Welcome to the external links noticeboard
This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links guideline. Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed. Questions about prominent websites like YouTube, IMDb, Twitter, or Find a Grave might be addressed with information from this guide. Sections older than 10 days archived by MiszaBot. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Shortcuts WP:ELN WP:EL/N If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: Concerns with links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard. For cases involving blatant spamming, please file a report at the spam project. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-g11}}. This board is not intended for generalized discussion about the external links guidelines themselves, which should be handled at the guideline talk page. To mark a report resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

Indicators
Defer discussion:
Defer to WPSPAM
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter

Fitzrovia calling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding links to http://www.webofstories.com/ to numerous articles, or requesting on talk pages that such links be added to articles. It looks spammy to, but asking here for other views. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bueller, anyone?! – ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear WP:COI anyway, which when it comes to linking the more civil way of describing spamming/linkfarming. I would remove any links added directly to the article by that editor and give the standard warning, which I will in fact try to do now if it hasn't been done (stupid new editing toolbar is driving me nuts, though, as I have the toolbar turned off in my prefs and it insists on being there and the javascript or whatever is slowing my editing windows to a crawl). DreamGuy (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we have reviewed the Spam and WP:COI pages and would like to make clear a few points:

The videos are not promoting a site or a product they are the life story of a person as told by that person and the links are being added to the wikipedia page of that person as they provide further information about that person.

Web of Stories has copyright for all videos on its site.

There is no banner plastered across the video giving a website address to go to.

There are no links on the page to a commercial site or to a spamming video.

There is no text that leads the person to a commercial site.

If there are problems beyond these raised, or anything we can do to rectify this, please could you let us know as we didn't mean to intentionally Spam WP.

Many thanks, Fitzrovia calling (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are connected with the WOS website you clearly have a conflict of interest. Also, you refer to yourselves as "we" - is your Wikipedia account being used by more than one person? If so, that is a clear breach of the user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fitzrovia,

If you are connected to the website, you'll want to read WP:PROMO. Let me encourage you to suggest the links on appropriate talk pages, but not add any to articles. When you're deeply involved in a website, it's hard to be objective about whether it's a good choice.

Also, please remember that video links in general are gently discouraged. They require far more bandwidth and computing power than many of our readers have. So people usually insist that video links be really amazing, even irreplaceable, rather than just okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the concept of linking to videos of interesting people speaking. However, someone unaffiliated with the site should make the determination, otherwise it is spam. Spam doesn't have to be Viagra or direct selling of things, it can also be mass adding links to the same location.

In general with External links, it's too easy to start filling up on links to printed interviews, podcasts and videos that end up being superficial in the long run. Most of them are just fluff. We are not a web directory, so have no real need to add lots of links.

I haven't dived into the site too much, but I honestly do like the concept of it and would not be surprised if editors decided links to it were appropriate for certain articles. A lot of the articles in question are lacking strong links. DreamGuy (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

Thought I would copy/paste conversation I have had thus far for the sake of time below.

Main question and/or issue: since I am the creator and originator of the content (the video on youtube), and I am allowing free and universal use without permission to use my video, is there a special protocol that I need to follow in order to include the youtube link in the article? Aside from the licensing requirements; which it appears I fulfill and meet, I don't find anything prohibiting me from using my own link. Please advise.

Link in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FvLBY3nmJ0

Article I would like to include external link on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow

Why? Because the article currently does not include or provide video of a perfect,complete, or unedited rainbow - that is not broken, or photoshopped. This video is unaltered and should be considered educational for someone who has not ever witnessed a complete natural rainbow in their lifetime. Thanks all for your help with this - I am finding this process (the contribution process) itself very educational!

CONVERSATION THUS FAR:

YouTube LinksThanks for the feedback Old Moonraker; I was wondering if you can help me understand the YouTube restrictions. I created the YouTube video myself, and own the copyright. Do I have to indicate that somewhere on YouTube or Wikipedia or the link itself? Thanks again for your help with this, my first contribution.Painfullybrilliant (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't own the copyright, but I am the creator of the video and I am allowing free use of the video - I believe I uploaded the video as well to the WikiCommons site. Is there an alternative option I have to include in the rainbow article? Painfullybrilliant (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploading media files is way outside my comfort zone, but as far as I know if you have an account on English Wikipedia, this is valid on Wikimedia Commons—the WP equivalent of YouTube—as well. Here's the start page. Upload the video and attach one of the free licenses from the drop-down menu. Any video accepted on Commons is automatically acceptable on all other Wikipedias. I haven't done a video, but here's a diagram I made that uses the same licence. Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC) So I guess my question is, since I am the creator and originator of the content (the video on youtube), and I am allowing free and universal use without permission to use my video, is there a special protocol that I need to follow in order to include the youtube link in the article? Aside from the licensing requirements; which it appears I fulfill and meet, I don't find anything prohibiting me from using my own link. Please advise. Thanks again - Painfullybrilliant (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Call at WP:ELN to put yourself in touch with specialists on external links.--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Painfullybrilliant (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice video. You should upload this at the Commons. First you may want to read and follow Wikipedia:Unified login so that your login and password are the same as here. Uploading there is preferable to linking to YouTube. The video can be downloaded by others and shared in that way where YouTube embeds the videos and prevents users from truly sharing.

What do you mean you don't own the copyright, btw?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

...at the user's talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This website hosts copies of news articles concerning child molestation accusations of clergymen, mostly Catholic. It has over two hundred links from Wikipedia pages.[1] Here's a typical page: [2]. The articles appear to be copyright violations - there is no notice of permission. The bottom of many pages has this notice: "Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution." However it's the non-original material that's the concern. In the past, we've removed links to sites like this. None of the citations would need to be removed - just the hyperlinks. Any thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  07:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been slowly working through the links to rickross.com on the same grounds and from similar articles - where the material is a clear copyright violation, we can't link to it per WP:LINKVIO. As you mentioned, there is no hassle with leaving the reference - the problem is only with the link. In the case of rickross.com, I've also been finding that the titles don't always match the titles of the original article, so it is sometimes worth checking this when removing the link: in many cases I've found that the articles are still online by the copyright holder, but it is tricky to find it because of the different titles. (In the example you gave above, the original article is still online [3], so there is no call to link to any other site even as a convenience). From memory bishop-accountability wasn't a necessarily a problem on this score, though. - Bilby (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be selective. WP:LINKVIO explicitly mentions the two corner cases internet archives and clearly illegal file sharing sites. Bishopaccountability.org does not fit the illegal category very well in my opinion - until we become aware of someone actually complaining. A quick search did not turn up anything and they have been around some time so anyone had time enough to sue. Clearly it would be better to link to google news or one of the well known archive sites. Richiez (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive maintains nearly identical copies of the sites, but the issues are murky. I'm not sure how this site is different from illegal file sharing sites. It is sharing copyrighted material. I'm not aware of any requirement for a website to have been sued in order for it to be violating copyright for the purposes of this policy. So long as the rest of the citation is complete, readers can track down copies of the articles without the link.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copies of newspaper articles like this are almost certainly copyright violations (>99%). We should not link to such things. It might be worth pursuing WP:BLACKLISTing for www.bishop-accountability.org/news/*, since they seem to have grouped most of their copyright violations in a single directory.

Links to the original are good, but not technically necessary. I've had some luck in the past with searching for a sentence out of the early part of a news story if the headline was changed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the SNAP website seems to do the same thing, although as they are better organized, it's (barely) possible that they have actually arranged for proper licenses. I've left a note at Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases#Copyright_violations_by_other_websites to see if we can get a few more hands involved in cleaning this up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is a dispute on the given page about whether www.bookland.net should be there as an external link. Ronz is telling that its off-topic, promotional or smth. Terribly sad to see vandalism and unfair practice on the part of a distinguished editor since similar library links exist for Sony Reader, Kobo eReader, etc. There are quite a few reasons in favor of this link. 903 and 603 models are locked on this library site and people should be aware of it. The site cannot be off-topic since the subject may not operate without ebook site. If there should be a word about Bookland inside the article, it can be done.

2. There were a couple of additional external (official) sites also deleted by Ronz, however the subject models are not available at one single site but are mentioned in the article. There is a violation of the rule that the mentioned external links should be listed. PocketBook company has a dozen of official sites but only three were listed to cover all the models mentioned. This point #2 is less important, however, than #1 and I'm open to arguments con. --Brainsteinko (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting a discussion on this.

In the article body there are very prominent and rather questionable external links to a site for each model.

Other discussion on the external links section is located here.

Generally, I'd like to see the problems with the article addressed first.

Regarding item #1 above: It's a link to a library of books.

Regarding item #2 above: As the article is, it is unclear how WP:ELOFFICIAL should be applied. The one remaining link is a corporate directory. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are avoiding all arguments here and there. If you prefer to talk about general problems you need to list specifically the problems. E.g., you inserted advert tag in the article but neither stated what looks like advert nor the neutrality issues mentioned in the tag. Please use short citations from wiki rules. E.g. "prices (which you deleted) should not be given in Wikipedia". Please address every point I'm saying.--Brainsteinko (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bookland.net is inappropriate per WP:ELNO #1, #4, #5, and #13. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-----

Thanks you for inviting me over to discuss PocketBook Reader article. Though I have made almost 10K edits since I started Wikipedia 8 months ago, by no means does it mean that I'm an expert. The biggest problem with editing articles to trying to remember rules and trying to find edit guidelines for specific types of articles. One problem is the interpretation of rules and guidelines, some seem to be hard facts yet others seem to be suggestions. As a person edits more, they learn more, and what I thought was correct a few months ago is not what I know today.

The state of this article didn't have a perfect layout before I started editing it, and the technical aspects close to 100% accurate. This is what it looked like before I first touched it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PocketBook_eReader&action=historysubmit&diff=398108069&oldid=397817252

The reason I started editing this article was that I was shopping for an eBook Reader, came across PocketBook products, and went to the article to learn more. As I started reading the corporate web site and looking back at the Wiki article, I noticed a lot of mistakes, thus I started correcting them. I did get out of hand adding all their models to the article, but it nothing more than expanding the format that existed prior to my edits. Is it the right way or wrong way, I have no idea, because I don't have a guideline for these types of articles, but for USA CITY articles I read this WP:USCITY.

My view is that what is useful for visitors is far more important than wikipedia rules. Wikipedia rules can and do change, but MOST visitors come here to find accurate and useful information and links, and likely don't give a crap about editing rules.

Concerning the link to www.bookland.net, since it is "promoted" by the PocketBook company, then it is a related link, see lower-right side of http://www.pocketbook-usa.com/products/pocketbook-902/

Is this link 100% required for this article, likely no, but it does has more right to be in this article than all other 3rd-party book sellers. Whether or not you decide to leave the link doesn't matter to me.

Concerning links to the product manuals are another issue. I think links to online user manuals are extremely important for wikipedia articles, because they provide users an easy way to learn far more accurate information than can be added to the article. I would argue that all product-based articles on Wikipedia MUST provide links to online user manuals (if they exist).

Concerning all the product information, yes I did get out of control adding information, but it is nothing more than an expansion of the same format that existed prior to my 1st edit. If you look at the hundreds of cell phone articles on wikipedia, most of this information is refined down to INFOBOXES, the problem with this article that there are a bunch of products, and the one infobox per product wouldn't work. Maybe we should add a high-level non-product-specific infobox on this article and then summarize the products in a table? (discuss it) • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brainsteinko, I'm confused by something in your first comment. You wrote, "There is a violation of the rule that the mentioned external links should be listed." What rule? As far as I know, Wikipedia has no such rule. It has one that says almost (but not quite) the opposite at WP:ELNO#EL19. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the confusion. The information was solely taken from and relied on from Talk:PocketBook_Reader : user Jinnai: "the external links should all the in an External link section also".

To Ronz attn: Thanks for the links you sent to me. Good point there, that consensus is not about winning. Very unfortunate and unproductive discussion so far... There've been a number of improvements made to the article. The issue is: the tag. We may discuss it here or anywhere else. Please answer the question, what should be done else, so we can remove it. Anyone else is welcomed to participate in the discussion--Brainsteinko (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I suspect that Jinnai meant that whatever external links were going to be in the article ought to be in corralled under the ==External links== section heading (or in an WP:Infobox), not that these links were required to exist.

It looks like the big {{Multiple issues}} tag at the top of the article does not complain about external links. It would be better to take those issues back to the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though Bookland is a little bit related, it isn't critical to the article. Let's just axe http://www.bookland.net and move on. This issue is tiny compared to how much more work should be done to it to make it more like the Amazon Kindle article or some other quality eReader article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've been slowly cleaning up the long list of external links to this article, but they all seem to fail WP:EL per WP:ELNO #1 and #13 criteria. Mostly, the links tend to be too specific for the topic.

This is the flagship article for WikiProject Musical Theatre, so I'm also hoping that we can create a better understanding of what constitutes an appropriate External links section, as there are similar problems in the related articles that the project reviews.

Discussion here. The external links are listed individually for comment here --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a response there.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors of Wikipedia,

I'm writing on behalf of the Tyndall Correspondence Project that is run by York Univ. Toronto.

On February 3rd, 2011, my friend "Orlyln" tried to add the link to our project, but it was removed.

In the article-history page the removal is explained by already having this link in the external link: http://transcribingtyndall.wordpress.com.

I wanted to ask you to reconsider this decision for the following reasons:

1. This project is an important academic initiative whose main goal is to publish Tyndall's correspondences in print and online as well. Through this perspective, the project's contribution to the continuity of Tyndall's work is crucial.

2. Another goal of the project is to create a community of scholars around themes raised through an intense study of John Tyndall, such as the relationship between science and religion, the popularization and professionalization of science, and advances in physics, glaciology, climatology, and spontaneous generation.

3. The project is a collaboration of several universities (Montana State University, Aberystwyth University, Arizona State, University of Auckland (NZ), Brock University, University of Cambridge, University of Exeter, Harvard University, University of Leeds, University of Leicester, New York University, University of Oklahoma). Our work based mostly on Wiki technology and in that sense we share with Wikipedia the same idea of a communal project that is developed by the contributions of groups of institutions and individuals. Our use of new technology in the Humanities scholarship is a unique and ground breaking initiative that can serve as a model for future initiatives.

4. The fact that in the external link to Michael D. Barton's blog there is a link to Tyndall Project, is not a sufficient reason to remove a direct link to our long on going academic project from Wikipedia. If you would read the page "About Michael D. Barton" (http://transcribingtyndall.wordpress.com/about/), you would immediately see that this student is not a recognized historian. There is no doubt that people who reach John Tyndall's presentation in Wikipedia would be deprived of important information regarding the project and at the same time would be presented with a link that is not supposed to represent our project. Moreover, since Mr. Barton's link leads to a blog, the chances are that people who are looking for more academic material or activity regarding Tyndall, will not use this link in the first place, and hence not know that a link to the Correspondence Project exists there too.

Therefore, I would - on behalf on the Tyndall Correspondence Project - appreciate your reconsideration regarding an external link to our project (and this is the link: http://www.yorku.ca/tyndall/).

Thank you very much in advance,

Sincerely,

Noa Yaari (MA student at York Univ. working in the project). <e-mail address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.198.121 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noa, thanks for posting here. The link that your website was compared to appears to be a blog and does not belong in the article per ELNO #11, unless the blog is a recognized authority on Tyndall. With your project and the website, I am not sure what the link offers readers of the Wikipedia article other than a bio and information about your project. The letters are still being transcribed and until they are posted, I don't see much of a reason to have the site linked within the article. Nothing against your project, just the information currently on the site.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NortyNort. The information currently at the York U site is too scant to justify linking to. Seanwal111111 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again youtube is being brought up. I would like a consensus because i cant find i rule on this. Is youtube to be added to external or infobox for music related articles music videos?

• Template_talk:Infobox_single#Proposed_merge_from_Template:External_music_video_into_Template:Infobox_single consensus wanted the template kept, but videos added to external links.
• Wikipedia:EL#What_to_link Youtube seems to fall under this category.
• Template:YouTube Actually has its own external links template.

What should we do? Discussion is brought up from Talk:Blow_(song)#Music video in infobox. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant line in wp:external links is wp:ELYES point 2: "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply." However, the link in question [4] does not work in my country (Netherlands) I am pretty sure it only works in the USA and Canada, which means it should be excluded based on wp:ELNO criteria 7. Yoenit (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In bold, at the top of links normally to be avoided, it says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject." It seems to me that the only argument here is about whether an official music video posted by it's official author on their official channel can be considered official.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the general issue, you might like to see WP:ELPEREN.

On the specific issue, if the subject of the article is the song itself (rather than the artist), then a video might (barely) qualify as an 'official' link, although I think that ELYES is a better classification.

IMO it would probably be best to list it under ==External links== rather than in the infobox, because all YouTube links must be labeled as requiring (Flash video) software, and this will be easier to do if you don't have the space restraints of an infobox. Also, sometimes YouTube links aren't available to readers in other countries, and if that list is unreasonably short (e.g., solely US readers), then I might omit the link entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put much stake in WP:ELPEREN. As much as some would like it to be percieved otherwise it is just an Essay and doesn't carry much weight. Its just an opinion on how some think it should be handled. With that said I think that the link should be under External links (if its used at all which should be rare). The infobox should be kept for demographics. --108.18.194.162 (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At paraphilic infantilism I removed two links on the basis of WP:ELNO points 2, 4, 10, 11. The two links were to a personal website about paraphilic infantilism (so ELNO 2, 4 and 11) and an Adult Baby Diaper Lover support community (ELNO 10). In the talk page archives there is a discussion involving three editors which seemed to support my removal (here). Currently the edits are being discussed on the talk page (Talk:Paraphilic infantilism#Removal of external links motivation for recent deletions), but since there are only 2 editors I thought I'd bring it up here for further input. I also removed some books from the further reading section and that edit is also being discussed in the same talk page section, obviously that material is not relevant to this page. The editor advocating for the inclusion of a link has stated that he also operates the site [5]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, three editors are involved, the third being WhatamIdoing. The deletions follow about an hour after that last round in an exchange[6]. A summary of how that started is here. I had hoped that they could let it go, instead of spreading the issue to other forums. To complicate any possible assumptions of good faith, WLU has already made accusations of wikihounding[7]. BitterGrey (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see how removing your latest comment on my user talk page could possibly have anything to do with a dispute over external links at an article that I've never read, much less edited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The archive section I linked to does not have WhatamIdoing as a contributor. I didn't mention or link to the issues on the talk pages for WAID and the COI essay because I see them as completely unrelated to the removal of an external link on a mainspace page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(This weekend) I was mentioned by name when WLU re-raised the Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine) issue on WhatamIdoing's talk page[8], after "nuking" all discussions on the essay talk page. paraphilic_infantilism is an article that I've contributed text and references to, and I maintain http://understanding.infantilism.org/ . As a result, it was unsurprising when WLU suddenly turned his attentions to that article, starting with the external links. Next came the removal of text and obfuscation of the references [9]. WhatamIdoing was directly involved in the issue at Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine) and, not suprisingly, its continuation on her talk page. (She is correct in that she hasn't been directly involved in the effects of this issue on paraphilic infantilism yet.) BitterGrey (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(2009) Since WLU included the two-year-old discussion, I'll explain the context for that too: It actually follows the second of three waves of deletions. There was a debate 12-16 July 2009 at Sexology[10] about multiple external links that James cantor was adding under a conflict of interest. On 17 July 2009, he similarly started deleting [11][12][13], even violating 3RR[14][15][16][17].

That editor's conflicts eventually did catch up with him. WhatamIdoing advocated for him, and in the end was his sole supporter[18]. The claim that "James Cantor, a world-class expert ... chastised by a handful of (minority-view-holding) editors" was included in the post by WhatamIdoing that became Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine)[19]. This essay included some pro-doctor, anti-activist, anti-patient bias that I objected to. This gave rise to the recent conflict at Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine) which, which WLU moved to WhatamIdoing's talk page, where it continued until shortly (under two hours) before WLU started raising issues with the paraphilic_infantilism article. This clearly isn't coincidental.

(For clarity, it should be noted that while WhatamIdoing's advocacy of James Cantor was involved the conflict that caused this weekend's wave of deletions, James Cantor himself has not.)

That editor wasn't disciplined for his 2009 deletions. However, that history became part of a documented pattern of incivility. The same will probably happen regarding this round, although it might take a year or two. BitterGrey (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BitterGrey, the WP:External links/Noticeboard is not an appropriate place to be Accusing others of harassment. If you believe that removing a personal website and an Internet chat room from a Wikipedia article constitutes harassment, then please take your complaint to ANI.

In the meantime, perhaps you would stop posting your allegations of a conspiracy against you until the editors here have had a day or two to review the disputed websites and offer their opinions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So this link http://understanding.infantilism.org/ is contested based on three wp:ELNO criteria. Lets discuss these one at the time and see if the complaint is valid:

• ELNO 2 is about sites that "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". Looking through to that website I see numerous citations and nothing which seems obviously inaccurate. Can you please provide specific examples of how the site meets this criteria, because I do not see it.
• ELNO 4 is about "Links mainly intended to promote a website". This particular links has been in that article for years and is used only a few related pages within the topic area. The fact that one of the users in this debate has admitted to have a COI with regards to this link does not mean it should automatically be removed as linkspam.
• ELNO 11 is about "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites" This criteria is written very restrictive, but this page does indeed seem to fall under "personal webpage". Then again, I doubt any recognized authorities exist who are publically affiliated with this fetish.

So to sum up, I don't see ELNO 2, ELNO 4 accusation is ridiculous and ELNO 11 applies. However, a case can be made for inclusion on wp:ELMAYBE 4. What it all comes down to in the end are is the following: Is this link an improvement to the article? I am slightly leaning towards yes. The forum link should be removed, that one is quite straightforward. Yoenit (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(To interject, I've long avoided making any changes to the external links section myself due to the COI. This is why I hadn't removed the forum link.) BitterGrey (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a personal webpage and not by a scholar on the topic as I know it, ergo its reliability is untrustworthy and I am uncomfortable with deciding on personal webpages based on the ability of editors to decide whether or not it accurately represents the sources. In my opinion this argues against ELYES since the knowledgability of the material essentially comes down to "trust me, I'm a member". The page on is infantilism OK also makes it clear that this is very much an advocacy site. Essentially by including it, wikipedia gives it's "stamp of approval" to whatever the website maintainer considers an appropriate bit of information. I have no problem with paraphilic infantilism, people can do what they want, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the standards for ELs should be high.

The link was added by User:Science Dog in September. Before that, I'm not sure it was ever actually incorporated (I looked a bit and couldn't find a previous inclusion but I may simply have missed it and if someone can demonstrate it was added earlier and stayed on the page for a long time then great). In addition, in my experience longevity is rarely a reason to keep a link, an edit or an inappropriate source - particularly on a page that isn't likely to be high traffic.

Note that I'm not advocating for the link to be removed based on COI and as BG says it's never been added by him, it's just context for the discussion. I didn't even initially include the information in my posting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bittergrey, note that you are permitted to make your case for inclusion of the link per WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Having a COI means that other editors take your case with a grain of salt, not that you can't argue it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was more hoping they would visit it for themselves. If they did so, they might see the extensive list of references on the "What is Infantilism?" article. Almost all of the references in the Wikipedia article came from there. They would also see that Is Infantilism OK? is a question, not a statement as you (WLU) assert. (The statement form is "infantilism is OK," while the question form is "is infantilism OK?") It includes tools for evaluating appropriateness on an individual basis, such as a checklists of various reasons why it might not be OK. Useful tools, but too extensive to include in Wikipedia. They would also see the surveys section which includes a great wealth of information. Much of it can't be included within Wikipedia because the parts that aren't secondary or tertiary sources are primary research. Overall, it is the best resource on paraphilic infantilism, diaper fetishism, and the AB/DL community that I know of. But I'd prefer that people go and see for themselves instead of being swayed by what someone wrote.

Given the breadth of resources there, I'd include it under wp:ELYES #3 ("Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail") However, I see Yoenit's point about wp:ELMAYBE #4. (I'd also like to see an answer from WLU to Yoenit's question about ELNO#2[20]. WLU is effectively accusing me of misleading readers. This is something I take seriously, and this accusation should be supported or retracted. )

Overall, I have mixed feelings about the EL's inclusion. Yes, having an EL to it would provide Wikipedia readers access to all of those additional resources. However, it also means that in one or two years, we'll be back here because some other editor has a bone to pick and sees the EL as a way to get at me. BitterGrey (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote, the initial inclusion was some time prior to Jan 2006, when the old article was stubbed and the history lost. (One regret that I'll bring up before someone else does: In my first few days on Wikipedia, while rebuilding the article just after the stubbing, I restored the previous set of external links in two edits when I should have done it in one.) BitterGrey (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see "breadth of resources" as a valid point. Any reliable, secondary sources (i.e. books or journal articles) found in one of the essays written by Bittergrey can, and should be extracted from the UI website and used as citations in the paraphilic infantilism page itself. What remains are primary sources, which can only be used for very specific circumstances, and the synthesis occurring within the page (i.e. the UI page itself being used as a de facto secondary source). The page wouldn't be considered reliable for use on the PI page proper, I don't see it being valid as an EL under that circumstance. Reviewing specifics, much of the site is written by BitterGrey, reflecting his experiences with paraphilic infantilism:

1. "Is PI OK" is an advocacy piece - a section essentially about how BitterGrey came to accept his paraphilia, which I still read as "yes, it is OK"
2. An essay where he discusses his name choice
3. His checklist in my mind comes down to a "how to come out as a paraphilic infantilist"
4. An essay on what seems to be his "personal journey"
5. A section on his interpretation of bible and his understanding of Christian morality.
6. His interpretation of what causes PI. Note that from what I've seen, there's not really a review article on the subject itself meaning this page runs ahead of the research.
7. A survey about PI, which I don't believe have been published anywhere considered reliable. Thus it is possible that linking to these surveys would actually give readers misinformation because the level of expertise and oversight that normal academic channels provide are missing (writing and getting adequate responses to surveys is itself a very difficult task with a specific methodology and expertise). This survey wouldn't be acceptable even as a primary source because it hasn't been published in the appropriate venue - it's a set of responses gathered by an individual of uncertain expertise, with no oversight, published on a website controlled by a single person.
8. A copy of a 1986 PhD thesis (question - it says it has been licensed under the Creative Commons 3.0 license, would linking to a copyright be involved? Per Bittergrey's comment below, this is not an issue, but a OTRS e-mail may be required; not that familiar with copyright but it's something to keep in mind. - WLU)
9. A listing of practices which to my mind is essentially a "how to" manual.

I see this site as a very, very personal web page - it summarizes one person's thought on the subject. It contains his tools, written by him, tools he considers "useful" (for someone considering adopting or coming out as a paraphilic infantilist). Note that these aren't tools that would be "useful", they are tools that would be barred from inclusion per WP:NOT#HOWTO. I do not see ELYES as applicable because it's not neutral (again, I read it as a fairly transparent and uniquely personal advocacy site) and it's accuracy can not be determined. It is akin to me writing an essay or blog on my experience with wikipedia, then linking to it as a source or EL.

If anyone wants a reply to ELNO#2, the prime example would be the surveys - how is it verifiable that they are accurate? How do we know they weren't simply written by a single person, be it Bittergrey himself, or a single person submitting multiple responses? There was no thesis advisor, no peer review, no publisher to assert editorial control or fact checking. The secondary example would be the sixth point, Bittergrey's analysis of what causes PI - again, no peer review, no editorial control, no reputable publisher. Just one person's website. A tertiary example can be found with extensive narratives of 1-5 and 9. These are all personal essays. I have never said that Bittergrey is deliberately misleading readers, but I see no reason to believe that this is the kind of accurate or at least vetted information one would get from a scholarly publication. This isn't raw, neutral information on paraphilic infantilism - this is Bittergrey's interpretation of paraphilic infantilism, primarily in the form of his, and his alone, thoughts and experiences. There are a multitude of cognitive biases that exist, and are responsible for most pathological science. Confirmation bias alone ensures that it is extremely unlikely a single person, particularly one heavily invested in a specific identity, could report without colouring the material extensively. That's the reason we have thesis advisors, peer review, editors of collections of essays, fact checkers and editors at newspapers and publishers, and so forth. I'm not saying it has happened, or Bittegrey deliberately skewed any of the material but without oversight it's too easy to have happened, and there is nothing to support the neutrality, independence, accuracy or integrity of any of the information and it's very easy to unconsciously skew virtually anything.

As to Bittergrey's assertion that this EL is a way to "get at him", I really just think that the link is inappropriate and don't really care who owns the link, who put it in the page, or who Bittergrey is for that matter. I'm not persecuting anyone, I admit this is a bit of a borderline case (I see it as pretty obviously inappropriate, but certainly not as cut and dry as the forum). I also think it should be removed, based on my original statement of EL 2 (the factual accuracy of the information essentially can't be verified except through a single contributor's word - any editor who thinks otherwise should ask themselves if they would be comfortable seeing this site in a footnote), 4 (the link promotes the UI site itself) and particularly 11 (this is very, very much a personal website). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only substantial addition I see in WLU's new 900-word rant over the previous one is "Any reliable, secondary sources can, and should, be extracted from the UI website and used as citations in the paraphilic infantilism page itself..."[21] If he sees no value in my work, why is he suggesting plagiarizing it? To WLU, I'll state this simply: Do not steal my intellectual property.

Notably missing is any support for WLU's accusation that I'm misleading readers (elno #2).

WLU, I thought we were here to get input from uninvolved editors, not listen to your conclusions over and over. BitterGrey (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor makes a point and I consider it to be invalid, questionable, or missing part of my rationale, I will post a reply to note this. If I am convincing in doing so, it means my original rationale was lacking. I see the above post as expanding on, not repeating, my original post. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not really been following this debate, and I don't claim to know anything about the subject. I will however point out that sources cited in a document aren't the 'intellectual property' of anyone but the authors of the sources cited, and where the reliability of a particular source is questioned, reference to the sources cited therein is not only not plagiarism, it is a necessary part of the process required to determine reliability, and a legitimate way to investigate alternate sourcing for controversial statements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with the references being checked. However, extracting all the references in mass from understanding.infantilism.org, for the purpose of denying any mention of understanding.infantilism.org, takes the results of the person who worked to gather those references, and gives him no credit. BitterGrey (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the object of looking at the references is to improve the article. Though collating references is a necessary part of research, it isn't something that one should normally expect explicit recognition for - if this were the case, one would rapidly find oneself snowed under with acknowledgements of prior sources for prior sources for prior... If the sources you've found support the position you've taken, you've achieved your goal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump, let's say you produced a literature survey for college with a large number of references. Someone took it, removed your name, reworded the text (since the content would be driven by the references, he or she couldn't change the content, just the wording), and presented the outcome as his own, would you consider that plagiarism? BitterGrey (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on topic. We are here to discuss an external link, not the definition of plagiarism. Whether such an action would constitute plagiarism is irrelevant since it is not gonna happen anyway. Edit: I am referring here to the " mass extraction of references from the website", although it applies to the hypothetical example above as well. Yoenit (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider Bittergrey's site to meet the definition of a reliable source and do not think it should be cited or linked to, ever. If a journal article or book is cited on that site, then any reader can look that source up and integrate it into the wikipedia page. All the secondary material, the synthesis that Bittergrey performs across multiple sources to produce an essay or article, should not be cited because it is not a reliable source. I have no interest in Bittergrey's intellectual property and would argue strongly against using it. I'm not saying "check the references to see if they verify the body", I'm saying ignore the body, skip straight the references and use them in the wikipedia page.

Also note that I explicitly didn't say Bittergrey's work was deliberately misleading, I'm saying it's a personal webpage comprised primarily of a single person's view of a paraphilia they themselves practice, with no editorial oversight, peer review, reputation for fact checking or expertise - all the criteria of a reliable source. A personal website will, of necessity, be a single person's viewpoint with no editorial control to ensure accuracy. Thus, in my opinion, it meets the second half of ELNO #2, the "unverifiable research" part.

Note that I am attempting to do exactly what Bittergrey asked - review the site in detail and see if it is appropriate. I do tend to write long posts, but I am attempting to be explicit in my reasoning and examples. I do not consider this a rant, I consider it a reasoned argument.

Regarding Bittergrey's final point, that would be plagiarism and unacceptable. If I printed out an article, ignored the text, read every single reference and wrote my own article, that's not plagiarism (though it would be bad research) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, I asked UNINVOLVED editors to look at it. You are involved in a conflict that has, thanks to you, spread over multiple articles, essays, and talk pages. New discoveries such as the the Creative Commons 3.0 license demonstrate that you didn't explore the website before making your conclusion and deleting the EL. (By the way, the academically-reviewed Masters thesis and Doctoral dissertation were posted with the author's written consent. I made sure to get that before putting in the work to OCR them.) Perhaps you should let unbiased editors explore for themselves. If you have some time, I'd suggest fixing those several references on paraphilic_infantilism that have read "Citation will be completed automatically in a few minutes" since your disruptive edits yesterday[22]. (Sunday, they all had titles, authors, and appropriate page numbers[23].) Or, more relevant to this discussion, actually reading ELNO #2. The important part is the first half - that is why it is first. If you can't support the accusation that I'm misleading readers, stop bringing up ELNO #2. BitterGrey (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to an area where I haven't substantiated my assertion with reference to the appropriate policy, or clearly identified it as my opinion? You suggested editors conduct a substantive review, and I did that. I am an editor with an opinion, and am making the best case I can to substantiate that opinion based on my understanding and interpretation of WP:EL. Your claim that it's solely based on some sort of personal grudge is unfounded, I've removed many, many external links in my history and edited many, many pages. I've made an extra effort to not bring in past history and let the EL stand or fall on its own merits. Please stop claiming I'm doing this all out of pique.

The {{cite pmid}} templates have been fixed, apparently the bot only runs by hand now, good to know.

ELNO#2 has two halves, and both are relevant. I think the second half is more relevant since the website is the work of a single person with no oversight. I'm not suggesting you are deliberately lying to readers on your site - I'm suggesting there is no oversight, thus the potential for bias is present. We insist on peer reviewed sources or reliable news agencies with reputations for fact checking and reliability for a reason - humans are flawed and it helps maintain the quality of information. Even if the first half was more important because "it's first", that doesn't mean the second half doesn't exist. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wp:elno#2 is constructed of a root phrase "Any site that misleads the reader," followed by two narrowing conditions, and then one exclusion. While you have gone on and on about one of the narrowing condition, you haven't addressed the root phrase. It is interesting to note that you didn't consider the Adult Baby Diaper Lover support community as ELNO#2[24]. Now, if a lack of verifiability were the real issue, why would it only affect the website with all the references? BitterGrey (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an uninvolved editor, and I just reviewed the site. It is clearly a personal site, so it falls under ELNO # 11 and should not be linked. - MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I too am uninvolved but after looking at all of this and going through the website I have to say that it fails per ELNO #'s 2, 4, 10 and 11. #2, there is no peer review done for accuracy of items (ie: the surveys for example); #4, there are links to promote this website also I think external link spamming may also be a problem; #10, there is a social networking club available on the site for people to get together, and finally #11, which I think is maybe the strongest reason this site should not be allowed as a reliable source is it is pretty much a testimonial of the writer of this personal website. We have to have accurate reliable sources and usually that is in the form of peer reviewed journals or books. This site is more of the owner's testimonial in a lot of the areas, no disrepect intended. Anyways, this is what I got notes from looking at everything I saw. I hope this helps, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CrohnieGal, I know you trust WLU given the span of your contact with him[25] but do you personally believe understanding.infantilism.org is both a forum (ELNO#10) and a personal web page (ELNO#11)? When WLU listed those four ELNOs, he was referring to two websites. Or by "it", were you referring to http://abdlplay.com/forum/ (the forum) as well?BitterGrey (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To your first comment, yes I do have a lot of respect for WLU. He makes his debates backed in policies and guidelines and tries to clarify what he means when he says it. As for the forum, you have a page that has a forum to set up contact with people, which is what I was talking about. #11, it is your personal website with your POV throughout. I found a lot of what you had to say as sounding like a testimonial in some ways. I did my research on this and did take notes on what I found. I didn't click everything there but I clicked a lot of what you have on the site. I hope that clarifies my comments, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help if you provided the URL or title for this forum page? BitterGrey (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie never said "forum", she said "social networking club". ELNO 10 is about more than just web fora. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie wrote "page." Pages have URLs. If one of you two would share this URL, we'd have a clearer picture of what is being discussed. BitterGrey (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no ambiguity regarding the abdl web forum as it is clearly excluded by ELNO#10 as I said in my initial post. Web fora are inherently unreliable but that's not the point - they're web fora, they're not encyclopedic. Also, any single reason from ELNO can be enough to exclude a link. Finally, Crohnie appears to be referring to the "social networking site" part of ELNO#10 (Crohnie, I can't see a link to the social club you refer to, would you be able to link to it?) I don't think that's necessarily a reason not to link as UI.org is not primarily or solely for social networking. But I very much do agree with MrOllie and Crohnie that ELNO#11 is probably the strongest reason not to link, as it's clearly a personal webpage. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have little doubt that the abdl web forum is a forum. My point relates to votestacking. BitterGrey (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Also, CrohnieGal, we are discussing and EL, not an RS. They are different noticeboards. On the talk page where all this started, WLU mentioned "a long history of corresponding [with CrohnieGal] on wiki and off about wiki-related" matters[26]. Perhaps in the email exchange, some wires got crossed. At that original location, I noted how your sudden involvement coincided with a message from WLU[27]. Now here you are again, claiming to be uninvolved. BitterGrey (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those posts had anything to do with this ELN discussion. Are you accusing us of colluduing off-site through e-mail to get a biased set of editors on this noticeboard? That discounts essentially all references that anyone here has made to policies, guidelines and overall thoughts in favour of a personal conspiracy against you. I see no evidence of this, but I do see a lot of (in my opinion) well-reasoned discussions and ELNO-based arguments against including UI.org. Those are the issues that should be focussed on.

Also note that ELNO#2 does have implications regarding the reliability of an external link. And note that #11 is about it being a personal website and thus excluded - which Crohnie thought the most compelling reason to remove it and leave it removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, feel free to explain the diffs if you believe you are being quoted out of context. On the subject of accusations, I'm still waiting for response regarding the accusation that I'm misleading readers (ELNO#2). Please support it or retract it, preferably with links or diffs others can check for themselves. BitterGrey (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. A week before this section was created, I sent Crohnie an e-mail asking how she was doing because I know and like her, and also mentioning that she was mentioned by name at WT:MEDCOI. Crohnie is an editor whose opinion I respect who also self-identifies as an editor with a health issue. I thought she might have some insights related to an essay about possible conflicts of interest that are related to having a diagnosis. It seems rather self-evident she might have something of value to contribute. It is part of the normal process of gathering input for a new page. Beyond a brief reference to MEDCOI, there wasn't anything relevant to editing wikipedia. The posts were completely unrelated to this ELN posting, particularly as I can't travel backwards or forwards in time. The e-mail has absolutely nothing to do with this page or paraphilic infantilism.

I've repeatedly explained why I think your work on the UI.org is unreliable and may mislead readers and it essentially comes down to being a personal webpage and therefore an unreliable source. That's pretty much it. Please review WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:V for more information on that. I've never accused you of deliberately misleading readers, I have repeatedly stated that in all cases of unreviewed work the issue is not one of deliberate deception. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your message was sent to her 13:03, 23 February 2011[28] and her first post was 17:52, 23 February 2011[29]. The diffs don't support your claim. Regarding ELNO#2, note the absence of weasel words like "might," "maybe," or "may." Any site might be deceptive. ELNO#2 is directed at sites that ARE deceptive. Please support or retract this accusation. BitterGrey (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, guys, let's run through the facts of life again:

Sniping at each other about perceived insults makes uninvolved editors less likely to respond. If you want responses from uninvolved editors, then you need to restrain your comments. If you expect uninvolved editors to disagree with you, then sure, go ahead: keep discouraging their involvement with your endless arguing. Just keep in mind that most of the regulars are going to assume that petty sniping means your case is weak.

I would very much appreciate it if WLU and BitterGrey would each voluntarily limit himself to a single, ideally short, comment per day for the rest of this week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At 5,700 words, this discussion is already too large for the faint of heart. BitterGrey (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, this way we can watch the rampage unfold in real time. For example, within two hours of my catching CrohnieGal's puppetlike foible (16:28)[30] WLU removed a ref to http://understanding.infantilism.org/ from Adult_diaper (17:55, 1 March 2011)[31]. BitterGrey (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record for editors here, I have had ELN on my watchlist for awhile now. I brought a question here and ever since this page has remained on my list. I have not acted as a puppet for anyone and want to make that clear to all. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New to this argument and i have a question about this as self published researcher. !!! In the "DISCLAIMER" its say "This is an academic site." Which academic site are they claiming to be connected to. Secondly who are this "academics" involed in the site. Thirdly is the site used as a source by institutions or general publication? Moxy (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I did not bother reading any of the recent ranting above I did have another look at the site based on some early comments. It seems my initial assesment was wrong and the site is not an "neutral information site about the phenomena" but rather a "personal website about the webmasters experiences with the phenomena". I support removal of the site based on wp:ELNO#11. Yoenit (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This again? We have been through this 2 years ago and these links are still not acceptable per WP:EL. They should be removed, as they were back in 2009. They are heavily biased and do not represent a neutral and encyclopedic assessment of the article topic. For history (where I was involved), see [32]. ThemFromSpace 08:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding http://understanding.infantilism.org/ -- this superficially looks like a relatively sane self-help site by an individual with the condition. While no doubt a useful resource for some, perhaps many, people, this is not the kind of thing we allow in external links. If we did allow such links in general, I could imagine an editorial decision to include this particular link. However, that would require more research than it's worth, and the question is moot anyway. Regarding http://abdlplay.com/forum/ -- that's a very clear case of ELNO 10.

I note that when an editor with a conflict of interest shows themselves immune to rational arguments based on policy and our general practices, and unable to refrain from fighting against a wide consensus, they may easily find themselves sanctioned. Hans Adler 09:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hans. I didn't read this whole discussion because it jumped from one issue to another, some not dealing with this noticeboard. I did look at both of the aforementioned links though. One question, is http://understanding.infantilism.org/ a copy of http://www.infantilisme.info/ (French and CC-licensed)? --NortyNort (Holla) 10:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Crohnie, some of us are still waiting for you to share the URL of that forum page, the reason you believe understanding.infantilism.org should be excluded based on ELNO #10.[33]. Knowing the URL would give us a clearer picture of your position. Otherwise, it will continue to look like you didn't understand someone else's position before claiming it as your own (at best).

@Moxy, 'academic' in that it attempts to compose and convey information, and as a way to write that it wasn't a website dedicated to stories or pictures. Search engines would neglect the not, and cause disappointment among those looking for stories or pictures. As previously discussed, the website does include a related thesis and dissertation.

@Hans Adler, please note I'm not the one who added the EL. I'm just providing information about the website and the full context for this discussion.

@ThemFromSpace, thanks for not claiming to be uninvolved. You first expressed your position a month prior to that discussion, in March 2009. This is good because it separates it from the July 2009 events. In march, your position was "I looked at that link and while it wasn't ugly spam like the rest of them, it violates WP:NPOV as being overly supportive of the condition." I noted the irony that the example you cited[34] (when discussing this at one of four locations) as a proper set of ELs included an EL to www.onearchives.org: "The ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives honors the past, celebrates the present, and enriches the future of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. We foster acceptance of sexual and gender diversity by supporting education and research about our heritage and experience worldwide. ONE is dedicated to collecting, preserving, documenting, studying, and communicating our history, our challenges, and our aspirations."[35] I couldn't figure out why you considered a site spreading information about infantilism, but not a site celebrating homosexuality, overly supportive. Anyway, your removal of all of the English ELs[36] caused an instability. During this instability, you and James Cantor left an EL to understanding.infantilism.org in place multiple times(eg. [37][38][39]). He then removed the entire external links section in apparent but understandable frustration[40]. Then came July and things changed dramatically. James Cantor, displeased with my part in a debate 12-16 July 2009 at Sexology[41] about multiple external links that he was adding under a conflict of interest, went on to delete large sections paraphilic infantilism on the 17th, violating 3RR[42][43][44][45]. That is the context for the discussion you and WLU have now repeatedly linked to.

@NortyNort, www.infantilisme.info is a French translation of some of the articles on understanding.infantilism.org. It was translated and posted with my permission. Understanding.infantilism.or has also been partially translated into Dutch (e.g. http://www.ageplay.eu/04-badkamer/01-shybladder.html ). Regarding the complexity of the discussion, this would be a much simpler discussion if the removal was done by a neutral editor without clear motives. Time will tell whether WLU's efforts (now including a fifth page) stabilize or continue. If they continue to become broader and more disruptive, charges including wikihounding might need to be pursued. (This, by the way, is why I'd like to get an answer from Crohnie, even though she is no longer the swing vote.) BitterGrey (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]