle down. That being said, my personal recommendation is this. The previous version before the copy-edit made by SlimVirgin was created from consensus over a 3 month period. Therefore, I believe that should be the version that is left until the topic is revisited and the content is reevaluated. That way it is not an end-all be-all, but at least reflects the 50+ topics discussed on the Talk page over that 3 month period.

My reasoning for re-inserting myself into this conversation stems from SlimVirgin's request to limit input from different parties. So long as the rules are followed, there is absolutely no reason to restrict any editor from discussion. That can be considered a form of censorship in itself, of which I believe WP looks down upon. Please don't interpret this as an attack in any way. I understand SlimVirgin's intention is to remain neutral and objective. However, this article is an extremely complicated topic and limiting input from others / large edits without discussion create discontent among administrators (as seen in this thread), SPAs, and COIs.

Lastly, I would like to point out where there was an attempt by Suburban Express to reveal my name, whether or not it is true/untrue: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Suburban_Express&diff=573995989&oldid=573993354

Good luck to all on this one.

SlimVirgin, CorporateM, Drmies, TheOriginalSoni, Gaijin42, North8000 12.238.238.104 (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, talk pages are meant for discussion. The only fairness that exists there is letting everyone talk. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

One final note, SlimVirgin, your edits/comments have made it to one of Suburban Express' websites dedicated to outing an editor: http://postimg.org/image/4kot0xajr/ ,"Speaking as AlmostGrad on Misplaced Pages, (name removed) has tirelessly worked to inject her skewed view into articles on Suburban Express and Streisand Effect. The other "editors" on Misplaced Pages slapped down her ridiculous edits to the Streisand Effect article, but she and paid editor who works in PR seem to have devoted an enormous amount of time to injecting inaccurate information into the Misplaced Pages article about Suburban Express while simultaneously deleting neutral historical information. Again, we wonder what has sparked her apparent obsession." 12.238.238.104 (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing in the above that refers to my edits or comments. SlimVirgin 21:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

On that note SlimVirgin, I will highlight this in which you tell AlmostGrad to let "completely uninvolved editors decide how to handle the various claims and sources, both on talk pages and on the affected articles" while at the same time request input from Suburban Express here.

Furthermore, you explicitly ask him/her to remove himself/herself, along with others, from this topic altogether as seen on this talk thread, as seen here "I'd semi-protect the article (already done by Orangemike) and talk page to prevent IP input (e.g. from 24.15.78.1); and I'd ask SPAs (e.g. AlmostGrad) to stop editing the article or talk page. I've already asked AlmostGrad to remove himself from the dispute, to no avail."

Moreover, you make a large edit here that was never discussed. Although N2e pointed out that you can be WP:BOLD, you are dismissing 3 months of editing/discussion in a highly conflicted article ignoring the need to be WP:CAREFUL as AlmostGrad pointed out here. In WP:CAREFUL, it explicitly states, " If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes". The edit made above was not a "simple copy-edit" and missed all of the information highlighted by AlmostGrad here. 12.238.238.104 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You left out an important part of my post when you quoted me, namely, "If I were adminning it, I'd restrict the owner to pointing out errors via his user talk page ... ". That is, I'd have made the same request of the company owner as of the others involved in the offwiki dispute, by asking all of them to stay away from Suburban Express, Dennis Toeppen and those articles' talk pages.

It's worth noting that AlmostGrad created Dennis Toeppen via articles for creation; the submission was rejected because it was a largely negative article about a living person, but someone else posted it (a shorter version, but in several sections identical). AlmostGrad crossed a line by doing that, just as Arri at Suburban Express crossed a line by posting real names on his website. This is the kind of thing that happens when people use WP to further offwiki disputes. The sensible thing now is for all parties to remove themselves from those articles. The owner can then use other channels to point out errors (user talk, OTRS).

I understand that everyone involved feels this is an important issue for them, but it really is a very borderline-notable one, and it's just not worth this expenditure of energy or all the anger that seems to be attached to it. I really strongly recommend that everyone involved just do their best to move on. SlimVirgin 00:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not appreciate SlimVirgin, who has a strong, decidedly non-neutral point-of-view regarding the article, even if it is under the guise of BLP-violation-protection, using their admin tools to dig out material visible only to admins in order to defend the person whom they are supporting in a contentious article. In any case, an AfC submission by me is no justification or defense for outing NegatedVoid. Also, I'm not sure if submitting a well-sourced draft to AfC (where it is reviewed for potential tone/NPOV/sourcing issues before being published in articlespace) is comparable to outing - the draft was merely declined, and the deletion was a G7, not G10 as would have been the case if it were a BLP violation. SlimVirgin's use of admin tools to gain the upper hand in a discussion where they are not a neutral party seems rather unbecoming of an admin to me. AlmostGrad (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've placed this discussion  On hold per private discussion. LFaraone 19:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Off-wiki outing of User:NegatedVoid, and possible legal threat

Here is a screenshot of NegatedVoid's "Page of Shame" on Suburban Express' website. This is both off-wiki outing and a veiled legal threat. A similar edit made by one of the many socks of the now-blocked creator of this article was perceived as a legal threat in this SPI. AlmostGrad (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock on hold