Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Deletion of edit history required

Namely at the article on the German actor Walter Sedlmayr. He had been murdered back in 1990, and the two perpetrators, that were sentenced in 1993, have been released by now on probation. THEY EVOKED A COURT DECISION THAT THEIR NAMES ARE NOT TO BE MENTIONED in the coverage of the murder. (see: [1], found linked at [2], both in German) I still found an German Nwepsaper article that gives their first names [3], so I only removed their last names. We probably need to see if some further edits are required, but the previous two revisions that give their full names need to be deleted, definitely. Zara1709 (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That raises an interesting legal question, i.e. can a German court order Wikipedia to remove information? I suggest no one other than Mike Godwin etc. try to answer that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it can does not really matter. No German court has ordered Wikipedia to do anything. The Regional Court decision that Sara cites was apparently issued against a German newspaper and has no binding force with respect to anyone else. It might conceivably set a precedent if the issue were to be raised in another German court or against someone else. But even that is not too likely, since the decision was issued by a Landgericht, a regional court of first instance. Decisions of lower courts are not generally precedential. Ringelblume (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find too much in the way of public sources that reveal the perps' last names; as such, I've deleted the history of the article as a purely precautionary measure while we sort this out. east718 // talk // email // 22:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever tactic we do, it is going to be similar in nature of what we did with the article on the German hacker "Tron." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully request the undeletion of the deleted revisions. There is no legal or policy reason to omit these names. Wikipedia is not censored, and particularly not for the benefit of criminals. The full real names of the perpetrators remain available in numerous German online sources; see this Google search. Two reliable German mainstream media articles were cited for these names in the now-deleted version of the article, so WP:BLP is not an issue. Also, even if a German court has decided that the perpetrators have a right not to be named under German law, that verdict does not bind Wikipedia, whose operations are covered by US law. Ringelblume (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a policy reason. These are living individuals of marginal to zero notability. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: the last names aren't banned as far as we know; and we have not received orders to remove them. So what's the debate about? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:V? Corvus cornix_talk 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability concerns the suitability of a topic for an article of its own, not the content of articles. But the two perpetrators would probably be notable for an article of their own, due to the substantial publicity given to their trial and now to their efforts to have their names removed from online archives. Ringelblume (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a moral question rather than a legal one. If someone who was convicted wrongly of a murder, served a decade of their life in prison, and then were released and now wants no press or reminder of what happened - should we still include their names if they just want to get it over with? I'm not taking a position. --mboverload@ 00:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

First, the article does not assert that the two were wrongly convicted. While that may be the case, the article does not argue this, and considering the sources are in German, I am unable to verify such a claim. Second, by making a decision to omit who the convicted murderers were, we are effectively, as you said, making a moral decision. This is quite dangerous, and begins to stray from adherence to NPOV and verifiability. When reading the WP:NPOV page, the first three bulleted points are: Verifiability, NPOV, and No Original Research. If the source is verifiable, if it is relevant, and if it is notable, I posit that we are bound to cover the fact in the interest of an unbiased encyclopedia. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Lazulilasher. Well put. --mboverload@ 02:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that de:Walter Sedlmayr (from which our article was translated) specifically excludes the names, and has for several months. One source linked in the deleted revision identifies them by first name and last initial only; the other does not appear to include their names at all. The Google search provided by Ringelblume does not appear to find the names in high results, except on Wikipedia and its mirrors. Obviously I cannot perform an exhaustive search of German media, but currently these last names do not appear to be reliably sourced. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm...That is worth noting. I checked as well and, aside from mirrors, the sources didn't seem to have last names. There are other hits, however my German is at a lower level, thus I cannot determine. However, if there is not a reliable source I would imagine we should keep it removed until if/when a reliable source is found. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

At the time of my translation of the article, the two cited online versions of the articles did contain the full names of the perpetrators. They seem to have been removed by now, presumably in response to legal action in Germany. But the names remain verifiable, because the names cannot be removed from the print versions of the two newspaper articles that are cited. As citations to these print versions, the references fulfil the requirements of WP:V and WP:BLP. Ringelblume (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah! The malleable nature of online sourcing, eh? Discussion below seems to adequately address the question of sourcing. Thanks for the clarification. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I remain puzzled why we should be willing to censor this encyclopedia for the sake of the privacy of two verifiably convicted murderers, which we have no legal or moral obligation to do, and which is at odds with our practice in all other articles that concern notable crimes. Ringelblume (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking only as an editor and as already noted above, the content easily meets WP:RS and WP:BLP. I would tend not to see any reason to omit these names unless word came that the foundation said it had to be done. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be cultural difference between Germany and the English-speaking world, in a way. Being accustomed to how the press handles things here in Germany, I feel myself intuitievely agreeing that we don't really need those names – they are, essentially, non-notable people. But then, I'll acknowledge standards here are different. About the legal issue of whether the German court rulings have any effect on us, I can't say (my guess would be probably not). But the initial issue brought up here, that we ought to not only remove the names from the text but also purge the article history, seems like an over-reaction to me. I mean, it's not as if those names are actually secret or anything. The old newspaper reports from the time of the trial, where they were published quite legally, remain in existence; anybody can go to a library to look them up, just like anybody can click on our edit history. The intention of the ruling is just that they shouldn't be unnecessarily trumpeted out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We're not subject to German law, and invoking some moral concern is a serious violation NPOV when we have the names in reliable sources. If not for the German court order we wouldn't even thinking about this issue; the standard is to give the names of relevant individuals. There's no BLP concern since the matter is reported in multiple reliable sources. We should both undelete the revisions and put the last names back in. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, I agree 100%--see my arguments above. However, the question has now become: can we reliably source the convicted men's last name? I looked in the sources provided and in the Google Search. The last names are only in Wikipedia mirrors as far as I can tell (sources are in German and my German is not great). Lazulilasher (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My German isn't very good either but from all descriptions people agree that the paper versions contain the names. That meets RS/V. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to the deleted sources, however if they are reliable and do cite the full name, then I agree with you. As a note, this news page seems to use the names: [4]. It appears reliable, but I am unable to tell. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If I had known that some people would object here, I would have discussed it on the talk page of the article first. But I personally considered the situation as simple. Two people, that had been convicted for murder, are now released on parole and to move back into a normal live, the don't want their names mentioned in relation to the murder, what they made clear by obtaining a court decision. There is a legal side to this, but I could say anything on it with a significant degree of accuracy. When I first stumbled across the court decision, my first reaction was to add something about it at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). Because the issue we have here is precisely that of notability (criminals). The two murderers are not notable for anything else than the murder; they are, as far as I see it, also not notable enough on WP for the murder. (Exactly when this is the case would be the issue that the guideline should solve.) Now, since they are not notable, respect for their privacy would demand that their full names are left out. Since they went to court with this, the perpetrators have made clear that they would like to keep their privacy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a forum for public shaming, their full names should be removed (and consequently also be removed from the edit history). Further discussion on the notability of criminals would probably be useful, but we could also do this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts). Zara1709 (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Simply put, an NPOV article about an individual would name who killed the individual. There's no way to get around that. You can make an argument that they are not notable enough for articles of their own and this is true. But that's not the issue here. This is easily obtainable, reliably sourced info. So it goes in. Frankly, to do anything else is to let our own personal POV about effect things just as much as if we took out pictures of Muhammad. We don't censor. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

These two convicted murderers don't want their names published? I expect that ALMOST NO convicted murderers want their names published! If their names were published in printed newspapers, then WP:V is certainly satisfied. If a murder is notable enough for an article in Wikipedia, then the names of those convicted for it are certainly to be included in the article, unless a court with competent jurisdiction has ordered the English Wikipedia to remove the names. Determining that is a job for Mike Godwin and no one else. Edison (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Zara, I understand your concern. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, hence we do not make value judgments. By definition, our articles concern notable subjects, are written with verifiable information, and utlize reliable sources. It is not our charge to make judgements on the content, merely to succinctly compile the facts. In the absence of a consensus to do so, removing the names of those convicted for the murders would effectively mean Wikipedia making a value judgement, which is an action an encylopedia cannot do. If a legal question is raised, there exists a foundation team to handle that query. Lazulilasher (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG, guys, even if they are criminals they still got rights. Regardless of whether they were convicted rightly or wrongly for murder (it was a difficult case), they have now been released from prison and are legally free men, except for the point that the are required to regularly check back with the police and if they commit another crime they could be back in their life-long sentence. They are faced with the same common challenges as we, like renting a flat, whith is already difficult enough for them since they were present with full name and picture in the tabloids, but shouldn't be made harder with their names linked to that murder in any Google search. By the current legal/moral/cultural standards of (western) civilization, criminals, too, have a right of privacy, and this right is included definitely in wp:blp: Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. The only thing you'd have to do is to weight the persons right of privacy against the publics right to be informed, which has already been done by a German court. This is not an issue of NPOV, this is not an issue of Verifiability, and this is not an issue a value judgement, unless you want to call the standpoint that criminals have rights, too, a value judgement. Zara1709 (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Court sentences are public. Nobody can ban a piece of public justice. NVO (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have a clear consensus that WP:NPOV requires that the article about Walter Sedlmayr include the names of Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber, who were convicted of murdering Sedlmayr. I have therefore reintroduced the names into the article, and have added this additional source – a regional newspaper who does not yet appear to have gotten around to removing the full names from its online archives. I ask Zara to abide by that consensus.

In reply to Zara, I am aware of the reasons why a German court (a lower court only, it must be said) has ordered the names to be removed from online archives. They are reasons peculiar to German law, though, and are not compatible with the guiding principles of this international project, which is to produce a neutral, uncensored encyclopedia. The English Wikipedia in particular is inspired by Anglo-American notions of freedom of speech, for which I am thankful, and which mean we do not yield easily with attempts at censorship on the part of the German authorities.

As a matter of law and morals, I certainly agree that convicted criminals have rights, including a right to privacy, but I strongly disagree with the German court's appreciation of the interests at issue. The court has held that the convicted murderers' right to privacy outweighs the right of the public to information, and the right of individuals to disseminate that information. These two men who are now free on probation were convicted of brutally murdering Sedlmayr, their close business associate, for profit. I, for one, think that any future business associates of theirs should have the chance to look up what happened to their previous business associate before deciding whether or not to enter into a business relationship with them. The interests of the public to be informed clearly outweigh the two men's right to privacy. That would be my opinion even if I were to agree with the notion – which I do not – that in a free society a court should be able to order, Stalin-like, the entire archives of newspapers to be censored for any reason.

Finally, it should be noted that the names as such are common in Germany. If searched for individually, they yield hundreds of Google hits about unrelated men, and nothing about the Sedlmayr murder. Only if the two names are searched together or in conjunction with "Sedlymayr" do we get any search results about the murder. This should limit any exposure to their past that the two men may face in their life on probation. Ringelblume (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't have a clear consensus here. We neither have a NPOV issue, since there aren't divergent POVs here on the question whether those two persons have full names. Furthermore, thanks to your mentioning of their full names on this talk page here in the unlikely but possible case that a German court would enforce that their names are to be removed from the English WP, too, ALL INTERMEDIATE REVISIONS OF THIS TALK PAGE WOULD HAVE TO BE DELETED. This is not about a Stalin-type editing of archives. The newspaper archives in Germany are to be left unchanged, as the court specifically pointed out, but WP is an online encyclopaedia and instantly accessible from Germany. You are also confusing Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored with wp:tabloid. Their full names are not of any relevance for an encyclopaedia, but those persons have a right of privacy, too. That two people who were convicted to have murdered their business associate are to be listed on WP to give their possible future business associates the option to check their criminal conviction is you personal sense of justice. There is no consensus on this here. Zara1709 (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Censorship is censorship. We have reliably sourced information and you are removing it because of a POV, the POV that criminals have a right to privacy after having been released (it is a POV I strongly agree with but it is a POV). No one calls it censorship when they are in favor of it. Moreover, your use of all-caps is uncivil and unproductive (and incidentally it is highly unlikely that a German court would ever make such a ruling about the English Wikipedia and moreover we don't need to worry about unlikely legal issues. That's the job of the Foundation). And Ringelblume's comment makes perfect sense; this encyclopedia exists to serve the public if you forgot so if we are going to take into account peoples desires then the the interest of the public to know is just the same. We have no policy of removing the names of criminals when they have committed notable acts, and there is no consensus for this removal. We wouldn't even be discussing this if the murder had occurred in the United States. It is only due to the high levels of censorship that German culture allows that we are even discussing this. (To everyone involved- I don't think comparisons to Stalin are really that helpful so it might be good for everyone to calm down). JoshuaZ (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Joshua. I'll keep Uncle Joe in the closet from now on :-)

Zara has removed (against the clear consensus here) the names that I have added back. I have reverted this. To avoid sterile editwarring, I'll endeavour to continue this discussion at the article talk page, where I am now listing a number of reliable online sources that (still) include the names. It would probably help, though, if a few other editors would watchlist Walter Sedlmayr. Thanks, Ringelblume (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now added a thorough list of sources to Talk:Walter Sedlmayr, and one more to the article itself. Ringelblume (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You can bring in Stalin if you want: Denying someone his rights (in this case the one of privacy) because he is a criminal is the "friend or foe" scheme that was developed by Carl Schmitt. There is no encyclopaedia relevance that would mandate to have their full names listed here, but their privacy would mandate that their full names are left out. This has to be weighted against each other in every singe case, but it is not even attempted here; Instead people cry "CENSORSHIP", which considering that WP:NOT explicitly states: Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies ... will also be removed, is kind of ridiculous. You can't get around a discussion about the applicability of wp:blp by calling the application of wp:blp 'censorship'. Seriously, this is just another discussion at WP that I don't need and I won't put up with it. Now, that you got all those sources listed, I wonder how many of them will get into another lawsuit, since the lawyers of those two persons are known to go around and sue EVERYONE, which I, frankly, wouldn't consider necessary if it wasn't for the tabloids and some other people that don't respect other's right of privacy. Zara1709 (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Zara, this has nothing to do with Carl Schmitt or his philosophy and invoking it comes perilously close to triggering Godwin's law. Moreover, we have no need to worry about lawsuits; as we've tried to explain to you; if the Wikimedia Foundation is worried about a lawsuit they can intervene. Again, it would help if you stopped using the call caps. And you seem to be ignoring the fact that many editors disagree with you that there is a BLP issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me about Godwin's law, if I hadn't mentioned Carl Schmitt you wouldn't even have noticed. And anyway, he is a respectable jurist who had quite some influence on the after-WWII-juridical discourse in Germany.

I never insisted that this was a legal issue (although it might become one); If this isn't a BLP issue, well, why does wp:BLP say that articles need to be written , "with regard for the subject's privacy?" What encyclopaedic value is gained by mentioning the full names of two otherwise non-notable persons when their first names and the first letter of their last names would suffice? (No one here has tried to answer that question, and as long as this is not answered, obviously I am still in disagreement and we don't have a clear consensus. Please note at least my minority view.) What really prompted me to consider this as "friend or foe" scheme was this statement: "I, for one, think that any future business associates of theirs should have the chance to look up what happened to their previous business associate before deciding whether or not to enter into a business relationship with them." These two people were judged, convinced and sentenced for murder. They have served the time of their punishment, and are legally free (with some restrictions, since they are on parole). If they were still considered to be dangerous criminals, they would not have been released. But apparently WP should still list their names as a warning to "future business associates". And of course I strongly disagree here. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; It is not one of the aims of an encyclopaedia to punish former criminals by crippling them socially when they have done their sentence. I only get the impression that Wikipedia is abused here for this purpose. Zara1709 (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Zara, you seem to be ignoring most of what people are saying. First, standard practice (and normal practice in most of the civilized world) is when mentioning names to mention the entire name that is relevant. In no other article about a murder do we mention merely the first names. Moreover, your obsession with the notion that this is a "punishment" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the arguments that people are attemtping to explain to you. Finally, you are right that if you hadn't mentioned Schmitt I wouldn't have noticed- because Schmitt is only relevant in your warped interpretation of what people are saying to you. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not sure I understand the concern about future business associates and punishment. A court conviction is generally public record, no? And as an encyclopedia we are merely providing an article covering a notable actor's murder. Part of this coverage includes who was convicted of the murder. This is not punishment, this is merely done in the interest of an unbiased, NPOV, verifiable encyclopedia. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if I am ignoring most of what people are saying on this talk page: Does Wikipedia:BLP include a POLICY on privacy? IS there any NECESSARY REASON to give the full names here? Let's take the opposite case: Assume that the family of a murder victim would not want their full family name to be given to the public, but the tabloids to it anyway. Should Wikipedia here follow the practice of the tabloids or should it remove the full name in this case? We would need to answer that if we ever want to propose a guideline Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), which was the reason why I turned to this case in the first place. Now I'd say, after some consideration, that any person who is non-notable as such, but only for a certain event, should not be mentioned with full name on Wikipedia. And I can't make a distinction here between murder victims and murderers. To exclude some from a right, because they are 'enemies of society' and society can't allow them that right, is what I perceive a Carl Schmitt line of argument. You can say criminals don't have a right to keep their names private because they are dangerous. In the next step you can also work towards having the full names of criminals included in Wikipedia, so that Wikipedia, in connection with Internet search engines, also serves as a database of dangerous criminals; In the future everyone will be able to know the criminal record of his neighbour using Google. Now, I am saying that this is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and that it is also against the right of personality (Persönlichkeitsrecht) that is included in the modern (western) legal system. Of course, this right has been under attack and it is currently under attack, and at this point we could start a long juridical debate. (So much for the relevance of certain jurists...) Zara1709 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The notion of Persönlichkeitsrecht exists in some but not all of the West ("right of personality" as I understand it as a slightly different meaning in English but IANAL). The US for example has very little of that sort of notion and any strong idea of Persönlichkeitsrecht is inherently POV. And again, there's no one claiming that some rights have been lost. If these individuals had been acquitted we'd likely include their names. You are taking this topic from a very narrow POV and are forcing what other people are saying into interpretations that make sense in that POV's context. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) Indeed. Persönlichkeitsrecht is a rather novel Continental European concept, and one that not much of the rest of the Western world (let alone the rest of the world) shares. U.S. law, for instance, knows only of a much weaker tort of public disclosure according to which a disclosure of truthful facts is tortuous only, inter alia, if the facts disclosed are "non-newsworthy, not part of public records [or] public proceedings". That, the names of Werlé and Lauber are certainly not.

(And now back to my regularly scheduled comment:) I won't belabour the point of policy, as others have done so better than I could, and you are at any rate not arguing on the basis of policy. But you are mistaken, Zara, in bringing up Schmitt. The Feindstrafrecht does not originate with Schmitt, effective legal bogeyman though he may be. As Günther Jacobs has persuasively shown, the notion of some criminals as enemies to be destroyed has always been an inextricable part of all systems of criminal law, Western or otherwise, and we benefit from recognising that. Werlé and Lauber, by the way, have not been made subject to Feindstrafrecht, as they are – unlike Walter Sedlmayr – alive and free. (And, no, this does not have no longer anything to do with an incident requiring the intervention of administrators, so may I suggest that this thread be archived?) Ringelblume (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I now have the answer to something that puzzled me: a German Wikipedia article on a sensational crime which is still under investigation never mentions the last name of the prime suspect, instead replacing it with the initial. Anyone reading that article could simply click over to the English Wikipedia version and find the true name, so it seems pointless. Vegasprof (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Since these people are notable for one thing only, what encyclopaedic value is gained from naming them? The harm, on the other hand, is clear. These are people who have paid their debt to society and are presumably trying to rebuild lives as ordinary citizens, which is their right. Including their full names can only harm them, and it does not do Wikipedia any appreciable good. I haven't seen any strong arguments for inclusion of the men's full names, as distinct from arguments against their removal. Speaking of censorship, I hate to argue ad Jimbonem but "It is not censorship to exercise mature and responsible editorial judgment." What we have here isn't really a question of policy but of what's the right thing to do. Just my opinion; I've been wrong before. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, SheffieldSteel. So I am right when I don't see any encyclopaedic reason to give the full names here. So this isn't really a question of policy. People have a right of privacy (as mentioned in wp:BLP; their are conflicting legal/cultural/moral standards to what extend they have this right; The German legal notion of Persönlichkeitsrecht going further than the US notion of tort of public disclosure. Now we could have to discuss to what extend WP wants to keep the right of privacy here, if there was anything to gain from mentioning their full names. That would not be an issue of NPOV, by the way. There are different POVs on this, but they don't need to be weighted in the article, WP needs to decide which view it itself should follow. We would have to have a longer discussion about policy. The only question I am asking myself at this point, though, is whether I should push this through now, or whether it would suffice to make a note of this at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) and discuss it sometime later, when this or a similar issue attracts more controversy. (Image the layers in this case releasing a press statement that they have looked into the question whether they could sue the English WP because it doesn't respect their clients privacy; regardless of whether such a lawsuit would be possible, if such an issue goes public, it will not be good for WP's publicity, which is, concerning BLP, not that good, anyway.) Zara1709 (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense. We should instead write articles saying 'Bob was murdered." and end there? or what. two unnamable men were convicted, served time, and were later released? Pshh. Smacks of Big Brother and 1984, constantly revising history to meet modern notions. By that logic, The Charles Lindbergh article, the baby's article, and Lady Lindy's article all should be without mention of that carpenter guy, and we should nominate that carpenter guy's article for deletion, since he's only notable for killing the kid (or being the victim of a vast (left and right wing (on a plane)) conspiracy). Likewise, we don't need to name the mastermind of the Tate-laBianca murders, nor the assassin of Robert Kennedy, as they are only notable for those things. This sort of thing is completely alien to the American mindset, and ought to be alien to the mind of any creature capable of grasping the concepts of linear time and long-term memory. redacting names to make murderers feel good... only a moron would insist on that, and yes, I mean Germany as a whole. After all, they do love David Hasselhoff. /ranting. It's the only way to respond to lunacy. ThuranX (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you don' get it. If you look at the WP articles on Bruno Hauptmann, Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan, you will see that there is AT LEAST ONE biography of them linked or listed there. Concerning those two German murderers there isn't anything like that: We don't know where they grew up, we don't know their family situations, we don't even now their birth dates. Ok, there is one German documentary on the murder, which I haven't seen. If this documentary devotes only 15 of its 45 minutes to the life of these murderers before their crime, I am willing to grant that they may be notable (we should then make their names into redlinks). But there would still be a HUGE difference between those criminals you mentioned, that became famous because they murdered someone and these two guys. If a world famous aviator, the family of a world renown cinema director or a politician and the brother of a former US president is murdered, there will be someone who writes a biography of the murderer, making him notable. Concerning these two persons, there apparently isn't a biography. If there isn't anything to be said on them, aside from what would have to be said in the article of their victim, then we don't need to give their full names. And btw., German courts might be more restrictive against the media when it comes to a persons privacy, but OF COURSE they make certain distinctions. When the former RAF-terrorist Brigitte Mohnhaupt was relased on parole last year, a court denied the largest German tabloid to publish NEW photos of her; the old pictures could of course be used as historical documents. [5]

Neither does the court decision in this case amount to a "Stalin-type editing of archives" as it has been hinted in this discussion. The court explicitly left archives out in his decision: "Die Beklagte trifft nicht die Verpflichtung, ihre Archive ständig daraufhin zu kontrollieren, ob ggf. ein sich im Archiv befindlicher Beitrag entfernt oder geändert werden müsste. Insofern besteht kein Unterschied zu einem Archiv, das Printmedien aufbewahrt. Eine derartige Kontrollpflicht würde die öffentliche Aufgabe, die der Presse im Hinblick auf die Information der Öffentlichkeit über aktuelle Ereignisse zukommt, über Gebühr beeinträchtigen. Sie würde zudem (…) dem Informationsbedürfnis der Öffentlichkeit zuwiderlaufen, das auch eine Recherche nach Berichten aus vergangenen Zeiten umfasst."[6] Of course, you could try to argue that WP should be considered an archive, then. I would then hold that WP is not an archive, because it constantly is edited. But we are nowhere near a discussion that would sort out these points. Zara1709 (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia. Translation, please. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

INSERTION: Translation by machine via Google Translate "The defendant is not the obligation, its archives will constantly check to get a contribution in the archives located removed or have to be changed. In this respect, there is no difference to an archive, the print media kept. Such a requirement would control the public function of the press in terms of informing the public about current events given to unduly prejudice. It would also (…) the information needs of public run, including a search for reports from the past." - Thats about the best you are gonna get for now. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no valid reason for censoring the names of the perpetrators. This is the English wikipedia, it is not censored for content, and German "political correctness" is irrelevant. As another editor said, the "notability" factor only enters into it if someone wants to write an article about the perpetrators separately. It is perfectly valid to include their names in the article about the guy they murdered, assuming the guy they murdered is notable. To exclude the names lowers wikipedia to the level of totalitarian states trying to filter the news. It's shameful, it's offensive, and must be resisted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is NO valid reason to include their names, either. And there is is a valid reason to leave their names out, wp:blp (privacy), as I have repeatedly stated above. This is not censorship, but the application of a WP policy, as I have also pointed out several times. And I already summarized the German court decision when I wrote that the court explicitly excluded archives, the quote was merely indented as convince for the German speaking editors here. It would take me about 30 minutes to translate the legal phrasing... Time which I have already spent at this discussion. Zara1709 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Every few months we have to have this debate, from Nevada-tan to Crystal Gail Magnum, and seemingly chase in circles around the connection of internet law, local law, vengeance and uncensorship at all costs. For what it's worth I have always objected to the censorship of any material that can be reliably sourced, and in this case I believe no different but not on some ridiculous argument such as "don't protect murderers" but simply for neutrality, consistancy and comprehensiveness of the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia can not be consistant, neutral or comprehensive if facts would be ommitted by an order anywhere in the world (you can't enforce a German gag order, then ignore a Zimbabwean gag order on anti-Mugabe dissent, or a Chinese gag order on Tibetan protestors because you don't agree with what it is gagging). –– Lid^(Talk) 08:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that the article should be censored because a German court decided that. I am saying that the two people who are named in this article have a right of privacy, which is not only a legal right, but also included in wp:BLP. And condisring that Baseball Bugs just brought in totalitarism again: Censorship is totalitarian (or at least tyranic;) But also is disrespecting the citizen's right of privacy. Totalitarian regimes are known for their tendency to persecute people for something they said in private. That the state might try to censor the public discourse is one of the dangers in a democracy. But another danger - considering that this specific German legislation developed in the time of the German Autumn- is that a sensationalist media makes the public percieve certain people as 'enemies of society'. But even if the are terrorists and criminals, this kind of 'news coverage' does not in any way help the public discourse. In this specific case the court found that it is more importent to give the criminals a second chance (to renew the 'civil contract', if you want to get into a debate on the philosophy of law) than to tell everyone the full names of the criminals, which are not needed to report about the old case anyway (the first name and the first letter of the last name should suffice.) I am not saying that WP should be censored because a German court ordered this. I am only saying that the privacy of two persons should be taken into account; I though that this was not only a legal policy in Germany, but also common sense and part of Wikipedia's BLP policy anyway. Obviously am was mistaken that it was common sense, but I still want to insinst that this is not simply filed under 'censorship'. Zara1709 (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but your last line of it being "common sense" is simply not factually correct. Wikipedia's view on the privacy of identities has always been in a state of flux, for a long period it did not exist and then for a really harsh it was near "no one is a public individual" (which lead to about four ArbCom cases, a dozen DRVs, and who knows how many AfDs and threads on ANI) and is now trying to find a happy medium between the two. I'll ignore your refutation of the totalitarian argument, as I ignored the totlaitarian implication to begin with as it's usefulness in this debate is only to drive negative emotion against the opposing view rather than weighing it on its merits, and will instead focus on your argument about "right to privacy". Right to privacy, on wikipedia, is an entity which can not exist if it acts in overpowering WP:Notability. An odd argument, I know, as WP:N is used as the standard of keeping articles and bringing it up as being overruled seems to be a non-existant issue but if you clean down your argument to its core it comes to read as "people are not notable if they do not wish to be", which is an article standard that can not possibly work on wikipedia and has, literally, thousands of examples that show that this can not (and will not) be the case. The counterpoint to this is the usage of WP:BLP1E however that counterpoint ignores that BLP1E states that the event is notable, not the individual as a person, which is the case in this regard. The event, the murder, makes the murderers notable individuals. Notable enough for their own arguments? Probably not, but ommitting their existance is a misuse of the policies we abide by. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

They can have a right to privacy only when the guy they murdered comes back to life. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for vengeance (soapboxing), arguing people foreit being people because of their acts isn't a compelling argument for their names inclusion. Please refrain from using pleas to emotion that ignore any opposition argument as being put forward by "murderer protectors", it helps no one and only acts to make the sides splinter and isolate their views as the opposition is not actively discussing the argument and it becomes a "who yells longest and loudest is the victor". –– Lid^(Talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And you should take your own advice. Wikipedia is for information, and the readers have the right to know who the murderers were, in this or any other murder case. The arguments against it, all amount to censorship, and must not be tolerated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You do realise I agree with you in including the information, just not you're going about arguing it right? This isn't some childish "if you're not with me you're against me" thing where everything is black and white and your opponents are the devil incarnate and anyone who hasn't outright ignored the arguments and gone straight to referring to them as fascist censorship happy dictators is in league with them. Should censorship be tolerated? No, but there are far better ways of stating it. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not called anyone a fascist. I understand their sympathetic arguments, even if I think they amount to bleeding-heart liberalism taken to an extreme. But this section began with someone censoring something because some idiot judge in Germany decided to protect the so-called "rights" of murderers. Deleting it amounted to censorship - it was out of line and should have been reversed immediately. If these guys were innocent, that would be a whole other matter. But if they were correctly convicted and simply don't want that fact public - sorry, too bad. The people at large have the right know who the murderers are. The needs of the many outweigh the selfish interests of the murderers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, if they were innocent it would be the same matter, because being innocent or guilty has absolutely no bearing on its inclusion or uninclusion. Trying to argue they have forfeited something because of their actions is the wrong way to go about fighting against the removal of the names as it is a conviction of the individuals in question, when this topic should be as far removed from the individuals as possible and be a question of wikipedia article content. Forget everything to do with the case, who they are, what they have done - it is entirely meaningless in this debate and that people keep brining it up is the reason this is going in circles. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We have two individuals who have performed a notable act against a notable individual, their names can be sourced reliably and it is known information. That is all there is to it and that is all there is to see as to why the information should be included. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) My main fear is what precedent would be set by removal. If in this instance we cater to a local law, what would happen in the future? There are huge variations in interpretations of privacy/censorship throughout the world. In order for us to truly not have a POV, we shuold adhere strictly to RS/V/NPOV/notability. In this case, the action was notable, the murdered man was notable, and the sources are reliable. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Wikipedia does not censor facts, but it does adhere to notability guidelines. It also does not originate information. If this info was not publicly available, then it should not be here, for the OR reason as well as, potentially, the BLP reason. But if it's publicly available, and the fact itself is non-controversial (which this appears to be), then the BLP argument does not figure into it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the totalitarism argument, what do you expect? If I am confronted with an argument: "This is censorship, this is totalitarian!", why shouldn't I react with an argument: "This is disrespect of privacy, this is totalitarian!" It would be more interesting to take a look at German history to explain why such a legal policy (Persönlichkeitsrecht) did develop in Germany and why I think that it is justified. But this discussion would hardly be worth the effort. After a lot of consideration I am willing to grant that there is a little encyclopaedic value in giving their full names. One could image that someone recalls this incident, but doesn't remember the name of the victim, only of the perpetrators. The only question is whether it wouldn't be the case more often, that someone conducts a google search on one of these persons, when they have just applied for a job, etc. These two aspects still have to be weigthed against each other, and I still hold that privacy overrules notabilty (if you allow me to call it that) here. However, this is a subjective value judgment. I don't see any objective way to justify it, so understandably this discussion is leading nowhere. And for the last time: This is not an issue of censorship. And if you want to deny criminals their rights because they are criminals, you are not a liberal. Not any more than Carl Schmitt or Thomas Hobbes, that is. Zara1709 (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If I'm an employer looking at hiring one of these guys, I have the right to know that he has a felony conviction in his past, and especially in this case. Someone who murders once could murder again, and it would be unfair to subject my other employees to that potential risk. Their practical rights to safety outweigh the theoretical "rights" of killers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but it is censorship. Censorship is the hiding of facts, and that's exactly what these arguments amount to. If a guy applies for a job and says, "I was convicted of murder, and I have changed my ways," then the facts are out in the open. If he applies for a job and does not tell the potential employer about this heinous act, he is being dishonest from the beginning. There is no right to a specific job. If someone is willing to hire him, knowing the facts, then there is honesty and openness all around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not employers' right alone, employers are frequently obligated by law to do background checks. Isn't it odd that someone who was caught smoking pot in grade school is disqualified for decades, while convicted murderers enjoy a code of silence? NVO (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That they are convicted murderers is entirely irrelevant, please stop bringing it up to try and claim a non-existent moral high ground. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it. After these two persons had spent 15 or 17 years in prison, a court hearing came to the conclusion that they aren't a danger to society and can be released - otherwise they would still be locked up. Execpt for the fact that they are on parole and shouldn't even dodge the fare on the bus, they are normal citizens again, their life only being made difficult by that fact that people are scared by them, since anyone can look up their name on Google and see that they are murderers. Zara1709 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the article on the German Wikipedia it seems there's a chance these guys are convicted but maybe not guilty, there have been several calls for resumption of proceedings (!)

I think no matter the circumstances and question of guilt social rehabilitation should be a keyword here. It is already hard enough as is to make a new start after prison.

Also, as already mentioned by others, besides their involvement in this court case either as victims or as offenders both have little to no notability.

The claim to start an article on these guys because they "try to hide their names" is absurd, as is this constant white noise about censorship without any further ethical reflection.

I think it goes without explanation that posting and preserving their names on what is the world largest reference source has a different quality to it than "looking up names in a library" or reading years old newspaper headlines. And it is this very difference one has to keep in mind when working with BLPs. (there's a German court ruling called Lebach-Urteil which elaborates on that)

to sum it up: one should not endanger rehabilitation or prolong harm by blaring out their names as a repeated social sanction completely uncalled for.

(As for legal impact, I'd assume German jurisdiction is effective for any editor that could be traced back to Germany, whether it is a registered user or not.) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, if they were wrongly convicted, that's a different story. And if there is some legal action on that point, then that could also be in the article about the murder. There appears to be no reason for them to have individual articles, though. The story is about the crime and its followup. And the previous editor makes an excellent point about background checks being required by law. That's to prevent, for example, child molesters from getting jobs as grade school teachers. The rehab of one person is not as important as the safety of the public at large. If the guy is truly reformed, he should be open about it and not be trying to hide it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For employers to do a background check there is the polizeiliches Führungszeugnis (criminal record) in Germany. If they have a good probation officer they probably have a gotten a job anyway. But it can hardly be the task of Wikipedia to provide the full names of criminals as a convinience for employers, or can it?Zara1709 (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant if they are innocent as it turns out, or even if down the line their convictions are overturned, the conviction and hypothetical overturning are also notable events. The notability becomes them having been wrongly convicted of the murder, which is in itself a notable event and does not make their names any less public. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Section-break (German court-order)

Why doesn't Germany give these two convicted people new identities? Count Iblis (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not preventing the German authorities to let these pesons hide their identity at all. in this day and age, if it is decided that someone should be able to start a new life and not be confronted with his past, then it is not practical to demand that no source anywhere in the world mentions the name of the person in relation to the past events. The only way this can be done is to give the person a new identity (new name , new passport, new fictitional place and date of birth etc. etc.). This is standard practice in many countries. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid TLDR, but my view is this: if a properly-appointed judicial court in a decent democratic country has made a legal decision with the privacy and well-being of certain individuals in mind, Wikipedia ought to respect that as a matter of courtesy. Obviously (I guess, though I'm not sure) a German court order doesn't cover the WP servers - though if a British editor added that info, perhaps the court order applies to them because of the EU? - this doesn't matter. We should volunteer to respect the wishes of accredited judges abroad. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not if the information is publicly available. And by the way, a "decent democratic country" would not allow murderers to hide their identity. And Wikipedia need not kiss up. Censoring publicly available facts on the fear that some judge somewhere is going to be unahppy about it, is offensive and a bad precedent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Are you suggesting, then, that Germany is not a democratic country? Because the EU, the UN, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the US Department of State and the Paraguay Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to name but a few organisations, all believe otherwise, and I reckon they're more qualified to pass judgement.

Secondly, just because you see the court as helping murderers to conceal their identities (and you've got no real reason to; naturally, any privacy-related injunction will involve the judge not divulging the whole situation in order to maintain the privacy it refers to), doesn't mean that you have to act as a force for righteousness and uncover the entire German state-sponsored conspiracy to allow murders to merrily wander the streets of Cologne, free men once more. Wikipedia is not about fighting for justice, quashing the henious apparatus of the evil censors in the German court system. It's an encyclopedia.

And this judge (who had the power, both legally and morally - being a properly-appointed individual, to interpret/enforce the law of a democratic country - to pass such an injunction) chose to do so, I respect that he must have had reasons for that. I suggest that Wikipedia obeys not out of "fear", and not out of a desire to "kiss up", both of which you alleged while managing to ignore the reason I provided first off. Which was...

Simple courtesy. Just because you have the arguable legal (and perhaps moral) oppurtunity to do something, doesn't mean you do it. If somebody asks you to refrain from a particular act, just do it, within reason. If my neighbour tells me to turn my music down, I turn it down, rather than quibbling about censorship of my personal tastes, and rather than reaching for my decibelmeter. Just be polite and do as we're bid. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"If somebody asks..." Who has asked wikipedia to censor this information? And don't say it's not censorship, because it is; be it legal or not, it's still censorship of facts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down Bugs. Actually, a "decent democratic country" believes in rehabilitation; namely, once a criminal has served their sentence, their punishment is over. In most European countries, many convicted murderers are given new identities once released. In this case, though, as far as the information goes, it's publically available, and verifiable, so it can stay if it actually adds something of value to the article. I haven't seen that it does, at the moment. Neıl ☄ 14:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank God I live in the USA and not Europe. You've got governments there basically putting the public at potential risk for the sake of social experimentation. It's outrageous. Honesty and openness should be what's important. If someone wants to hide their criminal past, then they are engaged in deceit and trickery. How does that benefit society? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bugs Bunney, you are trying to argue a social and ethical point about the European system of crime, punishment and rehabilitation. It so happens that I strongly disagree with your viewpoint, however, such a debate is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia. The question at hand is whether we should voluntarily obey the democratic and reasoned ruling of a foreign judge (who ordered certain information confidential, at least as far as his jurisdiction went). I say we should. Since your latest replies, most emotional and profound (in a good way!), don't address our issue we're supposed to be debating here, I can't elaborate further; only ask if you have anything more germane to add? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Germane"? Funny way to put it, as that word actually derives from the same root as "Germany". Now, tell me which wikipedia policy requires us to defer to some censoring judge in Germany. Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?} 14:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Germane" - I know it's a funny way to put it, I'd have said "hilarious", myself, that's why I chose it :-) Now, as I clearly and distinctly said no fewer than three times, no Wikipedia policy requires us to defer to censoring German judges. Since the issue of censorship is entirely within your own mind, and irrelevant, we'll skip over that and onto the issue of policy.

I believe we are now forming the policy. This is the discussion as to whether WP should voluntarily bow to the verdicts of foreign courts in "respected" countries (you know what I mean, a democratic, fair court system, as recognised by most international organisations and foreign ministries). I say we should, and you have yet to provide a reason as to why we shouldn't - so far, you've just repeated and re-repeated the fact that we're not required to, ignoring the fact that it is actually quite courteous to. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG, Baseball Bugs have you done a background check on you understanding of democracy lately? If in a "decent democraty country" you want everyone to be publically watched, because they could be criminals, any further discussion here is pointless. Not that I've seen a point in it the last two days anyway. I am not going to wage an uphill battle to remove about 10 letters from an article about a Bavarian actor I don't care about. If I ever want to wage an uphill battle I would spend the effort on something worth it, like explaining on the German Wikipedia why Hitler was not a charismatic leader. (I've you don't get this remark, don't worry.) As far as I am concerned we can leave the article as it is, although the image of their names being mentioned in some newspaper articles that was uploaded should be removed. Zara1709 (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hitler was a charismatic leader. Just not in a good way. Freedom is about openness. Censorship subverts freedom. These guys aren't members of the Witness Protection Program, they're murderers. And if they can work with a probation officer to smooth the way towards finding a decent living, that's fine. But society does not owe them anything. No one forced them to commit murder, they chose to do it. And you live with your choices. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, please re-read this discussion from today and WP:FORUM, because you're still arguing your sociopolitical point. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are my opinions, but they're not relevant to wikipedia as such. What's relevant is that wikipedia does not censor facts, and is under no obligation to refrain from presenting publicly available information on the grounds that some judge somewhere might be unhappy about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you have again missed my two main points, which I have stated no fewer than four times. Please read them carefully, I am not going to repeat them again. NUMBER ONE: I know that Wikipedia is under no obligation to; however, I believe that this fact is not reason enough for us not to. We are perfectly capable of volunteering to co-operate. That is, the fact that we're allowed to is not reason enough for us to do it. NUMBER TWO (as in, the one that comes after NUMBER ONE): I am not in fear of the judge's wrath, as you so astutely pointed out seventeen or so times, the judge has no sway or influence over us. I propose that we obey him as a gesture of respect, of courtesy, simply because he knows why he made that ruling, he made it for a reason that satisfies him and I trust him as a democratically-appointed member of the German judiciary. Thanks for ignoring. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not miss the point. And I'm saying that wikipedia is about presenting verifiable facts, not about giving "courtesy" (i.e. kissing up) to some judge. There is no policy compelling or even suggesting we do that. If someone raises an issue with wikipedia, we should respond. Out of courtesy, we should explain wikipedia's policies about verification, and if they push the issue, we should explain why we are under no obligation to kiss up. But we should not pre-censor out of fear, or courtesy, or any other politically-driven reason. Someone earlier accused me of not being "liberal". "Liberal" is about freedom. Censorship, which you are in fact advocating regardless of how you cloak it, is anti-freedom and anti-liberal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

< Yes, and you're clearly pro-freedom and pro-liberal, jolly good. My belief is that cloaking the names is not censorship, but regardless, Wikipedia is neither pro- nor anti- anything. If you believe a democratically-appointed judge in a respected, developed democratic country would make anti-freedom rulings, that's fine for you, but the international community (and by the looks of it, the Wikipedian community, thinks different).

And to be honest, it doesn't matter. Being courteous is not kissing up, I'm not trying to impress the judge or get a clerkship with him next summer. Being courteous is defined as, "Showing regard or thought for others" - if simply showing regard for others is, in fact, kissing up, then the whole of humanity is in big trouble! I've never heard such a loony definition. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of judges who make bad rulings, in both the U.S. and Europe. And, yes, it is kissing up. Regardless, tell me which wikipedia policy requires or even suggests that we should be "courteous" to authority figures??? How about we focus on being "courteous" (as per your definition of showing regard or thought for others) to the readers of wikipedia, who expect uncensored verifiable facts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had more intelligent conversations with rotting mangos. "Which Wikipedia policy requires that we should be courteous to authority figures?" - if you had the slightest idea of what courtesy WAS, then you wouldn't ask. Polite and good members of society don't only do nice things because they have to. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 15:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If those mangos are answering back, I'd just as soon not know about it. I am an American midwesterner, and we tend to be blunt-spoken and unvarnished. And Americans in general have a disdain for kissing up to authority figures and condoning censorship. That's why we don't dip our flag to foreign kings, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's focus on the topic at hand without bringing this into a personal and political discussion. We are not comparing the relative merits of democratic systems used throughout the world. We are trying to bring an article regarding a German subject into compliance with Wikipedia's policies. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues are dealt with by the Wikimedia Foundation, not by individual editors. If the German courts make stirrings towards Wikipedia, Mike Godwin will deal with it, and if the edit history does require purging, he's the one to do it, or order it done. Issues of this nature are not to be dealt with by well meaning editors practicing amateur law.

Many good arguments have been made on this page in support of the inclusion of the names, but I think most succinctly put is an NPOV article about an individual would name who killed the individual. Done. There is perhaps wiggle room in the area of people whose names appeared in the paper through no fault of their own, (e.g. Star Wars kid), but these are two convicted murderers. Our moral responsibility to these gentlemen is low, and not transgressed by printing their names. Whatever the German media does is irrelevant to us here. Ford MF (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We have no obligation legally to withhold the names of the murderers of a notable individual. No one seeks to give them articles, but it is absolutely notable WHO killed a notable person. If you don't name them, you can't explain the motive, if one exists, expect in general terms "He was murdered by someone he knew" or "he was murdered for revenge for something he did, but german "morality" (a questinoable term at best) prevents us from saying who.". Both of which are fucking ridiculous alternatives to "He was murdered by Bob dickface and Tommy shitlicker, who were hired to kill him in revenge for a business deal which failed." One makes sense, the other doesn't. Simply put, European morality in these cases is predicated on IGNORING bad things. It's like talking to a German about the Holocaust. They won't do it. Sure they learn about it, and now have limits on their free speech because of it, but actually talking about it is as verboten as being in a neo-nazi group. THey say things like "I don't want to discuss that, it's in the past" or "WHy dredge up those old memories?" or, and I heard this one, it's my personal favorite "All those people are dead anyways, what do we gain by talking about it?" "Those People" Referred to Jews killed in the camps. The discussion I heard that in was when one of the concentration camps was in the news a few years back. In a couple years, the Europeans will be back to calling Josef Fritzl a nice, quiet, odd neighbor. It's not forgive and forget there, it's denial. ThuranX (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Votestacking at AFD

I just discovered a user has been votestacking at an AFD I nominated. Is there a procedure for dealing with this sort of thing? Gatoclass (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I notified in a neutral way two wikiprojects which dealt with related subject matter.[7][8] This happens routinely at AfD. Not all members of a wikiproject are 'pro' any of the subject matter of that wikiproject, they're just concerned with how to organize related articles. Plus this user has not discussed any problem he might have with this with me on my talk page before coming here. Sticky Parkin 13:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is neutral: "This AfD may be of interest to you." This, to WikiProject Black Metal is pandering:

Brothers and sisters in Satan, whatever your Will where the article's concerned I ask you to turn your all-seeing eye to the Afd on Hail Satan. I will of course accept your will.

Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I said that whatever their will was for the article I would accept- you can't get much more neutral than that. My 'brothers and sisters' comment was in imitation of the post above where a lady their refered to the others their as 'brethren'. I was trying to be amusing. As I explain in the post below that one, I'm well aware that most metal heads do not consider themselves to be satanists. So the 'brothers and sisters in satan' comment can only be considered as ironic/humourous (which is what it was), in imitation of the post above, which demonstrated what most metal performers say their use of such terminology is about- showmmanship. Only one person participating in the AfD is from either of the wikiprojects, so it has not skewed the AfD so my "canvassing" by asking wikiprojects as hundreds of AfDs do has not skewed the AfD or even affected it at all. Anyway, AfD is not about numbers, but about the strength of the argument. <str>Anyway I will change my tone in that request if my use of humour is going to be used to get me into trouble, and I apologise if my comment was ambiguous in any way.</str> Ok now I'm going to change my wording and I apologise if my comment was unclear to anyone. If the AfD is started again I would consider it very cruel as it is a painful process to undergo for any editor whose article is up for AfD, especially as I've worked hard and found dozens of sources for the article, looking at virtually every mention of the phrase in WP:RS. Anyway as I said it hasn't skewed the AfD at all, as I said only one person commenting has come from either of those projects. Actually I will remove my requesting wikiprojects related to the subject to view the AfD, even though that happens in hundreds of AfDs, if it's going to be used to torture me with another AfD lol:)Sticky Parkin 21:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to joke, you don't need to pander, you don't need to be engaging or witty or anything else besides totally neutral. You say here's something you might be interested in and give an address, what could be simpler?

No, you were canvassing, that's abundantly clear. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record, this, this, and this - notifications all placed after you alleged User:Sticky Parkin had been canvassing - constitute a clear case of being disruptive to prove a point. I'd suggest everyone cool off; perhaps the AfD can be restarted. It's irrelevant in any case as I say on the AfD talk page since there's no such thing as voting and an impartial admin will make a decision on this whole matter by reviewing the discussion and judging the merits of the nomination with reference to the content policies. Coldmachine^Talk 09:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) to Ed- I said I don't mind which way you vote, I ust want you to 'turn your all-seeing eye' to the article/AfD i.e. have a look. I'm sorry if you view being humourous as wrong.:) Most people at the AfD disagree that this was canvassing and have explicitly said so, so no, it's not clear it's your and Gatoclass' interpretation, which most of the editors there don't see or agree with. Anyway, all done now so can I be saved further stress by closing this AN/I please? As my comments to the wikiprojects have been removed, I think Gatoclass' should be too. Gatoclass- never notified me of the AfD, the AN/I, never responded to any comments or questions I left on his talk, never added a reason for his insertion of a tag on the article, which I asked on his talk page for him to explain, he only commented on the article talk page after I removed the tag. It's very rude not only not notifying an editor that you've made a thread on them at AN/I, but not even letting them know their article is up for AfD, and no response to talk page comments. If xtianity wikiprojects have been notified, these should be removed as I removed my notification of two very quiet wikiprojects which led to no change in the way the AfD was going. Anyway I don't need this stress.Sticky Parkin 09:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't restart the AfD- my notifications had no effect on the vote and I don't need this dragged out for another five days- it's an "eternal torment" as it is:) P.S. To Coldmachine- I'm not the one getting het up about anything, I just don't need the stress and b******s (which no doubt someone will find a way to use saying b******s against me now) :) Sticky Parkin 09:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've attracted all of the bollocks with your canvassing, which started this thread. If you don't need the stress, then try to follow the rules. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said WBOSITG. I agree with your comment - please try and follow the rules Sticky Parkin.--VS ^talk 10:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I think I did and so do numerous others. Anyway, all over now. Sticky Parkin 12:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that Gatoclass starting this thread said my notifying two relatively quiet wikiprojects had somehow possibly made the AfD invalid. I notified them for one day and then removed my notification due to this objection by Gatoclass, though I personally disagree with it. Ed then notified about six large Christian wikiprojects, and he claims this evens it out lol, even though I'd already withdrawn mine and they had not effected the vote. What I'm trying to say is we're square, and the AfD is not skewed, well not in my direction, as only one person voted who possibly did so in response to my notifications anyway, and at least one person has voted in response to his notifications. Unlike them, I will keep mine or others that I think might be interested such as maybe a media wikiproject unnotified, so as not to escalate any row. Unlike Gatoclass' opinion of the other wikiprojects, I credit the Christian wikiprojects with the intelligence and decency to be objective and consider the article as wikipedians, anyway.

This is User:Undead_warrior. I'm not signed in at the moment. Anyway, there was no canvassing involved. Yeah, she notified two groups of the AfD but that was out of good faith. Also, since when should that be canvassing? Think of it this way, by that definition, the article rescue squad could be defined as canvassing. There needs to be a big re-wording in the policy. This is exactly the reason why too. Also, Ed started a deal that broke WP:POINTY. I notified the religion wikiproject. That was neutral. That group should have a neutral view point to the AfD about Hail Satan. It was Wikiproject:Religion, not Wikiproject:Christianity. I think the canvassing charge is bogus and I also think that the policy needs rewording in order to clarify situations like this. 70.182.240.47 (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm signed in. Let me make this clear. I think that until the issue of votestacking is resolved within the article rescue squad, this incident should not even be looked at. For one, sticky notified two wikiprojects in good faith. She did not say anything out of line, other than notifying us. Now, that happens on an every day basis. Music groups are notified when bands are up for deletion, WP:AIRPORTS is notified when an airport is listed for deletion. I don't think that is canvassing. I think that should be allowed. If the project who covers the articles is not notified, how will the article be brought up to wikipedia standards? It would be deleted without the proper people being warned. Undeath (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, SP notifed two groups: WikiProject Black Metal and WikiProject Religion/Left Hand path work group. This was votestacking because his notification (which in the case of Black Metal was not neutrally worded) went only to groups that were likely to produce "Keep" votes for the article. After a lot of discussion on the AfD, Undead warrior offered to help balance things by notifying groups that were likely to vote the other way. Unfortunately, all UW did was notify WikiProjectReligion. To help balance SP's votestacking, I notified, in a totally neutral way WikiProject Christian Metal, WikiProject Christian Music, and WikiProject Christianity.

Let me say that not only did I !vote "Weak keep" on the AfD, my preference all along, expressed in my !vote comment and elsewhere on the AfD, was not to try to balance SP's votestacking, but to have the AfD closed down and started again, because it had been tainted by SP's actions. Since no one took up that suggestion, notifying other groups seemed like the only option available to me to help make the process more fair.

I guess my question for folks here is - in an instance of obvious votestacking such as this, where the only people notified are those more likely to vote one way, what steps should an editor take to counter them? Is there another course of action which would have been preferable? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, while SP's notification were up for a day or more, mine were removed after an hour or so, I can't recall by whom. (Not me.) I didn't bother to repost them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "balancing" a vote stack. That is WP:POINTY and you know it. Also, notifying WP:Religion would have been the best course from the start. It is represented by every religion which makes it un-biased. You never try and balance out a "taint" in afd, that is not the right course of action. What SP did, in my opinion, was not vote stacking. And until anyone can tell me why it would be votestacking and how the article rescue squad is not votestacking, then I believe this issue is done. Undeath (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, thanks for your comment, but I really was hoping for some unbiased guidance from the regulars here, this being a situation I have not found myself in before. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not biased and I have been here before. This isn't a come and get advice area, it's a "you've done something wrong" area. Undeath (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we mark this resolved now seeing as how people on the other side of the debate have "canvassed" multifold more to far more active and larger wikiprojects, after I already removed my notifications after just one day, so we're more than even? Not that it helped them as editors on wikiprojects have minds of their own and aren't manipulable in that way. Sticky Parkin 12:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just adding this over here for the sake of explanation/completeness. I wrote this in the AfD, in response to a comment from Gatoclass where he implied I didn't trust the Chritiian wikiproject's objectivity, or I would have notified them:- I thought (rightly or wrongly) Christianity not quite related to the subject in the same way as Wikiproject Left Hand Path and Wikiproject Black Metal is all. Christians don't tend to study or use the phrase "Hail Satan" a lot, do they, or listen to media in which it is used particularly frequently? Not the ones I know, anyway.:) I did consider notifying them when people made this fuss over it but instead decided to remove my notifications to the wikiprojects who would have the most knowledge of how the phrase is used. The same as a Muslim would know more about the phrase As-Salamu Alaykum than me. Plus I only have so many hours in the day lol. But I've appreciated the input from the Christian wikiprojects. Sticky Parkin 14:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Note User:Sandstein's closer of the AfD and his comments. This person came to ANI when the vote was already not going in his favour, claiming something invalidated it. This will sound familiar to anyone who's been frequently involved in AfD or DRV. This admin was elected in May, and in this instance IMHO he (I hope temporarily) forgot whhat is asked of any editor.

• He didn't even notify me of the AfD, something asked of all editors.
• He didn't explain any tags he put on the article on talk, until it was removed.
• He didn't respond to any questions about the tags or any explanatory messages left on his talk page. Of course that's not required, but communicating with other editors is something praised in admins.
• He didn't notify me of making this AN/I about me, nor did he say beforehand on my talk page of anything he disagreed with of mine, which is asked in the dispute resolution process.

If this admin continues like this, I doubt this will be the only instance where people see this person's conduct as not meeting that asked even of an editor, and I expect several people will recall this particular instance of his complete lack of what's required of any editor. This is not a personal attack, simply my opinion and an accurate analysis of all the things this admin did not do that he should have done. Not only that but this was an article I entered for DYK as it had over twenty sources and an IMHO interesting hook. The response of it being entered for AfD without even the courtesy of notification after all my hard work, illustrated the atmosphere a lot of people feel is developing at DYK, and is not encouraging to other editors, if their hard work and request at DYK is going to be treated in this way by a regular there. Forgive this rare long post from me. If I wanted the hastle I would make an RfC, but these issues are not sufficiently wrong for that, just discourteous and unpleasant. But if an RfC is ever brought against this person, which at some point if they continue it no doubt will from someone encoutering a problem, I will certainly contribute. He may say that about me notifying wikiprojects- but if he brings it up anywhere in future, I will simply demonstrate to people the closing admin's comments.Sticky Parkin 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Pearl necklace (sexuality)

We've got a censorship issue at Pearl necklace (sexuality) by 70.121.33.78‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bidgee (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it. --mboverload@ 09:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Since other users were involved, the article has been locked in order the discussion about the photo (yet again) to occur. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks of that. I don't really issue the issue of the image but if there was a concessus to have the image removed then fine but to remove/censor an image without an concessus is wrong but lets hope it doesn't happen again. Bidgee (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time, nor the last, a debate about the image used in the article. Not sure how long is going to last. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a drawn picture could be more suitable than a graphic photograph --The High Commander (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As with the old admonition to someone who doesn't understand something obvious: "Do I have to draw you a picture???" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how hot the picture is. Dayewalker (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The image needs to be taken out. --eric (mailbox) 09:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• It also appears the image was made by a user too. I cringe at that fact. I could handle commercial use but this is a private image. Yikes!(Now I'm curious to see if I upload my personal intimate pictures on my user page and find a article to use them in and see if they can actually stay there ;)) --eric (mailbox) 09:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for content, be it the face of the prophet Muhammed, the F-bomb, or images used to illustrate anatomical and pornographic topics.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I wonder how a hand-drawn image (especially of the caliber I've seen on wikipedia) would be any less "gross". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC policy would require the use of amateur porn. A commercial "fair use" image wouldn't be permitted as it could easily be replaced by an equivalent free image.

That said, a hand-drawn "cartoon porn" image might be preferable, not because it is somehow "less offensive" but because it would not "trigger 2257 record keeping requirements" (number refers to CPOEA laws, not the amount of paperwork). In a nutshell there are laws against publishing "anonymous porn" in the U.S. because you have to be able to prove that the people shown engaging in sexual acts (for hire or not) are age 18+. — CharlotteWebb 12:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A related article, cum shot, while the picture is there to illustrate the action. It seems virally sexual. A propsal to flag articles of adult content seems VERY plausible to me. --eric (mailbox) 10:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Plausible as in "it's never going to happen"? --mboverload@ 10:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This story was debated at great length here a month or two ago. What was the outcome (pardon the metaphor) of that debate? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Even then the image on cum shot has been censored in the past (infact not to long ago) so I fail to see that a drawing will stopping the issue. Bidgee (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Forget images entirely. Take 'em all out. --eric (mailbox) 10:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? I see the images as appropriate to Illustrate the articles and if we remove images that some class as inappropriate (Such as Pregnancy, Ejaculation, Decapitation just not name a small few) then where do we draw the line of censorship? Bidgee (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Eric, what sort of illustration for this article would not be "virally sexual"? (depending on what "virally" means in this context... I might not want to know) — CharlotteWebb 12:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean subliminally and yes, what images wouldn't? Exactly. Which is why I've been saying take all kinds of these images out.

Never say never MB. I was going to edit the article with this template:

but someone restricted it to admin only, for whatever reason they saw fit, which is beyond me. --eric (mailbox) 10:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Think of the children, literally. --eric (mailbox) 11:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Can just see it now. Wikipedia becoming a Child Care Centre. Bidgee (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is visited by hundreds of children(students) every day. Many of which of their school networks have filters, Wikipedia is considored to be a trusted site by mostly everyone and the access is unsurpassable to the ability to display adult content. It is inmoral. --eric (mailbox) 11:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia may be trusted (Some schools do block it as a source for other reasons) doesn't mean that pages get blocked or filters out key words. As I've said Wiki isn't a child minder. Bidgee (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

{{censor}} sucks badly (as it embodies the assumption that any removal of contentious content is Evil Censorship rather than good-faith editorial discretion) and in any case it absolutely does not belong in mainspage per WP:ASR so hopefully it was the talk page you were trying to add it to. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I think I will hold off on the talk page since this related discussion is ongoing. I still support a filter of such, firmly. Perhaps templating all of these types of articles is appropriate, weither it be on the article itself or the talk page. What'cha think? --eric (mailbox) 10:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, people. It's not as if we haven't all seen semen before. Wikipedia isn't censored, but nor does it exist for the sake of cheesy displays of sexual curiosity. I don't see anything remarkable or enlightening about an image of ejaculate on a woman's neck for illustrating the fact that it happens sometimes and some choose to make a word of it. It's not offensive, but neither is it censorship to decide it's a pointless and somewhat embarassing exercise for the encyclopedia to illustrate every slang term for where jism may end up. We make content decisions like this all the time. I really fail to see the problem either way. Incidentally, cartoons like the cum shot one are kind of cute but they only call more attention to the matter. Wikidemo (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How blunt. However, I do considor this image to be offensive and disturbing and frankly, kinda gross. --eric (mailbox) 11:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not only that but the fact of how easily images like this are accessed by students in school, who, by the way, visit Wikipedia everyday, and little children. Who would ever suspect Wikipedia is in a stance for filtering by a child's parent. Last time I checked Wikipedia was a source of information and not a show and tell. This is beyond belief. --eric (mailbox) 11:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Must firewalls and filters at schools block anything in a list (Not just URLs but also words it picks up). Wikipedia isn't a babysitter nor should it be a parent for a child who's parents fail to watch what there child is doing. Bidgee (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

[Un-indent] Exactly, and by the way, Dirty Sanchez (sexual act) makes do just fine without an image, and that is an even more obscure sexual act. --The High Commander (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure some exhibitionist nerd will make a picture eventually, which will be impossible to remove; remember that no matter how creepy, inappropriate, poor quality or unencyclopedic the image, if it's anything relating to penises or vajayjays, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED!!11!! AND YOU CANNOT REMOVE IT OR YOU ARE CENSORING US11!!!11!LOL PR0N. Neıl ☄ 11:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Per my comment above, is Wikipedia becoming a place to host your adult pictures now? I guess that gives users an unlimited storage space. I find this disappointing. :( --eric (mailbox) 11:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(Too cramped up there) continued below: Wikipedia is a trusted site. I can almost guarentee that these images on the articles WILL BE DISPLAYED. Wikipedia should do more to help prevent access of these images, and what way than removing them altogether. Easy fix. --eric (mailbox) 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Vajayjays"??? If you're too young or immature to use the word vagina, you need to go find another hobby. No one can take you seriously if you're going to act like that. (not that many of us are really taking your histrionic 'think uv da wittle Kiddiez' excuses. Parents think of their children, we'll think about the encyclopedia. ThuranX (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Per above and here, it looks like it was agreed a image like this was deleted. Why another image was allowed to be put up there was allowed, is beyond me. --eric (mailbox) 12:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If we lack an image, I can take one this afternoon and upload it under a free license - is there any guidelines I can read on the quality of image you require? --87.114.131.159 (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough. Wikipedia is not censored. This is a fundamental point. I find these images distasteful also but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we should have an image. They clearly add to the articles. Whether we remove them for copyright issues is a completely separate concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The image was removed for distastefulness. --eric (mailbox) 22:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with deleting an image because it degrades the tone or content of the article / encyclopedia more than it enlightens it. We make content decisions all the time. This image doesn't seem to add to the article in any encyclopedic way. There is no particular aspect to that image that is not fully conveyed in the words, except perhaps that the woman in question seems pretty nonchalant about the whole thing...but that's not very encyclopedic. Wikidemo (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The High Commander is the subject of his own AN/I thread below: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:The_High_Commander ThuranX (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyrights and garbage licenses

It has been my rather unfortunate experience that many of the images of this sort have completely garbage licenses. By which I mean they inevitably are categorized as "self-made" and inevitably are copyrighted material downloaded from a porn site. I therefore think that extreme caution regarding these images is appropriate. That's not "censorship", that's common sense. Have we all forgotten the User:Publicgirluk debacle already? Nandesuka (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Also User:Nandesuka is out of line by removing the image on the grounds of Copyvio[9] which the image has not be tagged for deletion and hasn't been deleted and if it's an obvious copyvio then the image should be easy to find. The image should be readded until this matter has been cleared up and if anyone feels that the image is a copyvio then tag it on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking more closely at this image, it's the only contribution (modulo talk pages) of the editor in question, the lighting in the photo is professional-quality (not tungsten, not flash, proper white balance), and the photo has no EXIF metadata. In short, if this is a self-made image and not something taken from the thumbnail gallery of a porn site, I am Marie of Roumania. I'm removing it from the article. Nandesuka (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Yes I agree that there needs to be caution with fake uploaded images but there are some legit images on Wiki and Commons but it also doesn't mean that legit images should be removed. Also as I've said to the other users that if they find the image poor in res, or anything that would be likely for it's deletion then nominate the image for deletion. Bidgee (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

So if an image doesn't have EXIF metadata (Such as Image:Cyclone Helen 3943.jpg) then it's stolen? Well God Save Me if thats the case.Bidgee (talk)

A guy walks into your place of business. He has a three-day growth of scruff and says "Hey, I really need to sell this patent-leather Gucci purse today, because I need bus fare. I'll give it to you for just $10." If you buy that purse, you're doing something wrong, because a reasonable person would recognize that it's probably stolen. Your argument is the equivalent of saying to me "Are you saying that all leather purses are stolen?"

We evaluate images on a multitude of axes. In this case, we have a low-resolution image with professional-quality lighting, featuring the personally identifying facial features of a model (for whom we have no model release) engaging in an activity which most people, and indeed most models, won't let themselves be photographed engaging in, contributed by a user who has no track record of contributing good, properly licensed images, and that has no EXIF metadata backing up this user's claim of ownership. Given all of those factors, accepting the license for this image is self-deception on an incredible scale. Nandesuka (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're edit warring on a fully protected page, so please revert your edit. The image has been nominated for deletion twice on Commons, and both times consensus was to keep it, so your minority opinion that it is a copyvio is no justification to continue an edit war after page protection. The original image showing the model's face was Image:Sexuality pearl necklace.png which is 640x480 and I see no reason to believe that it is taken from a porn site nor doubt the uploader's statement here. Also, the image is not the user's only contribution to Wikimedia projects. Prolog (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is essentially the only contribution to Wikimedia projects that I could find (I checked en.wikipedia, commons, and it.wikipedia. All of this user's edits (there were fewer than 20 in each project) centered around either this image or discussion of this image. Unless this user is a big contributor at some project I didn't check, this is a single purpose account whose main purpose was to upload this image. If that doesn't set off alarm bells for you, then you are way more trusting than I am. Nandesuka (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No special trust is really necessary here, just basic AGF in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the uploader is not lying in his comments about the image. There's nothing odd about an uploader of a sexuality-related image not being a regular editor. If I wanted to upload an image of my semen on my girlfriend's neck, I would certainly register a single purpose Commons account to do that. Prolog (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this is a Commons image ... it was listed for deletion not long after it was uploaded in 2006, but was kept. In light of Nandesuka's suspicions, however, we may need to investigate this further. Interproject coordination, anyone? Blueboy96 15:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The image doesn't look that professional to me. It looks well-done but not obviously professional. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Nandesuka, now that's thinking. Let's reconsider when we have an image which is provably PD from an editor whose assurances of status we can actually trust. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Zee lack of metadata is a side effect of the file format. png isn't a conventional choice for photos due to size issues. Photo appears to be uploader's only upload but they have edited on a number of projects. May be related that user:Publicgirluk's Pearl necklace pic was a PNG.Geni 01:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• While I agree that copyright would be an overriding concern, it doesn't appear this is an "obvious" copyvio, and per discussion here may not be one at all. Should Nand's edit be reverted, pending other consensus to the contrary? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Many images have been deleted for less than this image was deleted. Not only would we create a double standard with sexual items, we would be going against legal sense. We need to prove an item is free, not prove an item is not. This item lacks any real evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

But there is no proof that it isn't free. Bidgee (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The way GFDL works, you have to prove that it is free and under a free license. The fact that the image was proven to be altered from another source shows that there is a missing source information, which in itself would force it to be deleted. You seem to be harping on this quite a lot and it seems troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well this isn't commons which is where the image is hosted. "You seem to be harping on this quite a lot and it seems troubling." oooh please. Last time I looked anyone can reply and discuss issues here. 14:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I can point you to some Commons admin who use Wikipedia regularly and have items hosted on Commons removed from articles because of bad copyright tags even though they are still hosted there. I work int he FA area, we deal with image copyright problems quite often. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no issues with the copyright tag on the image so it's still no grounds of removal and we don't know the history about the Commons Admin nor does it have anything to do with this issue. Bidgee (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"I see no issues with the copyright tag on the image" - No date when it was taken. No date when it was first scanned or uploaded to a computer. No date and author of who cropped the photo. CC 5 would mean it was copyrighted in another source, which needs a link or a statement. 4 major problems, each worthy of deleting the photo. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image was uploaded in 2006 and there are a few photos from 2005 - 2007 that have no date, Image has a source!, Image is a png format so the image isn't going to have EXIF data. No proof that it's a copyvio. Bidgee (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you know what "uploaded to a computer" meant, as you used the "upload to WikiCommons" date instead. For something to be licensed as a CC image, you have to have this information so you can track the trail of derivative works. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• The original image had metadata. The couple who took the pictures supplied it when they created the article. After discussion on the article and attempts to remove and then linkimage it, they offered an elarged and cropped version of the image, which is the image being discussed.[10] When it was cropped, no doubt the Metadata left, as is often the case. I offered diffs to much of this on the article talk page. The image is not a copyvio, and the couple states their ages on his Commons page, Here. Atom (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  With all due respect, I think you are misremembering. I undeleted the original image to examine it. It was a 640x480 png with absolutely no metadata. The editor who uploaded it did assert that he owned copyright in it, but that isn't very surprising, and doesn't help us beyond being a bare assertion. But if you have a version of the photo that does have metadata, by all means point me to it -- perhaps I have the wrong one. Nandesuka (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  So? There are also many photos on Wiki and Commons which don't get deleted just because there is no EXIF data. Such as Image:Cyclone Helen 3919.jpg which lost it's EXIF data and if anyone thinks I stole it then thats there problem not mine. Bidgee (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  No matter how many times you try to frame it this way, I am not claiming that all leather purses are stolen. The lack of metadata is one of the many aspects of this image that make it problematic. The most problematic, of course, is that this image seems to have been contributed by a SPA. For comparison, had David Shankbone (or another editor with a long history of contributions) submitted the same image, I would certainly not suspect it of being a copyright violation. As it stands, however, there are too many oddities about this image, taken as a whole, to simply shrug our shoulders and say "Well, the contributor claims it's self-made. Good enough for me!" Nandesuka (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nandesukas removal of the image was not appropriate, however I understand his sincere concerns about copyvio. The removal should stand for the moment. A survey to gain to attempt to gain consensus for the removal is underway at the article, and it should be allowed to complete. Based on the current count, I would expect there to be a failure to gain consensus for removal, as people who support removal are in the minority with a large number of votes. Atom (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote. WP:Voting is evil. Bidgee (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note that in the past day, the image has been nominated for deletion on commons, citing the concerns raised here, and was speedily kept. Consensus does not appear to support the image's removal on any of the provided rationales at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Legality question

Does the Wikipedia main page need a "over 18 warning"? There are clearly titillating and semi-porn images and articles on wikipedia. What is the value of a pearl necklace article in an encyclopedia.

Why not an article on "white dragon", that's where the man gets oral sex and cums in the woman's (or I suppose another man's) mouth and it drips out of her nose.

Some articles, like this, could simply have a template. The user would click one of two choices. The "under 18 choice" would redirect to either an explanation or the main page. The "over 18 and horny" choice would redirect to "Pearl necklace (over 18)" article. HRCC (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly HRCC. --eric (mailbox) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I bet the WMF's lawyers have thought of this already. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of my teenage friends would see such a warning and be more eager to see the article - is anything about this in the WP:General disclaimer? ¡ Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs! 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's covered in the Content disclaimer. Resolute 19:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Been looked into the answer is no. Apart from anything else we have no actual photos of people engageing in sexual activity with other people.Geni 19:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• In UK jurisdiction, at least, we don't need an adult-content warning, no. Anthøny 19:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  Neither in the DK one. Maybe i'm prejudiced, but the censoring of sexual images, seems to be mostly a US phenomenon. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Kim, why not create Category:Porn images and Category:Racy articles and Category:Shocking articles. Dirty Sanchez (or whatever that article where feces is apply above one's lip) would be in the shocking articles category. US phenomena? Many countries are far more restrictive. HRCC (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If your examples had encylopedic value, then i can't see why not. But i can't see the value of those meta-categories, which do not seem to have such. And which countries might this be? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Opinion - wouldn't this topic better be served as an entry on the Wikitionary? It seems that the page does very little beyond defining the term. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• The original poster, HRCC appears to be trolling. Take a look at this diff. I recommend erasing this thread per WP:DENY. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not liking an administrator is not an excuse to "deny" someone for "trolling" or to label them as such. Otherwise, most of us would be trolls at some time or another. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling another editor, or group of editors, "Nazis" and recommending punishment is a pretty egregious violation of assume good faith and decorum. Please check this diff. Jehochman ^Talk 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it. However, this could be the case of a newbie blowing off steam after having something like losing their user name upset them. I'm sure we can find some far more graphic reactions by respected people of the community. Remember, AGF is a two way street, and BITE was written to ensure that we teach new people how to act and not outright dismiss them. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a nice article template? Or maybe entire deletion of this category? Or perhaps a warning window? Hmm? Especially if you're wanting to keep these damn images. --eric (mailbox) 22:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose that it is not ideal for Wikipedia to cater to exhibitionists. Jtrainor (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

this has been done to death in many many places - broadly, we do not and will not fliter content on the basis of the viewer of the age, their religious beliefs (which is another common call for censorship) or any other such fact. In addition, we do not add disclaimers to articles and in fact, the addition of additional disclaimers is strictly prohibited by the general disclaimer. It's a complete non-starter. If someone finds a good quality free image - it goes in the article - no amount of "think of the children!" will change that. --87.114.131.159 (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If we were to find that content warnings or access restrictions were required by law that's a decision to come from Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, and that would come down pretty firm - no consensus or discussion necessary on our part. I'm sure Godwin has thought of this before. I think he knows the field. It wouldn't apply to this image because it's not porn by any legal definition - nothing shown. A partial correction to Geni. Under 18USC2256, the sexual content regulated by the US government (porn, for short) includes not only sexual contact with genitals but also "lascivious display of the genitals or pubic area", a term that is rather broad and hard to pin down, though there is some further commentary in the law and some case law. One interesting result is that not all photos of genitals count, but some pictures of clothed genital areas do count as porn. The photo over at Cameltoe might count, the hands-on-hip pose is suggesting a clinical inspection more than a lewd invitation to sexual conduct (yes, the law gets into this kind of body language). Anyway, there's a bigger concern about underaged photo subjects than underaged viewers, and some pretty serious laws about that. That image comes from the UK, which makes it all the more complicated. Again, a subject for Wikimedia's counsel not us, but we should be on the lookout to porn subjects who are not clearly of age.

Regarding the proposal, anyone who is truly concerned with inappropriate adult content could easily create a tagging system for Wikipedia images and articles so those ones would be blocked or behind an access restriction - and implement it somewhere else, say in a browser plug-in or a mirror site. So they can have their kiddie-safe version of Wikipedia and we can have the uncensored version. Wikidemo (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka

Admin Nandesuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the image when the page is protected claiming the image is a copyvio[11] but the image isn't marked[12] and Nandesuka keeps saying that the image hurts Wikipedia[13] as an questionable image but if the image is an issue why not tag the image for deletion on Commons if they felt it was a copyvio instead of removing it without anything to back-up the claims[14]. It seems the copyvio claim was used as an way of censoring the image. The image should be readded until an consensus can be reached or the image is deleted from Commons with a vaild reason. Bidgee (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to expand on the sentence "It seems the copyvio claim was used as an way of censoring the image." I believe that the image is an obvious copyvio. I believe this because the image has a number of attributes (soft, even lighting that I'd characterize as professional, contributed by (what seems like) a single-purpose account, uploaded during the middle of the User:publicgirluk fiasco, a complete lack of metadata, contains personally identifying features). I removed the image because I believe it hurts no one for us to look for an image with a less suspicious provenance. If you are claiming that I am using the copyright status of the image as a pretext, then I would suggest, politely, that you are making unjustified (and insulting) accusations. I have worked on Wikipedia's sexuality articles for years and years. I have worked hard to make sure that our articles are appropriately illustrated. Sometimes that means adding a photo that other people are offended by. Sometimes it means removing a photo that is crap. No one is hurt by keeping a photo with a provenance as suspicious as this one's off the article for a bit while we find a better one. That's not censorship. That's editing. I removed the photo because, in my administrative judgment it puts en.wikipedia at risk to use it. I am more than willing to accept criticism that I am wrong in my judgment that it is a copyvio. I categorically reject implications that I am acting on a pretext. Nandesuka (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

See Luna Santin's comment] on the bottom of the Pearl necklace (sexuality) section. In your administrative judgment you've jumped the gun (See Atomaton's comments) and just because you maybe an Admin doesn't mean you can remove an image during an dispute in which you're involved in (You're involved since you did support it's removal) and as I said if you think it's an "obvious" copyvio then tag it on Commons but you haven't done that only removing the image which is censoring. I'm in NO way making unjustified and insulting accusations since it's fact. "I am wrong in my judgment that it is a copyvio." then your removal should be reverted. Bidgee (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka, if there is an actual claim to there being a copyright violation, then nominate the image for deletion and make a valid claim of how it is. But since its been through the deletion process twice on Commons, I don't think your going to make a successful case that hasn't already been presented. You are involved in this dispute, and editing the content of this protected page is outside the realm of exceptance of using your admin bit when you don't like the content of the image. — Moe ε 12:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• As an journalism-trained photog and computer geek, I've taken a lot of pics with nice lighting, and either removed tags, or lost them during photo conversion. The absence of tags and presence of lighting does not represent a copyvio in and of themselves. Please feel free to actually prove copyvio, or you need to AGF. BMW(drive) 11:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that Nandesuka was expressing genuine concerns about copyvio, and not attempting to censor an image that he did not like. I do think that there is clear evidence that it is not a copyvio though, and that he was mistaken. As there is a surveu to gain consensus for the removal of the image on the talk page of the article, we should leave things as they are for the moment until that completes. The image can be returned if that survey fails to gain consensus for removal. Atom (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A copyviolation is a legal matter and should be addressed first, and if incorrect, restored after proof that there was no copyviolation. I have seen no proof of such, so why is this even being discussed? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. You need hard proof to remove an image and Nandesuka hasn't given hard proof that it's an copyvio other then it having no EXIF data but thats no grounds to call it a copyvio. Bidgee (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to have any accord with the practice so I am unable to believe that you are correct. Pages are deleted at the commons constantly over speculation that they were miss-tagged and without proof. The burden of proof is always on the uploader. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing there to prove that the image is in doubt but the main issue I'm talking about is that the image was removed from the article on the grounds that it's a copyvio but the image isn't tagged. Bidgee (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

T: That issue is easily addressed: I'll tag the image tonight when I get home from work. Nandesuka (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka needs to lose his buttons. He abused his Admin power in an manner that shows obvious disregard for the consensus evinced in this thread and in numerous linked to prior threads, just to get his way and CENSOR the project. Admins who engage in POINTy CENSORship ought to have their button license immediately revoked; his distractions about the licensing are irrelevant, they've been asked and answered numerous times, but he's playing the 'I didn't hear that' game. The Image needs to be restored, pending consensus. What a disgusting example of COI editing by an admin. Pull his buttons now! ThuranX (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to back down from this. Your comments against others are unwarranted. Your comment here is especially troubling to me. Furthermore, you keep saying that this is an encyclopedia and even mentioned breast cancer. There is a clear difference from a sexual act and a non-sexual act. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And this is my last response to the topic. The above user has made such a claim against me that makes me feel uncomfortable discussing this issue with them present. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I ahve no intention of backing down, and you know full well that your comment placement made it look like I was saying something I hadn't said, specifically that you were requesting proof that I didn't provide, instead using a one word answer to dismiss you. You know how to properly factor your comments into a conversation, but don't. And there's no difference for the context of breasts if censorship rears its head on here, and you're also hopefulyl smart enough to see that. ThuranX (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am actually quite concerned how an editor who is involved in a conflict over an article and/or image would then unilaterally use their admin privileges to "solve the problem" themself. That's not really the way Wikipedia works. Admins are given that privilege because they supposedly know the policies, and are editors first, admins second. They need to recuse themselves from that admin role when necessary, and this appears to be one of those times that it should have happened. Removing admin rights doesn't fix the issue - reversing of single-sided deletes and edits, a little warning, and a nice little bit of mentoring would go a long way. BMW(drive) 17:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Ugh that's absolutely revolting and an offence against good taste. I thought this article was about the "Country Life" frontispiece with a girl in twinset and pearls or something. Disgusting. Delete it now. Peter Damian (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, I hope ... BMW(drive) 17:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Come for the pearl necklace, stay for the long drawn-out argument. HalfShadow 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No why should I be joking. It's absolutely revolting. Here is a much nicer picture. I thought it was about that. Why would anyone be interested in the other rubbish? Peter Damian (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You click on Pearl necklace (sexuality) and expect something non-sexual? --Conti|✉ 17:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I expected something like this or those pictures they used to have in Country Life. What's this article for? Peter Damian (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] And I first thought this was about deleting the article. Turns out it's only some crappy picture. Again, what are these articles for except to gratify some teenage vandalistic impulse? How does this help people in Africa? Peter Damian (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh shit! That's what we're doing wrong! We're not cleaning our plates at dinner because kids in africa are starving! Stop trolling, Peter Damian. If you really think that a page specifically labelled 'Sexuality' is going to be about some old magazine, then you're in the wrong hobby. Go read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and move on. ThuranX (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, a Pearl necklace (sexuality) is a very very very old term for what happens after you do a "titty-fukk" (not sure if that one is actually in Wikipedia, so I didn't Wikilink or spell it correctly intentionally). A "titty-fukk" is a very common sexual act, just like are many that appear in any Encyclopedia. Since "Leftovers from a post Titty-fukk cum-shot (sexuality)" would be a very long title, its extremely common name, the Pearl necklace (sexuality) is more commonly used. If the term offends you, sorry - it will be around long after you are. If the sex act offends you, then don't do it. If the article offends you, well .. you were warned with the word "sexuality" being in it, and there was no way to mistake it for something non-sexual. BMW(drive) 17:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The article offends me because it is a crap article. We do have policies about crap articles. Peter Damian (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a note about just this sort of issue that you might need to read. Not liking an article, even being disgusted by it (as am I), is not grounds for deleting it. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't say 'we'. It depends on the reason for not liking it. I don't like articles which have poor spelling, which are unreferenced, which are ungrammatical, which have no thread, which are generally non-encyclopedic. These are all reasons for changing or deleting an article one doesn't like. You catch my drift? Peter Damian (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I say "we" because we're working on a project here. And, no, being ungrammatical (as annoying as that is) does not a deletion rationale make. I would also point out that using the phrase "you catch my drift" is a bit, well, rude. I was simply pointing you toward a link I thought would help you understand why you will garner very little support in an attempt to have an article deleted because you find it disgusting or vulgar. I apologize if you found the link unhelpful in this regard. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Damian, you appear to fundamentally misunderstand the acceptable reasons for deletion. Nevertheless, this conversation, which is supposed to be about alleged misbehaviour by an admin, has gone wildly off-topic. If any of the participants wish to continue the off-topic discussion, they can take it to user talk or email.

Regarding the topic at hand, although I disagree with him my view is that Nandesuka acted in good faith. Rather than reverting at this point I would suggest leaving things as they are until the discussion plays out on the article talk page, and in the meantime, if it hasn't already been listed, list the image itself for deletion to hash out the copyright issues. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note: Users who persist in continuing off-topic discussion in this section will be blocked. Stick to the topic and take off-topic discussion to email or talk pages. See: WP:TALK for further information. This is your final warning. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding! Topic drift is a fact of life online, and you're going to block for it!? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break, this thread is getting more ridiculous by the second. Nandesuka's rationale is pretty thoughtful and convincing, and since the stakes are low getting rid of the image was the right call. If you're that concerned about having an image on the article, take a photo yourself (use a doll?) or draw one. Calling for a desysop, or a non-admin threatening to block people for not posting on topic... Hysterically funny, but thats probably unintentional right? Avruch ^T 22:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, Exploding Boy is an admin and is still threatening to block people for off-topic posts (and in this case, he thinks the main topic is the misuse of admin tools, and not the image that is referenced in the highest level header). Avruch ^T 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I' m fairly serious about the Desysop. Nandesuka abused his buttons to force a change against consensus, and now Exploding Boy is threatening blocks liberally to intimidate other editors. So now I'm all for TWO de-buttonings, Nandesuka's and Exploding Boy's. Exploding Boy for intimidation via button, and Nandesuka for POV pushing with special buttons. Both are explicit no-nos, and both have clearly done so.

Further, I call for a reversion of the page to the status quo, which was image in. ThuranX (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The main topic is the image. The topic in this sub-section is whether Nandesuka abused his admin privileges. The off-topic posts had nothing to do with either issue. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. Peter Damian began discussing the image and related article here, This is the furthest section down the page, thus the most recent, and he posted here. I think he's trolling, but if not, we AGF, and accept that sometimes users simply use the most recent section to discuss the topic. In PD's case, he discussed the image and article instead of nandesuka's behavior. Avoid causing a chilling effect with your self-righteous bullying, which is exactly what we're seeing here. ThuranX (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How about remaining WP:CIVIL for a start? Comments like "how does this help the children in Africa" do not constitute constructive or serious discussion. My intention was to stop the silly conversation that was taking over and disrupting a discussion about a serious accusation, and that's what happened. Nobody was blocked. The users were, and still are, perfectly free to discuss the merits of the article elsewhere, like on the article's talk page. Anyway, I've made my view on Nandesuka's action clear already, and I have no intention of getting into an argument with you. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't me. that was someone else. If you wanted to stop it, you should've called for him to stop trolling ,instead of throwing around threats. ThuranX (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we all calm down here? Throwing around requests to desysop people rarely makes things calmer. Nandesuka does not have any history of problematic use of the admin tools and it is hard to see a single bad use of the tools as a reason to immediately desysop the individual. And threats of blocks aren't useful either. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I do think it somewhat unbecoming of an admin to close an AfD saying that the "keep arguments presented below are spectacularly unpersuasive." One could say he is not persuaded by the argument without using somewhat insulting hyperbole. I also advise for such AfDs as this when it is a second nomination for which the previous discussion had ten keeps to only five deletes (yes, I know it is not a vote, but still...) and four editors (including two current admins and one previous admin) in the current one arguing to keep (and it doesn't help that one account arguing to delete in the current discussion was determined to be a ban evading sock and another has said it is his mission to delete and would not and has not ever argued to keep) really deserves more of an explanation of its closing. Thus, these are some other at least moderately questionable examples. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I commented about the image as well, am I going to be blocked for such an offense? Can you point me to where such a block is described in policy? I haven't seen it written anywhere that "Posts which do not pertain directly to the sub-topic being discussed in a section can result in a block." I must just not have read that particular page. Avruch ^T 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm sorry, we deleted the picture that included that information :) (Just a little humour to defuse the tense situation) BMW(drive) 14:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I do see a few questionable decisions here: (1) removing an image from an article based on an unprovable claim that the image is too well done to be amateur - it isn't all that well done; (2) doing so in an arguable case where many or most think otherwise; and (3) inasmuch as #1 and #2 are non-administrative content decisions, protecting an article immediately after editing it to enforce the administrator's personal content opinion. There's every reason to assume good faith on Nandesuka's part - agree or disagree with the action, but it was done to protect Wikipedia. Good faith misuse of tools is still wrong, if indeed it was a mistake, but why chastise? Why not discuss in a supportive way? How about taking this discussion either here or elsewhere to the rather more sober question of when is it okay to remove, or delete, an image that one feels is in bad taste for the article it's in, and/or a possible but unprovable copyvio? Wikidemo (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok to get this clear. I in no way that I'm after Nandesuka to be de-Sysoped only that the image to be reverted until the discussion is over since there has been no consensus to remove it. In no way was it to protect Wikipedia, if it was it would have been mark/tagged before it was removed from the article which it wasn't which makes Nandesuka's edit summary invalid since who can it be a copyvio without a tag and proof? It would be like someone saying to me that I stole my own image without backing up the claim. Another thing that was wrong was Nandesuka was involved since they voted support for it's removal (A third-party Admin should have removed it from an protected page) and also Nandesuka never left a vaild message for the image removed expaining the actions done plus the refusal to revert the removal. Bidgee (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Is it time to unprotect the article? It seems highly unlikely to me that the image will be removed by consensus unless it is in fact a copyvio, a point of contention which many editors have suggested should be addressed on commons rather than here. I would ask Zscout370 directly, but it seems they haven't edited in two days. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Addressing an issue on commons or having to wait for commons to come up with a decision does not mean that Wikipedia is given a pass to display the image or deem it in compliant of a copyright. I can link you to some top admins over at Commons who have stated this same thing at Wikipedia if you wish. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The image has no copyright issues and doesn't mean that the image will have copyright issues here as well though we should wait for an outcome (Even though it looks like a clear keep ATM) to be sorted before we unprotect the article. Bidgee (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Two different images claiming to be the original means that there is a clear copyright issue. It is dishonest to say otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Read whats been said on the Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png 3rd nomination deletion page (Note that the IP who was commenting on that page is blocked). It's not dishonest. Image:3801 Wagga Wagga.jpg is a cropped version of an original I had which doesn't make it a copyvio and the same goes for Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png which was cropped for a reason. Bidgee (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion reviews are not a vote and popular opinion does not override legal concerns. Also, reading over the review, it appears that at least 6 people put reasons for keep that have nothing to do with the topic, suggesting that they are not using the process correctly. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no proof that it's a copyvio there for no legal concerns until someone can back-up the claim with something vaild. Also it's not a vote and those 6 that you say didn't address the issue then the same could be said for those who want the deletion. Bidgee (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because you repeat something does not make it true. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the same be just as true for you, Ottava...? Your repeated attempts to complain the original uploader is somehow violating their own copyright, no matter how many users explain this is impossible, is at best pedantic or misguided. That horse is dead and has been for some time. There are other, better horses you might want to consider beating. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop misquoting me. Wiki Commons holds the document. Wiki Commons needs to acknowledge its a derivative. It doesn't matter if the original owner gives them the derivative, because the Creative Commons 2.5 even has language to say if the original owner gives a derivative. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Would an option be to follow this suggestion (the nominating IP appears to be okay with this)? Would this get us a step in the right direction? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The steps seem to be laid out in full here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That image was deleted because of privacy concerns - it showed an identifiable face. It should not be undeleted, even temporarily. If we need someone to view or alter the image, that should be done by an admin who has access to the deleted revisions. And I don't think it's relevant if an anon who was blocked for trolling is 'okay' with any solution. -- Vary | Talk 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Vary, the image would only be restored long enough for someone to copy it, copy the meta data, and then crop it out for a new edition that is compliant. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that most of the commons folks agree that the current image is compliant, that doesn't seem to be necessary - it sounds like this may be largely an effort to satisfy the (apparently unwarranted) concerns of the tendentious IP who nominated the picture. But even if it were needed, why undelete the picture even temporarily when there are people who can access it without making it available to the general public? -- Vary | Talk 16:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how this is a copyright issue, mob rule doesn't make a keep. I doubt elcobbola would have bothered posting the above (as he is an admin at Commons) if it was as clear cut as those like Bidgee makes it seem. Now, Vary, about process - can the image be accessed? Nadesuka had to undelete the image to verify its state. Does a Bureaucrat have the ability to look without undeleting? If so, then it doesn't need to be undeleted to get the image, and thats fine. The ability to see deleted images isn't really listed anywhere, so it would be nice to know. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. No, it's not a copyright issue. We have one anon editor who claims it's a copyright issue, and a number of experienced commons editors who have explained that it's not, and why. That's not 'mob rule'. We can't allow consensus to overrule policy, but nor can we allow spurious claims of policy violation to overrule consensus.

I know that here on en admins can look at deleted images without undeleting them, the same as with deleted revisions, or at least we could last time I tried it. I don't know for a fact that the software is implemented in the same way on commons. But, as I said, this should only even be undertaken if there is a legitimate problem. It seems as though there isn't. One user who refuses to listen to editors with a lot more experience than him or her is not a justification for undeleting this image. -- Vary | Talk 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons admins can see deleted images without undeleting. I don't really care what happens to this image one way or another, I was just trying to see whether a certain route - even if "unnecessary" - would resolve concerns and let us move on with our lives. Note, also, that privacy isn't really an issue. As we're applying AGF to the uploader, their statement of "we are a couple" (i.e. a statement on behalf of both participants) and the implicit assertion of being "self-made" indicates they are well aware that they uploaded an identifiable image. We blur faces/delete images when the subject is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and no proof of consent. Consent for this image is reasonably implied by the aforementioned remarks. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Vary, doesn't WP:IANAL automatically discount taking "opinions" as legal certainty? However, I doubt that will matter, and I do not have faith that you will be willing to change your mind on the issue, so I wont bother responding to you anymore. Our first run in was over you attempting to use an uncopyrighted and unauthored source as a reliable source on Wikipedia, and I don't believe that your views on such things have changed since then. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, how nice. Thanks for trying to inflame the situation with a pointless jab, Ottava. As anyone who cares can look into the actual particulars of that situation, I won't bother clarifying your, shall we say, 'slanted' summary here, except to say that the 'disputed' material did stay in the article, so I guess you would have to say that I succeeded in using a (gasp) "uncopyrighted and unauthored" source. But IANAL works both ways; the blocked IP's "opinions" are not expert legal advice, either; they certainly shouldn't get more weight than those of editors who are experienced with dealing with copyright issues as they relate to commons. -- Vary | Talk 18:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Cooksi

This editor is going through seemingly every horror film made before 1960 and adding Category:Pre-1960 horror film stubs to the article. I have asked him several times today to stop and his response has been not only to continue the disruptive editing but to revert my removal of some of his inappropriate edits. Is there a bot or a tool that can do a mass-revert of his edits? Otto4711 (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

For now, I think this would be more fit for WP:CFD. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but what is the problem? If he's putting pre-1960 horror film stub articles into their category, they are actually constructive edits. If you disagree with the existence of the category itself, I'll second Gwen's recommendation of taking it to categories for deletion. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've rollbacked the addition of the category in nonstub articles. bibliomaniac15 20:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. I don't object to the category nor do I care if he adds the category to actual stub articles, but he's adding them to articles that are clearly not stubs, including B- and GA-class articles where they clearly don't belong. Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think he was just confused over the 'stub' term. I saw a few other lingering 'this type of movie stub' categories still on articles that had since grown up; he probably just assumed it was an ill-defined term. Seems to have stopped for now in any case. Kuru ^talk 21:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To make things worse he was directly using the category rather than the stub templates. Speaking for myself I've never gotten a straight answer regarding what is or isn't a stub. WP:STUB only says "a few sentences of text" and we all know that definition is obsolete. I've used a rough standard of "can I read it all without scrolling down?" or "is it wider than it is long?" but have been reverted in both adding and removing stub tags. This could be due in part to differences in users' screen and font size (shrug). — CharlotteWebb 22:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think the definition from the quality scale is good, although still somewhat subjective: The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. Otto4711 (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a peculiar category in any case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! What's significant about 1960 for horror films? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a lot. It was the year of Psycho, which is argued by some to mark a transition from "monsters as horror" to more domestic and psychological threats. But 1960 does appear to be somewhat arbitrary, considering that many post-1960 horror films also involve simplistic monsters running amok. In the absence of authoritative opinion, I'd argue for the somewhat subjective nature of this category, and thus its indefinability. --Rodhullandemu 21:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No to extend this side discussion too much, but doesn't that argument ignore Val Lewton's psychological horror films of the 40s? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, arguably all American cinema can be broken roughly into a studio system / post studio system classification, a break which occurred over a period of time, and can't be pinned down to a specific year, but which hinges vaguely on the beginning of the 1960s. And there're other things that happened in the 60s, both from outside film (women's lib, sexual revolution), and from within (prominence of the auteur theory, film criticism being taken seriously as an academic discipline) that pushed American movies into a different kind of terrain. It's a divide more visible in genre pictures, particularly horror. I'm not saying it's a flawless category, but one with a leg to stand on at least. Ford MF (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

He's not just doing it with American cinema, IIRC, so the simplistic dichotomy he's applying doesn't necessarily hold water in a world sense. UK horror may have started in the late 50s/early 60s but if I were to choose a watershed year it would be more related to the start of Hammer Horror colour films. That's the problem; unsourced, 1960 is a somewhat arbitrary divide in a fluid time in cinema. --Rodhullandemu 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• The category is used as a stub-sorting category by Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting so if they find it a useful organizational scheme that's good by me. I agree that I'm not seeing 1960 as a watershed year but if the project can use it to their advantage that's fine. Otto4711 (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• He's at it again, and now he's adding some kind of template that's adding the descriptive text from the category to articles. Can we roll back his edits again and then maybe find someone fluent in whatever his primary language is to explain what he's doing wrong? Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh dear lord, his user page says he's originally from England... Otto4711 (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely- as a protective measure, and left a comment here. He needs to explain his edits, but untill he shows that he understands what he's doing I doubt this should continue. He's already had a shot across the bows with his Category:Homosexuality people deletion, and may need mentoring. --Rodhullandemu 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry, I didn't realize I was supposed to notify him of this discussion. Hope my failure wasn't too disruptive. Otto4711 (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes, but there is ample material on his talk page to indicate there's a problem and invite a reaction. He can read this and post comments there if he wishes. Had he been a tad more communicative (i.e. greater than zero), I might have left it, but it was clear he didn't seem interested in that. --Rodhullandemu 00:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had my eye on this editor a couple weeks, as he's been quite prolifically unconstructive, and tried to reach out to him about his wayward editing habits, to little avail. The comments he's left on other people's user pages, which are, without hyperbole, utterly incomprehensible, make me doubt if English is indeed his first language, even though he says he lives in Merry Olde England. Ford MF (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this the same editor who created the categories "The Signature Collection" and "Comic Icons"? He/she added the "B movie" category to "His Girl Friday" the other day. The editor either doesn't know what they're doing or doesn't care. They never use edit summaries, and almost never respond, which rather sounds like a number of other editors who have been blocked recently. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Another organized disruption campaign? (+ offsite harrassment and stalking)

A few months ago, the pro-Israel Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America became caught up in a controversy regarding its activities on certain Wikipedia articles. It seems that we've now reached the sequel, as a group calling itself the Jewish Internet Defense Force has begun actively targeting Wikipedia. Their activities also include seem to include offsite harrassment and stalking, as the JIDF has posted an attack page against me on their blog.

Update: Since I posted my original comments, the JIDF has (i) replaced the pages referenced above with random Youtube content, (ii) removed them entirely, and (iii) brought them back in a modified form, without the real-life personal attacks. I suppose this addresses some of my main concerns, providing that these attacks are not returned as some point in the future. CJCurrie (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an element of onsite stalking and harrassment in this situation as well. User:Einsteindonut, who appears to have a strong familiarity with the JIDF's activities, has recently accused me of anti-Semitism (You're not the first to accuse the Jewish people of conspiracy.), while User:Saxophonemn has accused me of supporting Hamas.

I fail to see how stating that "you are not the first one to accuse the Jewish people of a conspiracy" is labeling you an anti-semite, however, thanks to the JIDF's efforts [15] there does seem to be some anti-Jewish and anti-Israel leanings in many of your edits and actions. You yourself have stated that you "oppose religious nationalism" yet many Jews, by their very nature, are religious nationalists (as being a Jew means having both a religious and a national identity.) Again, I am not labeling you an anti-Semite.--Einsteindonut (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that a secular, non-Zionist Jew might find your comments offensive. Believe it or not, there's great diversity within the Jewish community on these questions of identity.

Anyway, it's not acceptable to write that I was "accus[ing] the Jewish people of conspiracy", nor is it acceptable to write that there "seem to be some anti-Jewish leanings" in many of my edits and actions. You may not be "labeling me an anti-Semite", but the implication is as clear as day -- and it's completely unacceptable conduct on Wikipedia. I repeat that you owe me an apology. CJCurrie (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this normal WP behavior to demand apologies? If so, you owe me an apology for trying to educate me about my own Jewish community. You owe Dr. Oboler an apology for your actions. You owe the JIDF an apology for trying to create a completely biased page against them[16], pulling reliable sources and citing a Facebook group in their place[17]. You owe the Jewish people and Israel an apology for quoting a Hamas supporter on Wikipedia in your effort to make the article "neutral."[18] Once you do all that, I will apologize for the implication that you might have something against Jews and Israel. Regarding "secular, non-Zionist Jews" they make up a very small minority of the Jewish people, though if they were to deny that being Jewish means to have both a religious identity and a national identity, then the secular non-Zionist nature wouldn't bother me as much as their ignorant nature about their own heritage. --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I will leave it to others to determine which of our complaints is more substantive. (Btw, the "quoting a Hamas supporter" assertion is a misrepresentation.) CJCurrie (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that, at minimum, User:Einsteindonut and User:Saxophonemn should be required to apologize for their personal attacks and vandalism (respectively), or be at risk of sanction. But I also think there may be a more fundamental problem here ... CJCurrie (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you seem like you're out of your league here. You seem to have little expertise on the subject matter as your specialty appears to be in Canadian politics. Yet, you seem to show up everywhere editing Israel related pages. There was a list I linked to that showed your work.

I honestly figured you left something out of your page and you should advertise your work in editing pages that deal with Israel. My only apology was doing it not fully within the ways of wiki sourcing to make it more coherent.

You seem to think you can bring a NPOV to a topic that it seems nearly impossible to do. Hamas for example is about killing Jews, not Israelis. That fallacy is what happens when you ignore their charter which is quite clear on what it believes and wants. That was just the microcosm of what goes awry in your edits. It seems like evil doesn't exist nor apply to any group. A group that goes out specifically to perpetrate acts of evil is evil. When we ignore what evil truly is and let it run its course we become complicit in its work. To further emphasize the fallacy of the argument for NPOV it would require balancing Nazi ideology with,"The white people are superior", white supremacist PhD -- --Saxophonemn (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Saxophonemn, this edit was vandalism pure and simple. You owe me a full apology. CJCurrie (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, this demand for an apology, is this normal? (I'm new here.) --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a good way to avoid further sanction for creating and linking to off-wiki attacks. Such actions are a great way to wind up banned. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with "creating off-wiki attacks" and if you're referring to the link to the JIDF site, are we not discussing the JIDF in general? They seem to have done their own research on CJCurrie which I found helpful in light of his wide variety of questionable attacks and actions for which he does continues to not apologize. --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an amazing coincidence that their monitoring and your editing coincide like that. One or both of you are actively involved in that JIDF site, which means your actions here constitute a Conflict of Interest. You clearly have a problem with anythign that makes Jews look bad in any way shape or form, regardless of the facts and history of a situation. As such, I highly recommend you find another hobby, or another website to go after. I'm sure Conservapedia, which reports that Jews killed Jesus, could use your help more. ThuranX (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. If being a reader of the JIDF site constitutes a Conflict of Interest, guilty as charged. It's not very coincidental when one considers the nature of what the JIDF does. If you look at what they do, they seem to be monitoring everything (Facebook, YouTube, Google Earth, and lately, Wikipedia) most of the time. Of course the new article about them in Wikipedia just might be of interest to them, don't you think? --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

At times we like to act as if Wikipedia exists in a vacuum, but that's not always the case. I believe it's obvious that you're a fan of the site, at least; that doesn't mean your views are irrelevant, but it does mean other users are likely to bear in mind you're approaching the situation from that angle. The bigger question, for me, is what you're here for -- if you're here trying in earnest to contribute to a neutral encyclopedia which takes no sides, then I'd say you're welcome to try; if you're here to represent a particular side in any given conflict, then frankly I do think you have a COI (I hope it would go without saying, but I'd tell the same to anyone else if it came up). I'm not accusing you of anything, but hopefully the explanation is useful to you. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am new here, as I have stated and I am learning Wikipedia. Upon reading some of Dr. Oboler's work and the JIDF site and their interests in the problems on Wikipedia, I have become more interested in the happenings here and have wanted to learn about how to do this. Upon seeing unfair edits to the JIDF article, I wanted to make them more neutral and accurate. As I learn more I hope to be more active in other articles, but this issue is apparently becoming a pretty big deal. I personally feel that everyone clearly represents a side in any conflict, ESPECIALLY those who pretend not to. I am Jewish and I am pro-Israel and I feel I represent an important side in many conflicts which needs to be heard as it is often drowned out by many people who either a) cannot comprehend a Jewish perspective and/or b) do not respect a Jewish perspective. For example, if a non-Jewish person wrote an article about a conflict involving the Jewish people, would I not be remiss in my duty both as a WP editor and as a Jew to not represent a particular side in the conflict? Who can actually pretend to not take sides? Furthermore, can't "not taking a side" be construed as taking a side? It seems to me that you would have a lot of accusing of COI to do. --Einsteindonut (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Some excellent points. :) As I hope I emphasized enough, I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, there. That you're putting earnest thought into neutrality/POV issues is enough for me. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey I didn't see you apologize for going out of your way to "vandalize" a bunch of works. You went out of your way to go out of your specialty or full understanding to delete massive segments of pages. As pointed you're distaste for religious self determinism creates a large bias in your edits. I don't see your work on Tibet nor the Vatican City nor Mecca. Thus it appears you only have a focus one religion's homeland. How do you think Jewish people perceive this partiality? Linking to an offsite page didn't seem to be a problem it was a page that monitored CJCurrie's edits on Israel related sites. Does this make sense to anyone? One would expect that an encyclopedia to depend on content from people knowledgeable in the subject matters. Editing as well would require some expertise as well, otherwise you're playing with a topic you don't fully grasp.

What do others think of the matter?--Saxophonemn (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on your talk about the userpage edit specifically; the rest I'm hoping will settle down over time. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

By way of background

By way of background, I should indicate that I removed several Wikipedia links to Andre Oboler's "Zionismontheweb" site a few months ago. My reasons for doing this were fairly straightforward: (i) the site is of very questionable notability, having received only a few passing references from the mainstream media (WP's entry on ZotW was deleted as "non-notable" quite some time ago), (ii) despite its dubious notability, ZotW was being used as an authoritative source on several articles having to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict, (iii) many of the ZotW citations were linked to cut-and-paste copies of articles that were already available online from the original sources (eg. [19], [20], [21], [22]), (iv) some ZotW citations were linked to biased original articles from non-notable sources, written and in some cases posted by involved parties (eg. [23], [24], [25]), (v) in a few cases, the ZotW citations were linked to credible reproductions of primary sources from early Labour Zionists ... and might have been entirely appropriate for Wikipedia, were it not for the presence of tendentious introductory essays written by non-notable figures (eg. [26]), (vi) some ZotW links were flat-out misleading ([27]), some were transparently promotional ([28], and others were inappropriate by any measurement ([29]).

I've never concealed the fact that I removed these links, and I've never apologized for it. It might be worth noting that, aside from User:Oboler (who openly identifies as Andre Oboler) and User:Jayjg, I only received one complaint in the first two months after I removed these links, and that that matter was quickly resolved.

Some editors have asserted that I targeted ZotW as part of a personal vendetta against User:Oboler. While it's true that I came across the links during a dispute with Oboler, I would nonetheless beg to differ with this interpretation: I deleted the ZotW links because they were unsuitable to the project, and because another editor pointed out that they had been added to Wikipedia out of proportion to the site's very questionable notability (refer: [30]).

It strikes me as noteworthy that the JIDF is strongly supportive of both Dr. Andre Oboler and the ZotW project, that User:Einsteindonut has recently taken up Oboler's cause on the JIDF talk page, and that User:Oboler has been actively involved in both the JIDF article and discussion page (he recently added one of his own articles to the footnotes section). These two issues are clearly related, and the possibility of collusion between User:Oboler and JIDF strikes me as too obvious to be ignored or dismissed out of hand ... I cannot help but wonder if User:Einsteindonut is effectively acting as Oboler's meatpuppet in this instance.

Is it so odd that Oboler, the JIDF, and myself would seem supportive of each other in theory, and on the same page about things without you alleging a Jewish conspiracy? Can you not handle the criticism without jumping to such false allegations? I never called you an anti-semite and my qualms with you originally started with your biased and unfair edits to the JIDF article.--Einsteindonut (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not alleging a "Jewish conspiracy" (and that's something else you owe me an apology for). I'm suggesting that there are enough connections between Dr. Andre Oboler and the JIDF to suggest that there may have been some shared activity between them. As regards the JIDF Wikipedia article, I would welcome comments from uninvolved parties on our respective edits. CJCurrie (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you not the same person who earlier tried to educate me about the Jewish people? Are you unaware that all Jews are "connected?" There are many jokes about this within the Jewish community (ie. playing "Jewish geography.") The JIDF shares much of Dr. Oboler's work on their site, therefore would it not seem reasonable that there would be some sort "shared activity" (however minimal) between them? I fail to comprehend the severity of whatever it is you are suggesting. Dr. Oboler was quoted in reference to the JIDF in the JPOST and on his site and the JIDF have referenced him on their site. No one is hiding these facts. If you are not alleging some sort of conspiracy, I'm not sure what it is you are trying to allege or the problems you have. --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, Einsteindonut, that your definition of Jewishness is (i) not universally agreed upon, and (ii) remarkably inappropriate for the argument you're trying to make. I'm also starting to think that there's little point in continuing this discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you have never heard of the expression "3 Jews, 4 different opinions" either. Not only is there little point in continuing this discussion, there was little point of you starting it. --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I was moved to update the article at Jcom Radio with a newpaper report that they've closed down, unable to pay the damages awarded against them in court. An apology and offer of "right to reply" was not considered adequate for their imputation of antisemism, they needed to categorically state that the allegation was false. PR^talk 19:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments welcome. CJCurrie (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

When I left a note for User:Einsteindonut at Talk:The Jewish Internet Defense Force concerning WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, she/he responded with another attack directed at User:CJCurrie. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. CJCurrie actually linked to an Inspector Gadget cartoon with the simple caption Wikipedia seems non-neutral as if it were evidence of a conspiracy by some group called the Jewish Internet Defense Force. If this is an attempt at humor it's mildly funny, although CJCurrie violates the contributory copyright infringement clause of WP:COPYRIGHT. I don't see a personal attack in Eisendonut's reply, although its general tone doesn't bode well. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The JIDF added the Inspector Gadget cartoon after I wrote my initial intervention (see above). I still think that Einsteindonut's comments here (ie. You're not the first to accuse the Jewish people of conspiracy) constitutes a rather serious personal attack. CJCurrie (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. A good reason to use a stable citation for that sort of thing. Durova^Charge! 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie wrote, "I cannot help but wonder if User:Einsteindonut is effectively acting as Oboler's meatpuppet in this instance."- I find that very interesting, considering I do not have a clue what a "meatpuppet is" but it sounds disgusting and I do not appreciate the personal attack. Regarding the accusation of "WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA" - again, I apologize. I'm new here and I am trying to tone it down and will continue to do so in the future. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A meatpuppet is Wikipedia site jargon for someone who comes to Wikipedia to back up a friend or acquaintance. It might not be the ideal term for the concept, but it isn't a personal attack--particularly when expressed as a possibility open to speculation. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I will admit that I am familiar with some of Dr. Oboler's work and support it, but I have come here on my own volition. Now that I sort of understand what it means, I am surprised that CJCurrie would use this derogatory term and associate it with Dr. Oboler in any capacity.--Einsteindonut (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not construe the term as inherently offensive. I see other reasons to be concerned here on both sides, and hope you work out your differences in a constructive manner. Suggest dispute resolution? Durova^Charge! 01:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a "meatpuppet" is never useful. It is derogatory, it dismisses a person as just being a tool of another editor, and it is so reminiscent of "sockpuppet" that it can make people forget that there are separate people involved. The concept of meatpuppets may be helpful in sorting out some disputes (not necessarily this one), but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to point at someone and say "MEATPUPPET!" Focus on the edits instead of trying to dismiss people with a label. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a point: polite wording is helpful. I doubt CJCurrie intended to get vertically challenged with anyone. If you object to an accepted site term that strongly, the place to discuss its replacement is at the relevant policy. Now I'll bow out: this place is turning into a wildlife conservation park. Durova^Charge! 22:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If an investigation is opened into this I'd require that CJCurrie's actions with respect to Zionism On The Web and myself be investigated in full. As a remedy I'd require him to restore ALL the links he removed as they were removed with malitious intent (see below on good faith). True, some of them are could be replaced by links to the original content, but citing where you see something is an acceptable practice - as third partys posted those links that is nothing to do with myself or CJCurrie and this work of his was productive - even if done for the wrong reasons and with bad intentions. This is however only a small part of what he removed. Additionally his objection that a page contains "non notable commentary" in addition to an online version of a historic document is a non argument. As long as the document is there, refering to the original content as seen at X is acceptable. There is further nothing objectionable about the content except it doesn;t meet his POV (or perhaps it does, I doubt he read it... he was after all simply trying to very rapidly remove links to Zionism On The Web under any and every pretext immaginable). In short, I utterly reject his attempt at explaining away what ammounts to vandalism of wikipedia. His characterization of Zionism On The Web as unreliable etc has also been rejected previously on his notice board - IMMEDIATELY before he went on this deletion campaign [31]. The fact that some years earlier when Zionism On The Web was still new an article was created and speedy deleted is entirely irrelevant. At that point it was non-notable and had not been refered to int he press it etc. Now it has. On the notice board at the time people even suggested that a Wikipedia page should now be added for it. The details of what CJCurrie did are here: [32] note that removing ALL references (I mean every single reference!) from Wikipedia is an attack and when we are talking over 200 references, and when those references were added over 3 years and had not been questioned in all that time... the suddenly the whole lot is removed, by an editor who was attacking the owner of the site, throwing accusation at them, etc... (all because he objected politicaly to an op-ed I had published in the press)... that is faily serious and at minimum it suggests assuming good faith about CJCurrie's edits in respect to myself would be out of place.

Further, in the article in question here I was quite open about mentioning that I was adding links to OR material I wrote that is published in a RS. My understanding is that if an editor chooses NOT to be analymous, that shouldn't preclude them from posting relevant links to their own work publish reliably else where. Given I specifically highlighted my connection to the content in my comment another editor replied on talk that it seemed perfectly acceptable. This argument of CJCurrie's insinuating that there is something with me adding a reference to publish work I have produced as an expert in the field is again an attack on me personally and one he needs to appologise for - zgain he has doen so in a thread about conspiracies etc. I asked him on his talk page to stop stalking me and to stop removing references to my work (to be clear these latest references weren't even on my site, one was a widely respected report published by a recognised and well respected think tank, the other was a press article from a well respected paper). He did not reply and continued to make dramatic changes to the article in question. Some form of investigation into CJCurrie's actions (on wikiepdia) would be welcomed. His refusal to engage in dispute resolution (not only with me but in many other cases) should also be noted. Finally trying to squeeze milage out of the CAMERA issue by throwing about conspiracy theories is a rather serious problem in an of itself. If this is motivated by things published outside Wikipedia about CJCurrie's behaviour, perhaps he should alter his behaviour or respond off line? Speaking in general, off line content about Wikipedia editors is simply not a wikipedia matter unless it directly involves a threat to the project. Highlighting abusive behavious of Wikipedia editors off wikipedia is I belive fairly common practice and could arguably be said to help improve Wikipedia. While frowned upon, even publishing the real life identity of a Wikipedia editor at an external site is not really grounds for sanction in Wikipedia. I do find it sad how those of us who are domain experts editing under our real names can be made into targets by anonymous editors who then complain if there is so much as a comment about them off site. CJCurrie's removal of Zionism On The Web content (infact, the SAME report on Antisemitism 2.0 he tried to remove here) is actually already mentioned (without naming him) in a RS [33]. Maybe I should name him in a RS? I mentioned before he got involved in this article that I have a publication being reviewed at the moment on the JIDF situation. If CJCurrie keeps this up he DOES become part o the story and there is no helping that. (Much as he might object). Oboler (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Of the diff links CJC has linked, above, I don't see any I'd strenuously object to at first glance; several of them merely replaced links to ZOTW-copied articles with links to the original articles, which seems like a no-brainer; others suggested that more reliable sources could be found, another claim which seems to be true. Have any of CJC's removals been controversial amongst Wikipedians? I'm aware I'm reading things from his side of the story -- a hand-picked set of diffs -- so figure I should give you a chance to retort. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue was that CJCurrie had a conflict with User:Oboler, who had been published on the ZionismOnTheWeb site, and subsequently went to every single article in which ZionismOnTheWeb had been linked and removed all the links, often citing different reasons for removing the links, but always coming up with some reason. For example, here he sources material to a blog, rather than ZionismOnTheWeb, here he removes a convenience link, then sources to a geocities personal website instead, repeatedly, before insisting that no convenience link is best after all. It seems odd that someone who was complaining about the quality of ZionismOnTheWeb as a source would preferentially source to geocities sites and blogs. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so I see. Thanks, Jay. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you Jayjg. Seeing like that really helps explain more. Looks like we have our answer---seems like solid evidence of a "disruption campaign" and "stalking" in this case at least. And to think that this happened to over 200 links. Seems like quite a blight on the WP project. As someone is new to all this, I'm a bit shocked that just one person could take it upon themselves to do so much damage and not have to apologize or face any sort of "sanctions?" Again, I don't know how it all works, but it's interesting to be accused of things by someone who definitely seems guilty of them himself. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The references kindly provided by User:Jayjg mostly concern the work of Ahad Ha'am, a Zionist who was shocked by the conduct of the immigrants against the natives. I can't vouch for the particular clips used, but Benny Morris quotes him in Righteous Victims p.47-48: "Ahad Ha'Am in 1891 warned that the new settlers must behave "cautiously ... [and] act with love and respect" toward Arabs. But the settlers, he wrote, finding themselves in a land "with limitless freedom," as the Turkish authorities were extremely lax, began to exhibit "a tendency to despotism as happens always when a slave turns into a master."[45. Ro'i, Ya'akov, in Hebrew, "The Relations between Rehovot and Its Arab Neighbours (1890-1914)" In HaTziyonut, edited by David Karpi, 1980, p. 165] Two years later he wrote: "The attitude of the colonists to their tenants and their families is exactly the same as towards their animals".

Sadly, we may be wholly dependent on translations from non-professionals for more of Ahad Ha'am's writings, but then we do that a lot. There is no automatic reason to doubt the integrity of Hebrew-speakers that I know of - subject to the restriction I'm about to remind everyone of.

Another of the references is to the blog "Engage", however it's only a copy of a press release by "The Association of Jewish Sixthformers". If "Engage" is a hate-site, then I'd strongly support taking it out (probably leaving a "citation needed", since the information is hardly "surprising") - but much, much worse mirror sources are used for very, very "surprising" claims, eg "Back to the Moslem terrorist's Page". That particular unpleasant and unreliable source has been repeatedly edit-warred into place into a major article (where it is quoted 3 times). I think we're entitled to see some consistency here from top administrators.

In fact, the more I look at this the more it looks like a gravely abusive on and off-wiki attempt to stalk, harass and muzzle yet another editor for entirely POV reasons.

And yes, to answer an earlier question, it is normal to ask for apologies, otherwise it will appear that an editor, brand new to the project and strongly suspected of linkage to an attack-site, is seeking to pre-emptively damage the AGF that regular editors depend upon and are entitled to expect. If this was a critic of Israel arriving and immediately setting on well-respected editors in this fashion (or indeed any other), there's not the smallest doubt that he'd have been blocked immediately. Lets see some consistency. PR^talk 09:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the PR in your name, it does stand stand for "Palestine Remembered", correct? There was an interesting piece in the Jerusalem Post about "Palestine Remembered" recently. I can see that your initials do, in fact, stand for "Palestine Remembered" according to your User Page. Furthermore, I had a look at your "talk page" and I wish I could say I was a bit shocked to see what appeared to be rationalization of the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations as well as what appeared to be a suggestion that Israel itself was involved with the hijacking with regard to Entebbe. My point here is to not bring up these topics, but to question your own neutrality on the various issues with regard to Israel and the Jewish people. --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie responds

It's amazing how much can accrue during a single a day spent offline. There's quite a lot of material to go through here, and, as I don't plan to spend an entire day on this, I'll make an effort to reign in my legendary verbosity and focus on the highlights.

First, a general comment: I'm a bit disappointed, though not surprised, that some editors have chosen to frame Wikipedia's controversies concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict in terms of "Jewish perspectives" vs. "non-Jewish perspectives". I'm disappointed by this, because I don't believe there is any single Jewish (or non-Jewish) perspective on the conflict. It's quite possible to be Jewish (or pro-Jewish) and non-Zionist, even anti-Zionist. For that matter, it's possible to be a Zionist and disapprove of the State of Israel's actions and/or its present constitutional status. The Jewish people and the State of Israel are not the same thing, and we shouldn't pretend that there's an uncomplicated link between the two.

And now to specifics. In response to User:Oboler's comments, let me state that I have never concealed the fact that I removed several links to his own "Zionismontheweb" site a while ago. I make no apology for this, and I'm not about to reverse the process now. I do not believe that ZotW generally meets the standard of a reliable source; moreover, I do not believe that the specific links that I removed were appropriate for Wikipedia (for reasons already explained above). My general motivation for removing the links was fairly simple: another editor (JzG) pointed out that they had been added to a copious number of pages, far more than the site's rather dubious notability could justify. Oboler would be correct to say that I discovered this matter during a dispute with him on another point, but I didn't remove the links out of a personal vendetta.

Let me add that Oboler's math is a bit off. There were several ZotW links on Wikipedia a few months ago, but there's no way the number was over 200, as he has claimed.

Oboler is correct that my characterization of ZotW met with objections before I started deleting links to the site, but he neglects to mention that he himself was the only person to raise these objections (apart from what I've already described as an uncharacteristically tepid response from Jayjg). He also neglects to mention that he's raised this matter in several other forums, generally without receiving much support. Jayjg has more recently objected to the removal of some specific links, but I don't believe he's championed a "right of return" for all.

On another matter, I find these comments from Oboler somewhat troubling ...

Speaking in general, off line content about Wikipedia editors is simply not a wikipedia matter unless it directly involves a threat to the project. Highlighting abusive behavious of Wikipedia editors off wikipedia is I belive fairly common practice and could arguably be said to help improve Wikipedia. While frowned upon, even publishing the real life identity of a Wikipedia editor at an external site is not really grounds for sanction in Wikipedia. I do find it sad how those of us who are domain experts editing under our real names can be made into targets by anonymous editors who then complain if there is so much as a comment about them off site. CJCurrie's removal of Zionism On The Web content (infact, the SAME report on Antisemitism 2.0 he tried to remove here) is actually already mentioned (without naming him) in a RS. Maybe I should name him in a RS? I mentioned before he got involved in this article that I have a publication being reviewed at the moment on the JIDF situation. If CJCurrie keeps this up he DOES become part o the story and there is no helping that. (Much as he might object).

It's possible I'm misreading some nuance or other here, but this almost seems like a threat (possibly to reveal my real-life identity, possibly to do something else). Given that Oboler has recently contacted one of my most frequent on-Wiki opponents about his academic projects, I can't help but wonder if I should be concerned.

It should go without saying that revealing someone's identity is seriously frowned upon, and I believe it could result in on-Wiki consequences depending on the circumstances. (Side note: Odd as this may sound in light of what they've said about me, I'll actually credit the JIDF for removing their "real-life" speculations -- they didn't get the information right in the first place, but it's the thought that counts.)

Let me be clear on this point: Oboler has every right to criticize the on-Wiki actions of "CJCurrie" if he wants to. I'm quite capable of responding in kind, and I won't claim any sort of exemption from criticism. I notice that Oboler referred to me as an "activist" in the newspaper article that he referenced above. That's fine too -- I may or may not agree with his assessment, but it's fair public comment. However, he emphatically does not have the right to reveal my identity (if he knows it), nor does he have the right to make defamatory remarks about me. (I'd also like to think that he's above including personal disputes about his own website in a serious academic paper, but that's another matter.)

In response to Jayjg:

(i) Regarding the Ahad Ha'am situation, let me first say that ZotW has done its readers a useful service by providing an online transcription of "Jewish State, Jewish Problem". The only problem is that they've also tacked on a non-notable and partisan essay at the start of the piece, which is hardly suitable for us to use as an external reference.

Consider for instance the following lines:

However, Achad Ha'am's historical view both of the settlement movement and of the future of political Zionism were incorrect:

It needs not an independent State, but only the creation in its native land of conditions favorable to its development: a good-sized settlement of Jews working without hindrance [1] in every branch of culture, from agriculture and handicrafts to science and literature. This Jewish settlement, which will be a gradual growth, will become in course of time the centre of the nation, wherein its spirit will find pure expression and develop in all its aspects up to the highest degree of perfection of which it is capable.

The British Mandate ban on Jewish immigration and settlement in 1939 was to prove precisely that only an independent state could provide the the Jews with the ability to work without hindrance in Palestine. Herzl too was proven wrong, since the ban on immigration and settlement was imposed despite the very völkerrechtlich, legally recognized mandate to create a Jewish national home. However, it was not Achad Ha'am whose ideas were vindicated but rather the practical Zionists who believed in settling the land, regardless of laws. (source: [34])

This strikes me as a less than neutral, and possibly less than objective overview of Ahad Ha'am contested legacy. For us to give "authoritative" status to this essay is not appropriate.

That being said, it occurs to me that we may be closer to a mutually agreeable compromise than we originally thought. If someone is willing to transcribe ZotW's copy of "Jewish State, Jewish Problem" to Wikisource -- with proper credit, but without the introductory essay -- then I'd have no problem including it as a convenience link.

Would this be agreeable?

(ii) As I've said before, I don't think the AJ6 information is vital to Academic boycotts of Israel. AJ6 are sixth-formers, the proposed boycott was primarily focused on universities, and we're already including a fair bit of criticism from other sources. My decision to link to "Engage" was clearly a mistake, for which I apologize. My intent was to provide an alternate link, that would allow us to focus on the relevance of the AJ6 document and not get caught up in the "ZotW" side issue. I didn't realize the specific nature of the site, and I can guarantee I won't link to it again.

On a related note, I wasn't aware until fairly recently that GeoCities was considered a dubious source. (Not all of us have PhDs in Computer Science, you know.)

To Durova: Unfortunately, there was no stable Google cache that I could link to at the time.

One last comment to Einsteindonut: PR has stated in the past that his name is not taken from the Palestine Remembered website. Also, you still owe me an apology. CJCurrie (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie said, it's quite possible to be Jewish (or pro-Jewish) and non-Zionist, even anti-Zionist. -Yes, this is true, however, it is extremely rare, and those who claim that status (ie. the Neturei Karta) are typically part of a fringe minority. The vast majority of Jews and friends of the Jewish people are strong supporters of Israel in general. It is very common tactic for the enemies of both Israel and the Jewish people to try to say that they have no problem with Jews or Judaism, but just "Zionism." However, "Zionism" is just a relatively new term for a concept which is an inherent part of Judaism itself and has been for thousands of years. Therefore, when people attack the general nature of "Zionism," people are very much attacking Judaism and the Jewish people (whether these are Jews or people who claim to be friends of Jews or not.) You also said, The Jewish people and the State of Israel are not the same thing, and we shouldn't pretend that there's an uncomplicated link between the two. However, no one with knowledge of history with regard to the Jewish people can deny their inherent ties to The Holy Land. Furthermore, anything that happens on the Land has a ripple effect among all Jews (even those of us in the Galut.) This is proven even by non-Jewish obsession with all the activities there. There are many other countries throughout the world doing far more evil than Israel, yet Israel is by far the one which is under the microscope the most. However, it seems to be a malfunctioning microscope--since all these "anti-Zionists" are very quick to exaggerate all in which they feel is wrong with the Holy Land, while completely ignoring all the good (and there is a lot of it.)

Regarding PR's name, I didn't say it was "taken" from that website. I also do not believe in coincidences. Furthermore, I disagree regarding owing you an apology. If the consensus thinks I did something wrong with regard to you, and can explain it to me sufficiently, then I am willing to consider it. However, in light of all that I have seen you do, I cannot assume good faith and feel I owe you nothing and believe that Wikipedia should consider an investigation (if that is what is done) with regard to much of what I have learned about you, as your actions with regard to certain people and topics seem antagonistic to the general spirit of Wikipedia.--Einsteindonut (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeping score or demanding and refusing apologies back and forth rarely ends well; might it be time to consider a nice cup of tea and a sit down, or perhaps a breather, instead? Not suggesting I want either of you to drop out of the dispute, by any means, but I'm concerned with increasingly stressed tones in the dialogue. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a formal complaint against CJCurrie for the following remark which I take as deeply offensive for my own reputation on wiki:

'I'll make an effort to reign (sic!) in my legendary verbosity.'

If some admin could sanction CJCurrie for this splendide mendax attempt at trumping me, I would be deeply appreciative.

As for Einsteindonut, in his last post he brandishes an appalling ignorance of the complexity of Jewish identity, especially in remarking

'CJCurrie said, it's quite possible to be Jewish (or pro-Jewish) and non-Zionist, even anti-Zionist. -Yes, this is true, however, it is extremely rare, and those who claim that status (ie. the Neturei Karta) are typically part of a fringe minority.

If this presumption by several posters, representing fringe positions themselves based on ethnically-defined politics, to represent themselves as spokesman for a nigh unanimous community, takes root in wiki, and in the present case, in I/P articles, we are in serious trouble indeed. Please note,Einsteindonut and Dr Oboler, the following, one of several dozen quotes one could provide on the issue of Jewish identity, and one widely shared by Jewish intellectuals otherwise regarded as reliable sources in Wiki.

'What exactly could 'being Jewish' mean in the 1920s to an intelligent Anglo-Viennese boy who suffered no anti-Semitism and was so remote from the practices and beliefs of traditional Judaism that, until after puberty, he was unaware even of being circumcised? Perhaps only this: that sometime around the age of ten I acquired a simple principle from my mother on a now forgotten occasion when I must have reported, or perhaps even repeated, some negative observation of an uncle's behaviour as 'typically Jewish'. She told me very firmly: 'You must never do anything, or seem to do anything that might suggest you are ashamed of being a Jew'.

I have tried to observe it ever since, although the strain of doing so is sometimes almost intolerable, in the light of the behaviour of the government of Israel. . .It has been enough to define my Judaism ever since, and left me free to live as what my friend the late Isaac Deutscher called a non-Jewish Jew, but not what the miscellaneous regiment of religious or nationalist publicists call a 'self-hating Jew'. I have no emotional obligation to the practices of an ancestral religion and even less to the small, militarist, culturally disappointing and politically aggressive nation-state which asks for my solidarity on racial grounds. I do not even have to fit in with the most fashionable posture of the turn of the new century, that of 'the victim', the Jew who, on the strength of the Shoah (and in the era of unique and unprecedented Jewish world achievement, success and public acceptance), asserts unique claims on the world's conscience as a victim of persecution. Right and wrong, justice and injustice, do not wear ethnic badges or wave national flags. I observe that, if there is any justification for the claim that the 0.25 per cent of the global populatioon in the year 2000 which constitute the tribe into which I was born are a 'chosen' or special people, it rests not on what it has done within the ghettos or special territories, self-chosen or imposed by others, past, present or future. It rests on its quite disproportionate and remarkable contribution to humanity in the wider world, mainly in the two centuries or so since the Jews were allowed to leave the ghettos, and chose to do so. We are, to quote the title of the book of my friend Richard Marienstras, Polish Jew, French Resistance fighter, defender of Yiddish culture and his country's chief expert on Shakespeare, un peuple en diaspora. We shall, in all probability, remain so. And if we make the thought experiment of supposing that Herzl's dream came true and all Jews ended up in a small independent territorial state which excluded from full citizenship all who were not the sons of Jewish mothers, it would be a bad day for the rest of humanity - and for the Jews themselves' Eric Hobsbawm,Interesting Times(2002) Abacus Books, London 2003 pp.24-5 Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

not sure what that has to do with the price of beans, but Jewish marxists with no interest in mitzvot is nothing new and empathy for everyone but their own (with whom they foster mostly resentment and disrespect) is nothing new. i'd be very interested to know how much Hobsbawm knows of Judaism itself. if he is considered a "reliable source" on wikipedia, then i'm very happy to be here as i'd imagine this place needs more reliable sources who are not marxists (by the way, Karl Marx is widely regarded as a Jewish anti-semite.)--Einsteindonut (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody isn't happy about their article - block-worthy COI?

An IP altered references relating to a court case in Kevin Sullivan (producer) to make them invalid. WHOIS says that the IP belongs to "sullivan-ent.com". This relates to a previous incident involving legal threats (or maybe implied quasi-legal invocations) to remove similar links. Sullivanmovies (talk · contribs), Mschwartz311 (talk · contribs), and 64.119.97.178 (talk · contribs) (the IP in question) appear to be related accounts. This seems like a more under-handed way of accomplishing what they failed to do the first time around. Discuss. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not a death threat, not surely some admin cares about blatant WP:COI and harmful editing enough to deal with this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest aren't blockable. Spamming is, and a variety of bad-faith actions are as well, but editing in areas related to you dis discouraged, not disallowed. WilyD 18:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Deliberately editing links so that people won't retrieve information about a lawsuit involving your company isn't block-worthy? It's hardly constructive editing. If I'm alone in thinking that this is an egregious edit, I'll let it drop. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Forget the COI, isn't altering the urls just plain old blockable vandalism? Gamaliel (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's worse than blockable vandalism: it has explicitly malicious intent. It's the difference between stealing a street sign and rearranging stop signs.
Kww (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks like vandalism to me. Preventative measures should probably be taken. RFerreira (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Warn the IP for vandalism, block it if it continues. Keep the relevant pages watchlisted and deal with any other IPs or accounts that pop up..._Gb^T/c 18:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Blockable vandalism, certainly; and a side order of sockpuppetry on all their socks? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Some fairly template-y warnings have been issued. Mschwartz is probably the IP address, Sullivan may or may not be. WilyD 19:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

By some warnings, it looks like you mean one, and not to the IP who made the edit. In addition to the aforementioned edit, I've discovered that after the last appearance at AN/I fixed the article up, User:Sullivanmovies made this edit which conflated a Canadian lawsuit with what appears to be a separate Japanese lawsuit. I can only assume after today's edit that this was also done to intentionally mislead. The edit summary was "Added result of lawsuit for the sake of balance" and it followed immediately after the mention of the Canadian suit. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sullivanmovies has two, and the IP has three. IPs often don't get messages, especially if they're jumpin' around or whatnot. He certainly seems to have some formatting problems (everything written is formatted badly). Anyways, barring further action on his part, there's nothing to do, and if he resumes blanking/mangling things without discussion, we can always force some. Otherwise, there's nothing to do. WilyD 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why you're soft-pedalling this, but the only warning related to today's issue appears to be the one you left regarding the user's name, not their edits. Can someone step up here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In this edit, Mschwartz311 (talk · contribs) made a very similar deliberate link-breaking change as the one detailed above, in Anne of Green Gables (1985 film) a related article. Can someone start handing out blocks, please? See the previous AN/I thread about these articles - there's a nasty pattern here and these articles will need a close looking at. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting this issue at WP:COIN might be another option, since that's a good place to track slow-moving bad edits related to COI. Removals of text by COI-affected people that claim to be BLP-justified can also be reported at COIN, like the removal mentioned in the AN/I thread above. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The COI is the motivation for what are clearly unacceptable edits, but I was hoping someone would act based on those edits. I'll take it to COIN (and SPP) tomorrow if there's no action by then. Thanks for the suggestion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now got some pure and simple copyvio to add to that, in case anyone is following this thread. User:Mschwartz311 cut and pasted straight from www.sullivanboutique.com into Anne of Avonlea (1987 film). Take note of the domain name. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Block review requested

Resolved

 – Block endorsed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just blocked Dsegal58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for disruptive editing and constant violations of NPOV on United States twenty-dollar bill. The editors only mainspace edits are to this page and Criticism of Wikipedia. I welcome a review of this block since a perusal of the editor's talk page leads me to believe that they will protest this block vehemently. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a sound block to me. _Gb^T/c 19:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with this block. I don't know if reading WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RS would help them. There's nothing untowards about getting critical, sourced PoVs into an article but this. is. not. the. way. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely blockworthy, but you might want to reduce it to a week or two. I'm not sure if the activity calls for indef.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Along that very line, I was kind of hinting, that if the user is willing to settle down and cite some sources, indef is not forever. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Support indef block, it looks like the user is here to push an agenda. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

←Would someone mind responding to a quasi-unblock not in the unblock template request posted on the user's talk page? It seems as though he's a college professor and on his website he's made his position quite clear. His remarks on the user talk page after the block and what he sent to me in an e-mail that I'm not going to respond to (so he doesn't get my e-mail address) leads me to believe that he doesn't and will never understand why what he did was inappropriate. Also, these edit summaries say quite enough: [35], [36]. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and properly formatted an unblock request there, so admin review is again requested. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is resolved - the block's been endorsed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked that this professor be unblocked so I can discuss a new way of dispute resolution. This is certainly not the best first test case but I wish to start. Reblocking can occur in a few days if I am not successful. 903M (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly out of the ordinary (not sure if it's acceptable to use an unblock tag on behalf of another either). But, why can't this 'new way of dispute resolution' be attempted through email and on his talk page? The block was specifically to prevent damage on the encyclopedia itself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This cannot be done through e-mail because this new method, called the provisional editorial council, doesn't operate in secret. Everything is in the open and above board. Anyway, the unblock request has been denied as is very common so this dispute resolution type technique will have to find another qualifying user. 903M (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Blanked, protected user talk page

This is an extreme and obvious case of soapboxing and unblock abuse. This individual does not seem to operate in a manner which is compatible with Wikipedia policy or community. I've wiped the talk page and protected it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: East.718 asked if it was ok to unprotect the page and try to continue dialoging with the professor. I have no objection to that, I doubt it will succeed but if he's willing to put the effort in... If that fails, however, it's probably best to re-protect and walk away from the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's ok to unprotect the page and try to talk with him but I wouldn't think an unblock would be at all helpful until this user has acknowledged an understanding of Wikipedia policies, that any expertise one brings to this topic would have to do with knowing the reliable sources and citing them and has said in a straightforward way that the behaviour which led to his block will not happen again. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Skipsievert

Skipsievert (talk · contribs) is causing a disruption on two articles: Adam Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and History of economic thought (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He has changed a sentence relating to Adam Smith 10 times over the course of the last three days[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. He has done this after a consensus was reached that sentence in question was correct as is. He has also attacked other editors' sourcing [47][48][49]. He has also called anybody that disagrees with him an libertarian, which I consider to be a very grave insult but I don't believe there a policy about that. Multiple editors have said why they disagree with him but so far it has done nothing and he continues to be disruptive. Thanks --Patrick (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• (Caveat emptor: I'm not involved, but I'm not an admin) Looking at the diffs, the talk pages and the article history, I can say that this is an example of someone pushing a POV in a semi-disruptive manner. The basic content dispute is understandable and simple: do we consider smith the father of economics given the fact that A: what smith wrote on was rightly called political economy and B: economic thought in some sense predates smith. That is a valid discussion to have and there are mainstream views on either side of the issue (it really isn't that heterodox to suggest that economic and semi-economic thought predated smith in a significant fashion). But the content dispute is just the impetus, not the issue. The issue appears to be a refusal to seek consensus, a willingness to reinsert disputed material and a habit of ignoring attempts at reasonable discussion. This is the sort of activity on an article or topic that soaks up time, effort and goodwill. This isn't a new user and he has been blocked for this sort of thing before. I don't see any reason to offer a whole lot of leeway this time. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• It is a content dispute... also... I did not call everyone that disagreed with me a Libertarian... so that is not correct, and if any thing I would say that Patrick Flaherty is the party that should be looked at here. This is not an issue about me, it is an issue about content. I would add that the person above Patrick Flaherty violated the 3 edit change rule today... and I have not. . and have tried to make all changes a matter of debate. I have tried to present good material in an impartial light. Also the accusation is not true. I have mentioned that Patrick Flarety is a Libertarian (in context) because he has brought attention to that on his talk page recently calling himself a conservative libertarian. Since the article has been tried to be biased toward that view point (in my opinion).. I thought it should be pointed out openly... not in any kind of attacking manner... just honestly. The discussion has also been mixed, and contrary to the opinion above the edit has not gotten consensus. Consensus has been trying to be worked through... however the editor above automatically reverts... multiple exceeding times, and does not try to gain cooperation... the person Patrick Flaherty. I have tried patiently to work toward consensus, and am willing to keep doing that. skip sievert (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• The 3RR bit seems like wikilawyering to me. I wouldn't describe your actions as anything resembling patient. This can easily become a non-issue if you decide to bring sources and drafts to the talk page rather than reverting edits by other people in order to insert unreferenced claims. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why bring out some old mistakes made that have nothing to do with this situation? Why build a case against me personally when this is a content dispute? One that I am willing to be flexible in? I think it should become a non issue... but I am afraid politics has been injected into this now. I did not make up the rule of 3 revert... and accusing me of wiki lawyering in this manner here could be viewed as inflammatory. Another user pointed out to Patrick Flaherty on his talk page about this ... not me... another editor. This issue has little to nothing to do with me as guilty party and everything to do with a lack of cooperation on the article and perhaps a sense of ownership on another's part. How is it that it has been pointed out merely that Patrick Flaherty violated the 3 revert rule and that is somehow turned against me? Careful examination of the history will show that I have tried to cooperate and be flexible. I did bring sources and drafts... It is pretty obvious that you have not followed what has happened on the talk page, Protonk. It may be a good idea for any interested parties who are trying to sort through this to look at the entire lower part of the Talk section page on the article relating to Smith as father for a comprehensive feel for the current discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adam_Smith and the entire article revert history. Adam Smith.Thank you. skip sievert (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can't prove to you that I read the Adam Smith talk page, but I did. I saw a half dozen editors asking you to source a contribution you made to an article and most of what I saw in response was your disdain for the sourcing in the article currently. The same pattern occurs in the article history. You insert roughly the same material each time and editors revert those unsourced insertions with new and better sources for the original claim. If you want to cooperate it is as easy as saying "ok, let's compromise, here is what I think the page should say" and providing sources for your claim. Looking at the talk pages I see you making claims and then accusing editors who disagree with you of anything from dishonesty to incompetence. That is why this matter has been raised at AN/I. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Accusing editors of dishonesty and incompetence? No... that is not true. Pointing out contrary information... that could be viewed as connected and informative... The above is a personal attack. Please stop. It is not true. quote Protonk I see you making claims and then accusing editors who disagree with you of anything from dishonesty to incompetence. That is a personal attack ... plain and simple. This is a content dispute. I have not attacked any one... and feel ganged up on here. Lay off the personal attacks. I am making a protest about this thread in general being used to gang up on a user. Myself... with personal attacks that do not reflect the actual argument here. skip sievert (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Patrick's summary is fairly accurate - skip is denying any suggestion that Smith is the father of economics (which may well be a defensible position), while other editors are saying that he is widely considered to be the "father of economics", or the "father of modern economics", and while that in itself may be slightly weaselly it is exceedingly easy to change that to "economists such as Economist A{cite}, Economist B{cite}, Economist C{cite}, ..., Economist Z{cite} consider Smith to be ...", and I'm sure some of the editors on the topic would have the expertise to say which of the several hundred Google Scholar/Books results would be considered the most reliable on the topic. Skip's use of "libertarian" to dismiss the opinion of everyone who disagrees with him is also exceedingly un-WP:CIVIL, if not a traditional insult. I haven't looked at the bilateral claims of 3RR, but I'm sure an admin can work out what to do with that fairly quickly. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe he is referring to the three reverts that I made this morning in response to his three reverts. [50][51][52] He has been reverted multiple times by 4 other editors so any claims that it is a personal dispute is incorrect as the links in my first statement shows. --Patrick (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that interested parties go to the page in question for the edit history. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=232418441

In connection with the current situation the user said in a response that he is a conservative Libertarian on his talk page in context to what was happening. I just mentioned that the article was slanting that way. Does that make me guilty of something. I was not uncivil... when an article is not neutral it should be pointed out. Besides... this is not a pattern. I have not made a big deal about this except as it relates to content in this particular situation and it is being brought out here like I am against all Libertarians. Whether he is or is not I do not even care.. but the article edits were reflecting libertarian bias and I pointed that out. That is not an insult... I agree here with user ConMan that this is a simple edit dispute that could have been worked out easily and still can be just by neutrally editing the phrase. That seems simple. Could it be neutrally phrased and that will be that. Lets just not call him the father please... originator of this and that or progenitor is fine though, although there are elements in the sentence that are inaccurate also. Pardon me about the libertarian thing... but I think this is blown out of proportion... mostly as an excuse to point the finger at me instead of the content of the issue skip sievert (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Just a comment on the dispute. We are not saying that Smith is the father. We are saying that he is wildly considered the father of economics. The reference we have used is a study that states that the majority of the books claim that he is the father. I really believe he is the uncle of economics but that doesn't matter since I can't source it. --Patrick (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith is not considered to be the father. Many people considered Saddam to be behind 911, but that does not mean it should be presented as possible fact. Since this content dispute can be cleared up easily why was it brought here in the first place..?. so please do not be flippant Patrick about this issue... since you have accused me of being disruptive, which I do not think is accurate. I agree here with user ConMan that this is a simple edit dispute that could have been worked out easily and still can be just by neutrally editing the phrase. That seems simple. Could it be neutrally phrased and that will be that. I also think that this entire process was phrased to inflame... Skip Sievert disruptive editor seems to be titled to bring ill feeling and malice toward my self... which I think is not deserved. Could someone change the title here? Is this really a good title that should have been used... or is the person that brought this here making a point that is not justified? Coming here is a little like the when did you stop beating your wife syndrome with a title like that. I request that it be changed. It is inflammatory and phrased guilt into itself. Whether or not this was done on purpose... is it really called for? It looks to me that this is vindictive phrasing and I protest. This is a simple content dispute. skip sievert (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that curious parties go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adam_Smith#Rewrite_of_lead Talk:Adam Smith, for an example of how the article lead is being sourced. The disputed content was given a citation http://mises.org/story/367 Founding Father of Economics - Jim Christie - Mises Institute, which claims that not only Adam Smith is not the father of economics, but someone else... is for sure. Is that proper editing.?.. putting a citation to an article that says just the opposite of the content line, that is claimed... and also a very iffy political/economic//Austrian school/ site? Why has that not been reverted... and why was that put on to prove that Smith is the father of economics when it clearly is saying just the opposite that he is not the father of economics? This may be a perfect illustration of what is happening in the article currently. If someone experienced and neutral could redo that section this could be over and resolved.skip sievert (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of that source is "Adam Smith is widely regarded as the father of modern economics." As I've pointed out many times before, the point isn't whether or not Adam Smith is the father of economics. The point is that he is widely regarded as such. Verifiability not truth remember. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you rephrase what this content conflict is about... maybe you should have mentioned that here, since you have defended the previous edit so strongly. Here is the change you just made Frank Tobia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Smith&diff=232821341&oldid=232820016

Adam Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've been involved in this issue for a few days now, and I think the above is a pretty accurate representation of it. Personally I'd say it doesn't look like Skip shows any signs of working amicably with the group on these articles. I personally have tried to give him every opportunity to collaborate, but he keeps giving back the same unyielding responses. As it is, this dispute is taking up valuable effort that would be better spent improving these articles. What is the next step we should take if Skip continues his disruptive behavior? Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Frank. Remember (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but the source you used is conflicted. Trying to prove a negative and reference the page with something that says the opposite viewpoint entirely is not a good argument. Is it considered disruptive to contribute to a talk page? I am being railroaded here by a couple users. Also you just changed the edit in question to read another way.. without bringing that up here... and continue to make this a personality issue attacking me for trying to be neutral. Your new edit to the page.. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Smith&diff=232821341&oldid=232820016 Adam Smith. How is it that after all of this you changed the content to read very differently? Because it needed it I am guessing. skip sievert (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been timid about participating here because Skip & I have had heated exchanges on several topics and articles, besides those in question here. I do think Patrick's summary captures what's been happening. There's consensus but Skip repeatedly changes the article in spite of that. While he's done a little refactoring and has claimed he didn't mean to accuse me of dishonesty, several of his comments very strongly appear to accuse me of "faking" references. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics has nothing to do with this. That article has been completely done recently. Mostly at my direction. It looks pretty good now. This is not a blog for attacking other users. This is a content dispute about Adam Smith that is probably resolved now because the worst part of the edit has been redone...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Smith&diff=232821341&oldid=232820016 Adam Smith, you cretog came to my site and harassed me early on... and I asked you to stop. Rembember? You called me a kook? Statements like that, to be frank, make you sound like a kook, even if you're right. end quote cretog skip sievert (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:ONUS and WP:PROVEIT, also WP:BRD (with the emphasis on the D). The onus is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion of disputed content. People here are not interested in arguing the rights and wrongs of the edit, which is (rightly) decided by discussion on the article's talk page; people here are looking at your behaviour and seeing disruption. Bearers of WP:TRUTH are not exempt from editing guidelines, so either drop it or wait until you have persuaded others. And bear in mind that if the attempt to persuade goes on too long then that, too, may be considered disruptive. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok Guy. I will go by what you say. I very much respect your opinion. skip sievert (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting User:Justinesmith for being an account that I believe is being used for the sole purpose of promoting a company.

Resolved

 – self-promo article in Afd. No other action necessary at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that User:Justinesmith is an account that exists for the sole purpose of promoting a company called Sterling Bancroft International (this article is undergoing an AFD discussion, at the time of writing). I believe this because the account's creation of the article about the company is the sole edit this account has committed, and that edit was done back in June. The evidence of this can be found here: [53]. I would also like to note that the CEO of the company, according to the article, is Justin Evan Smith, which is very similar to User:Justinesmith. I have referred this account to this noticeboard because WP:Blocking policy suggests "accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines" should be considered for a block. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

perhaps we should wait till the article is deleted at AfD, as seems rather likely. DGG (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why? If I am going to come across as someone who thinks they know more about Wikipedia procedure than an admin, I apologise, as I do not think that. I believe that an account which seems to exist for the sole purpose of promoting a company, is an an account which seems to exist for the sole purpose of promoting a company, regardless of whether the article it created is deleted or not. I believe this because the edit history of the account does suggest that it has such a sole purpose, and that evidence, imo, is independent of the fate of the article it created. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, 1 edit creating a relatively innocuous promo article about his company is hardly reason for blocking. We usually issue a warning (or 4) first. I went ahead and politely warned the user, which is what you should have done rather than bringing it here. Toddst1 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for bringing it here. I was under the impression that any account which appears to exist for the sole purpose of promoting a company should be reported to the admins, regardless of how many times the account has promoted the company. Thank you for the speedy resolution. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My first 1/2 dozen edits were to the same single article, and here I am more than a thousand edits later to hundreds of articles ... the username in question is not obviously related to the article in question. Let's wait it out, as it's not obvious ATM. BMW(drive) 18:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I take that back. Username is promotional ... head of the business is Justin E. Smith (Justinesmith). My bad. BMW(drive) 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:I didn't push her

User:I didn't push her has left spam edit summaries on over 100 pages. [54]

This user was blocked but all of the bold, in-your-face, summaries are in the edit history. The summaries also insult a Wikipedia user. Can an admin delete these edits? -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, but bear in mind that a few dozen cycles of deleting, checking, and undeleting is a lot of effort for admin and server, and only invites further disruption of a similar nature. The particular user targeted here seems to have a healthy sense of humor about this. Possibly you could contact WP:OVERSIGHT about this. Open to second opinions, of course. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I actully wondered about that earlier when the other person was doing the same thing. The only real reason to delete them would be to protect those whou hadn't bother installing an anti-virus program on their computer and decided they had to vist the site. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not people have anti-virus software isn't really important; The fact still remains that these edit summaries are dangerous and purely malicious. I've only seen deletions (and their policies) concerning the content of the article itself, not the edit summary. It's quite literally a different layer we're looking at. Same ballgame, different field. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears this user is still at it. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• User talk:ZapThunderstrike [55]
• User talk:Cyanoa Crylate [56]
•  Done See below. Thatcher 23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

SOAExpert1 Wikistalking

• SOAExpert1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

A brand-new editor with a username that suggests he may be one of the editors blocked for advertising in List of SOA related products and Service-oriented architecture, is now reverting my edits, including restoring some BLP violations. --Ronz (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like SOAExpert1 stopped after being warned. --Ronz (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, let me know which if any of the spam domains were spammed in spite of multiple warnings and I will investigate them more closely. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• 206.53.144.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) has been warned for doing the same. This appears to be one of the blocked editors from List of SOA related products and Service-oriented architecture. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz is vandalizing pages by removing legitimate links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.102.177 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

68.175.102.177 is blocked for vandalism.

• 206.53.144.59  (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) another - WP:SPA - warned. --Ronz (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• 206.53.144.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) another - WP:SPA - warned. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult free world strikes again

After a long absence (following two blocks, see

this and

this,

User:Cult free world has returned to his same disruptive editing patterns as before (i.e., making non-consensus unilateral changes to an article here, here, here and here;

name-calling here and here).

Multiple editors have repeatedly tried to engage him in meaningful discussion but he reverts to name-calling and stubbornly refuses to discuss content or compromise (as he did before, because of which he was blocked).

The last time he was blocked, the consensus was that if he returned with his same editing patterns, he would either be indefinitely banned or topic-banned from "new religious movements" article pages - Please see this.

His recent edits are in direct contradiction to previous consensus and it appears he has no intention of making meaningful contributions to Wikipedia (indeed, even his user talk page is blocked because of unblock request abuse). He has been warned regarding vandalism and he just removes the warning (see this).

Please, can someone put an end to this?

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can the member's of the sahaj marg cult (Renee, Marathi Mulga, Sethie, Embhee and duty2love) point out what is the problem with the edits ??? any WP:RS or any other policy violation, or is it they have some personal vendatta against me, which they are demonstrating elsewhere on web and are atking it on wikipedia as well ?--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Admins, Please help us out here. The user "cult free world/talk-to-me" has now violated 3RR here, refuses to engage in discussion (and indeed, these issues have been discussed over and over again, please see User:Embhee's note here where he lists various threads where the items Cult is changing where discussed in depth. He engages in repeated incivility, calling anyone who disagrees with him a "cult member" (see above).

Most importantly, please see this, which shows a history of repeated disruption of Wiki. Please see his talk page here, which shows a complete unwillingness to "get it." Renee (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Todd (User:Toddst1) for addressing Cult Free World (User:Cult free world). The change he did here significantly differs from what has been agreed upon by all editors of the page here, the contents of which has remained relatively stable and acceptable by all editors and users over the past several months, if you look at the history. All the changes mentioned by Cult Free World have been discussed many times over and he has been told that if he doesn't agree then we can to go to mediation, but he refuses and keeps engaging in edit-warring.

Last time Cult Free World was on the ANI board, I understood that he would be permanently blocked if he returned to his old ways as he has here. Please refer to this discussion here, that happened last time when we had this similar issue. Embhee (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Block extended to indef

I'm unsure of the procedure here, so apologies if I've stepped on anyone's toes. I've extended User:Cult free world's block to indefinite. Based on the account's edit history, and the previous ANI discussion linked above, I see no reason to afford this disruptive editor any more 'last chances'. I've also removed User:Toddst1's {{resolved}} notice, since others may wish to comment. EyeSerene^talk 19:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my statement in the previous discussion. The project's better off without editors who push an agenda in article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not for everyone. Cult free world is one of those for whom it is not. Every single edit seems to have stirred up a shitstorm. I am seriously unsympathetic to cults, this one made opposing cultcruft considerably harder. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Block endorsed, per Wildthing and Guy. Way too many chances ... looking at the history, I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner. Blueboy96 20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• I have tried working with this user patiently for a long time but with little success. His behavior was very much like 2 previous users who got blocked permanently for similar reasons, this sock report ended concluding just short of that. So, perfectly right decision! Duty2love (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Atul Aarohi

Resolved

 – Pages deleted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not sure, but I believe that this is the right place to air my concerns. This user has been using his account for personal purposes. Let me explain. If you notice his contributions, the first thing that one would notice is that he has contributed primarily on his user page. This may seemingly not be a potential issue, but look at his first contribution. It says the following: This wiki page will be used to communicate project status to all Aarohi members.

This appears to me that the user is utilizing his user space for personal reasons (commercial/non-commercial). I believe that his talk page corroborates my thoughts. I felt that this behavior is not expected here on wikipedia when funds are being donated for storage servers. Does anyone echo with my concern and possibly suggest what could be the next steps? Thank you. Mspraveen (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I see currently, there is nothing to judge by yet. We are not desperately in need to save every kB of webspace, so I advise patience. You should leave the user a note, echoing your concerns and leaving them a link to WP:UP#NOT for now. If he/she ignores it and really starts using the user page as a web page devoid of any Wikipedia related content then I think we can do something. No need to do something now as there is currently nothing happening yet. Regards SoWhy 07:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I was about to heed to your advise and write to him on his talk page when I see that his user page and talk page have been deleted. I wonder what happened here. Mspraveen (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I just noticed that an admin deleted both these pages. Mspraveen (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's right - Wikipedia is not a free message board or anything of that sort. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone also delete User:Aarohi ihp sus, which seems to have the same or similar content? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this BLP violation?

Resolved

 – Matilda ^talk 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Merbabu made these remarks in the talk page of John Howard. In reference to Mahathir, quote "ramblings ...refactor here too Matilda ^talk 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC) past." The whole conversation can be folowed at here. I wanted to remove it myself and notify him as I thought it violates WP:BLP but decided to let administrators decide. Thanks. Docku^Hi 15:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP concerns will have a better chance to be addressed by these who are monitoring WP:BLP/N. Consider posting a notice there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but i wonder if it is needed that admin Toddst1 already acted upon it. Thanks. Docku^Hi 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think refactoring was more appropriate rather than removal of all comment--Matilda ^talk 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick image help

Image:Tornado sm010.jpg I think this image is suspect. A lot of User:Pensil's uploads have been copyright violations and he has had a lot of his images deleted. Could an admin (or anyone else erudite with images) take a quick look into this and see if it is actually self-made? He's been warned many times, according to his talk, for copyright violations. Any help much appreciated, thanks. Utan Vax (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture is from Georgia (thought the plates were Ontario at first, but trucks/vans are black lettering with AA# ###, and this one is AAA ###). Someone else can check image tags I hope. BMW(drive) 17:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image comes complete with EXIF data, which I doubt it would have if lifted from elsewhere. Looks OK to me. Nothing lookee-likee on Google images so I'd guess it's OK. Would be better on Commons, however. --Rodhullandemu 19:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please delete ...

Please delete Image:Helloyo.jpg and block the uploader. NOT WORK SAFE!! Corvus cornix_talk 21:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. It appears that the account was compromised, it had no edits since 2007, and all the edits I checked before it's recent spree seemed fine. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question from a n00b admin... Should I unblock account creation and remove the autoblock? I don't know what the standard procedure for compromised accounts is. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, your block was correct. If it was truly compromised, the autoblock will prevent whoever gained control of the account from creating new ones and/or using other compromised accounts. - auburnpilot talk 22:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW J.delanoy ... congrats on being an admin :-) BMW(drive) 22:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just spam

no comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.95.112 (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's probably just as well. Corvus cornix_talk 21:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

High speed serial reverters Rolecourt 456 and Rvt edits forever

Resolved

Please take a look at the contributions of these two users. I see a string of high speed script aided reversions of what is not vandalism, to the same articles. Is blocking justified?Edison (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Both have been indef blocked by other admins. Socks? Of whom? Edison (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the targeting of Will Beback's edits is a sign of this guy. Deor (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it's that guy. The last RfCU didn't seem to know of any way of stopping him. If anyone has any bright ideas it'd sure help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Alison found a range that included many of his IPs and it's now softblocked. I'll prepare a complaint letter to send to his ISP abuse department. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting User:PeterBln for continual violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL.

User:PeterBln has continually broken WP:NPOV, and WP:CIVIL. The evidence I would like to cite to show that the user has broken WP:NPOV continually is [57], [58] (the two pieces of evidence I have just cited are articles that are undergoing AFD discussions, and they may be deleted soon), [59] (this edit is sourced, but its language is not neutral), [60], [61]. There is more evidence, which can be examined from his contributions section, but I didn’t want to clutter this post. The evidence I would like to cite to show that the user has broken WP:CIVIL is [62], [63], [64] (please look at the section entitled “Attempts to falsify history by Allied countries”, and please not where he has accused, for example, people of insulting the memories of people who have died, and how he has threatened to remove material from the Dresden article that does not fit his view of the bombing) , [65], [66], [67], [68]. The evidence I would like to cite to show that this user has been warned many times about breaking WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV is [69] (please look at the section entitled “Attempts to falsify history by Allied countries”) and [70]. The evidence I have cited regarding warnings also shows, imo, how I have made a real effort to help him become a good Wikipedian. I believe he will not abandon his goal of trying to re-write Wikipedia articles so that they fit his viewpoint. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly one problematic editor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe so too. I have tried to teach him about following WP:NPOV, and WP:CIVIL, but he doesn't seem to listen. When it seemed to me that he would not change, I believed that admin intervention was needed. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proper WP:Diffs (as opposed to URLs) would help folks trying to sort this out. Toddst1 (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User Talk:PeterBln gives a good account of several editors' attempts to resolve difficulties with PeterBln. There are also a number of formal warnings for violating WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. I'm not sure if a block is warranted yet. Stil looking... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I will work on getting diffs up. In the meantime, I believe this evidence, when considered with his past record, suggests a block is needed: [71]. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced many of the URLs with diffs. PeterBln's talk page contains lots of relevant info, so I have decided to leave the URL to that, as I would clutter up my statement with diffs if I were to use them to link to his talk page. Please note [72], where he says " I think you Allied people are appalliung, the way you try to hide your evil history. Sorry but this is disgusting", and is asking why a Wikipedian is not going to prison for denying the "British-India Holocaust" (a term which PeterBln has has coined, by which does not appear to be used by reliable sources). JEdgarFreeman (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that this editor has a focus on Eastern Europe and articles relating to the bombing of Dresden have been the main area of recent disruptive behavior. Moreover, they have been making highly dubious comparisons with the Holocaust and Stalinism in both articles and when discussing other editors. As such, would it be appropriate to apply the Digwuren restriction? This series of edits [73] appears to be the kind of behaviour which the Digwuren restriction is normally invoked for (eg, highly uncivil and emotionally charged posts relating to Eastern Europe). I feel that a block is justified for such uncivil behaviour and blatant POV pushing. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Padillo image purge

I previously posted this hypothetically at WP:AN but as it didn't get much responses I am re-posting it here as I am fairly close to just instituting WP:BOLD on performing this action. Padillo (talk · contribs) is a serial image uploader with a severe case of lying about ownership. The most recent case that has been brought to light is Image:John cena concert-2.jpg, which has been uploaded to commons through its GFDL licensing, has been found to have been cropped from this WWE copyrighted image. Although not all of his images have had sources found for them, all of them from a purely aesthetic perception are professionally done (Image:Jayresochristiancagechamp.jpg), impossible (Image:DaveyBoySmith012.jpg, dead for 6 years and picture taken over 12 years ago), or ridiculous private/intimate (Image:Ashleylondon.jpg).

Considering the sheer number of images that are violations, and the ridiculous amount of warnings received, it's my move that all the images this user has uploaded be deleted and the user indefinately blocked. However, before I do this, I would like to see if anyone disagrees. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to indef block - this has gone on past enough warnings that he should know better. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Good block - if he can understand what he was doing wrong and agree not to do so in the future, that's one thing, but there's no reason to think he'll stop uploading images that are copyright violations otherwise. Shell ^babelfish 04:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on David

An editor, EnduranceRace (talk · contribs), and what is obviously his IP address, 65.28.227.116 (talk · contribs), has broken the 3RR on David trying to push his interpretation of a particular Bible verse, Psalm 83:18. I have tried to explain my position, and another IP editor has agreed with me, but Endurance refuses to listen. I cannot go further without breaking the 3RR myself. Can someone look at the page history and help me out? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted and put a 3RR warning on his talk page. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not good. I see four reverts each for 71.204.176.201 (talk · contribs) and for EnduranceRace (talk · contribs), and three reverts each for 65.28.227.116 (talk · contribs) and J.delanoy (talk · contribs). This looks a bit like two users logging in and out to game WP:3RR, one with more success than the other perhaps. Apologies if I'm wrong on that. Either way, 3RR shouldn't be a game of chicken. After one or two reverts, discuss it on the Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean an admin socking? That's a pretty harsh accusation there. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

From the page history, I just saw IPs and user names. If I were aware that one of the named editors was an admin, should that have changed my evaluation of their actions? I don't know. I said what it looked like to me and apologised in advance if I was mistaken. I did not accuse anyone of socking, admin or otherwise, and I have no interest in making any such accusation. My concern is that two, three or four people have engaged in fairly rapid edit-warring, which is disruptive and unproductive. If one or two reverts don't solve the problem, why should three or four? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 06:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have calmed down, for the time being; David (disambiguation) was also edited (and reverted), but did not have what I would call an edit war. Worth keeping an eye on for a few days, at least. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin help on re-AfD'd article please

Resolved

 – Take this to Deletion Review. The AfD was closed. seicer | talk | contribs 14:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Jewish Internet Defense Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Jewish Internet Defense Force just came off its first AfD as "keep" about a week ago and the edit warring was dying down when a user came along and re-afd'd it (here). This seems disruptive. Banjeboi 09:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the nominator should have gone to WP:DRV rather than opening a new AfD so soon after the last, but I saw no evidence that they took part in the prior deletion discussion. It looks like a good-faith nom to me, and constructive debate appears to be taking place, so (leaving aside procedural niggles) I don't really see anything that requires admin attention. What are you suggesting should be done? EyeSerene^talk 11:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the thread above (Another organized disruption campaign?) but this does seem disruptive. Do we really need to only wait 7 days after an AfD before the next one can start up again? I would hope it could be closed proceedurally as disruptive and Wikipedia:Gaming the system. I'm also concerned that we aren't setting a precedent that sometime an article can be AfD'd twice in a month. The group that the article is about has expressed their disdain for wikipedia on their website and at least one person has tried deleting following this edict The Jewish Internet Defense Force ) thinks if Wikipedia cannot get this right, then there's no point to have them in here. Banjeboi 12:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Query on User:Cma vis-a-vis User:Flaminsky

May I respectfully ask enlightenment on: Whether or not, present User:Cma which, according to - Revision history of User:Cma[74] was first edited by User:Flaminsky, is for all Wikipedia intents and purposes, a valid and subsisting User or Username. If I may, it appears that - on 05:33, 17 June 2005 User:Flaminsky (Talk | contribs) created the User page and then User:Cma edited onwards. I noticed that User:Flaminsky per records - that - 04:25, 18 August 2005 Cma (Talk | contribs) began creation of this user page.

Now, per this User talk:Flaminsky - says that User:Flaminsky was: "Vandalism - Please do not edit other users' User pages. Please click the "Discussion" tab to put messages on a user talk page. User:Ral315ral315 05:34, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Oregon. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. User:VegaDark VegaDark 05:46, 2 August 2006(UTC)"[75][76]Revision as of 05:33, 17 June 2005 Sorry about the Mel gibson edits, just playing around too much on my part, -Flaminsky

Then, User:Cma created the present user page from deleted Flaminsky(Vandalism)[77]Revision as of 04:25, 18 August 2005 (edit)

Here, it appears clear, therefore, the origin of Cma from vandalism-Flaminsky[78] Then here:[79] This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cma (Talk | contribs) at 04:25, 18 August 2005. It may differ significantly from the current revision.

IN SUM: Respectfully - My question is: Was the current and past current uses by now User:Cma of-from deleted user User:Flaminsky valid under Wikipedia rules. May I please ask for a ruling in this. Thanks so much. --Florentino floro (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Uh, the vandalism I reverted is over '2 years old. From the looks of it, he accidentally created a user page instead of a user talk page, and then the user has since changed his userpage to his liking. That's perfectly valid. VegaDark (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nirvanix

Proven sock puppet Mharvey23 (who is suspected to be Nirvanix's own PR rep, Matthew Harvey) has declared via sock Yellowdude89 information in the Nirvanix article slanderous and manipulated in his AfD nomination, while proposing a boilerplate advertisement as a replacement.

The article was created in good faith by someone independent of all the related companies, clients, suppliers, agents, etc. (and not affected by The Linkup's recent mass data loss) and is well referenced.

Both users were already blocked for sock puppetry and they appear to have resorted to the AfD process, however with a Keep consensus forming it is not clear what action they will take next. I have warned the user with uw-legal but wasn't sure if an indefinite block would be required for implied rather than explicit legal threats. MediaMob (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, where is the legal threat? I don't see it myself. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• I think that's based on what's quoted in the first sentence above. However, even though they've used the word "slanderous", the user is not threatening to take legal action, which is where a block would be applicable to prevent them editing until things are settled. I have to agree with Jasynnash2 though, I don't really see it as a legal threat either. EyeSerene^talk 11:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. As I said, I think they've pulled their heads in but wanted to give you guys the option to intervene before Wikipedia landed in hot water... they've apparently threatened to sue their own founder so it wouldn't be out of character if that were true. MediaMob (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the related article The Linkup seems to be a perfect example of WP:COATRACK. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "Controversy" section because it was pushing a conclusion not supported by the sources. Besides that, sections labelled "Controversy" often begin their lives with an inherent NPOV problem. CIreland (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)