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)

It is done during investigations to help prevent injustices like that done to Steven Hatfill, who was for a long time reported as the leading suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks – and who proved to be innocent of any involvement in them, the real culprit apparently being Bruce Edwards Ivins. The matter at issue here is post-facto. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:40, 22 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)

It is relevant for an employer who must comply with regulation. The employer who legally obtains this info must keep it locked, but he has to have it in first place. NVO (talk) 20:38, 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)

Parole or full term does not matter. I would repeat the question, what makes these two model gentlemen different from millions of others former convicts? Why these two enjoy a regal treatment while others wear radio bracelets? If it was a general treatment I wouldn't object; so far it seems like an isolated, irrational glitch of justice. NVO (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Examples: Rolf Clemens Wagner. Paroled 2003, maybe still needs time to adjust. Brigitte Mohnhaupt, paroled in 2007. Should we extend the code of silence to him too? Take a closer look at Category:German criminals, what's your take on this? NVO (talk) 20:57, 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)

Oy weh :/ please spare such generalizations and stereotypings. Speaking of denial you might want to read this and calm down?

If movies are your thing The Dark Past (1948) , Compulsion (1959) and A Justice That Heals (2000) might be a good starting point for a bit of reflection. Yes I'm serious, you have to start somewhere. Please keep in mind no judge (in a country like today's Germany) would set free two murderers known to be incurable mentally disordered. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In a few countries, it is still considered proper to execute murderers. It's quite understandable for citizens of those countries to feel that, not only failing to kill them, but eventually releasing them from jail, is treating them far too lightly. That is my best explanation for some of the more bloodthirsty sentiments expressed above. Wikipedia, though, is not the place to right great wrongs.

As far as I know there is no policy or legal reason why we must not include those men's last names. There's no compelling argument in favour of censorship. It's not a question of common sense. It might be a question of common decency. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"There's no compelling argument in favour of censorship" This is not about censorship but about a privacy right that overrides public interest. It strikes me funny you use this

“ It is not censorship to exercise mature and responsible editorial judgment. -- Jimbo Wales ”

quote on your talk page, but don't waste a thought about what is "responsible editorial judgment". In my opinion there a good chance responsible editorial judgment covers to omit information that intrudes into an area where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Like coming out of prision and get a brandnew start.

Collective wrongdoing is a common thing with low-brow journalism. Wikipedia policies (if followed to the letter rather than the spirit) are Neandertal tools compared with a sane mind capable of reason and ehical reflection. To feign ignorance or join the "no censorship" choir without addressing different cultural backgrounds (which you did ;)) just exhibits a lack of social responsibility. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, yummy. An "Americans are bloodthirsty and uncivilized" ad hom on everyone here who argues against censorship, stating that Common Decency is something we all lack. If that's all you have to say, don't say anything. ThuranX (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If your remarks directed against the German people and the morality of Europe are justified, I think it's certainly reasonable to point out that some editors have expressed a certain eagerness to see these people punished further. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You attack all editors who think that common sense trumps 'common decency', which the two killers obviously lack. Editors have said repeatedly: German courts don't control En.Wiki; The material, nad names, are out there in numerous reliable sources; There's not 'punitive' value to it because anyone who wants to find out can find out elsewhere. Your response? "Americans are blood thirsty savage monsters who want to cause horrible pain to two innocent murderers by not censoring the pages to protect them from their own actions and legacy." And I stand by the European mentality about history and the past, as I've experienced it. ThuranX (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil in your edit summaries. As for the content of your post, I can only say that you seem to have misunderstood everything I've written. I don't think there's anything to be gained by continuing this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as admission of guilt, and drop this as well. ThuranX (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Section-break (again)

“ "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 ”

This might be one of the best statements I've read in this dicussion (from a legal standpoint anyway), it just happens many editors have never in their life spent a single thought about how a persons right of privacy could be weight reasonably against the publics right of information and how decay of such a public right could happen over time. FULLSTOP ;)

The concept of rehabilitation is just one more alien approach to many so it seems. :(

Some try to assume no responsibility and state in all seriousness whatever some tabloid spits out should be archived on Wikipedia as public knowledge. Listen up, in such cases even big name newspapers can become sources that should not be preserved on Wikipedia during the liftetime of a subject, as they serve daily information rather than encyclopedic conservation.

Editorial judgement is backed up by WP:BLP policy here, we don't need to call it a curtsey and we don't need to know the inner workings of American or European privacy law either (even though I got a feeling some of us do ;)) I don't believe in digital maoism. The no-censorship mob is not yet fit for such tasks with our current policies, but we can and should always improve these BLP policies to catch such cases in simple words.

Maybe, just maybe, linking to real world examples such as this one (or even Star Wars kid) in our policies could be one approach to strenghten the idea of editoral judgement where it is reasonable. I know some might consider such example lists somewhat clumsy, but it can really help to get an idea across rather than using some arcane three dollar wordings for the sake of flow.

I'm not happy with this "do no harm essay" in current state, but I do hope it can be reworded to become one of the policies we weight against each other rather than being a "stopgap" under constant attack from people who act like Google replaces any thinking and responsibility of their own. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The end of a prison sentence does not give an individual an automatic free pass back into society as if nothing had ever happened. He has to prove he's worthy of the trust placed in him by the parole board or whoever freed him; he has to prove he's fit for re-entrance into society. Starting out with deception, i.e. by assuming a new identity, is not a favorable step in that direction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the Wikipedia discussion; this is social debate. Please restrict the use of this page to appropriate material. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The issue is settled, the names are in the article, and they'll stay there. Maybe everyone could agree to just stop posting here and let the archiver remove this whole megillah in about 24 hours. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The self-styled "privacy" guy 3vil-Lyn has taken it upon himself to delete the names with no consensus to do so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion this is covered by editorial judgement, so much for being offtopic, bitter much? :)

Baseball Bugs, hate to bring it to you but I'm no guy. :P

Anyway, the rule of thumb with BLPs should be to exclude potential harmful content until there is consensus to include it. Do we have consensus? --3vil-Lyn (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Guy" in the generic sense. Now read the discussion. The info is perfectly valid to be included and because it's public knowledge, the "right to privacy" claim is irrelevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite aside from that this has been exhaustively argued and that the horse is long-dead, there's an important point being obscured, and it's one that Americans, especially, usually muff. Do individuals have "rights?" Yes, they do. What does that mean? It means that the government cannot do certain things to them. Wikipedia is not the government; it is a private entity that has no duty to respect anyone's constitutional rights except as provided by law. There is no right to free speech, to privacy, to pretty much of anything here, except as provided in Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. Except to the degree those policies and guidelines are applied, and unless compelled otherwise by a court with jurisdiction over the English Wikipedia (read: the US federal courts and state courts in California and Florida), it can say pretty much whatever the hell it wants about whomever it pleases.  RGTraynor  16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"it can say pretty much whatever the hell it wants about whomever it pleases" -> no it can NOT. Take a look at WP:BLP

Putting everything law101 aside, ethical concerns have their place in the Wikipedia policies, and this one is either covered by editorial judgement or we can just as well forget about the idea of editorial judgement as it can't become much clearer than here.

As for beating a dead horse. If'd color everything that goes for an argument (of either side) this whole dicussion would shrink to a few sentences. Showing there is no consensus build on arguments that could even remotely trump those who support to omit the names. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(shrugs) There was a great deal of "Don't they have rights? What about their rights?" You can't argue law when you think it's on your side, only to drop it like a hot potato when it turns out not to be. As to ethical concerns, your belief in the clarity of your editorial judgment notwithstanding, your position seems to have been heavily outvoted, let alone attracted a consensus to overturn black-letter policy. Consensus /= unanimity.  RGTraynor  17:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I argued ethics and the idea of rehabilitation from my very first post in this dicussion. :) It is you who joined with nothing but the notion that Wikipedia can't be forced by law, something that was never questioned by me; and something that has already been identified as irrelevant to this discussion unless the editor in question actually lives in Germany. Whenever I pointed to law, I tried to bring the idea behind the ruling across. So either you go argue against this idea of rehabilitation with morals or you just retract to your legal argument which is NOT sufficient according to Wikipedia's own policies as we have to take ethical concerns and the idea of "do no harm" or better "do not prolong harm" into account. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As other have noted, what makes these two characters different from any other offender who is released and wants to restart his or her life? I hope we're not going to make it standard policy to remove names from articles once people serve their sentences! As an encyclopedia, public interest trumps their private wishes. justinfr (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[Reindent] I have to agree with Ford MF above:

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.

IANAL, but Wikipedia.en is incorporated in the USA and not Germany, and is subject to the laws of the former, not the latter. (I don’t know if Wikipedia.de is subject to German law, but I would expect it to follow German societal norms for the most part, censored or not.) In any case, though, rights are enumerated in general principle by constitutions and expanded or limited by constitutional law. Since the two nations do not have the same constitution nor the same interpretations of constitutional rights that emanate therefrom, there should be no expectation of universal concurrence on what is a full and proper determination of “rights.”

Zara1709’s main point, though, is about the moral issue, not so much the legal issue. Her assertion

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.

is therefore correct that the issue centers on weighing a person’s right of privacy against the public’s right to be informed, but the decision of a German court – and a lower court at that – does not make it one of universal application and legal force. It applies only to those under its jurisdiction.

In the U.S. privacy is restricted to individuals, not institutions (including the government itself – aside from information on individuals it may hold). A person committing a crime is committing violence against the public itself and the proceedings leading to conviction become a public record. They have, in this sense, “given up their right to privacy” in this regard. Public figures have a more restricted degree of privacy due to their decision to act publicly. If you commit a public act, you have no right to expect that it can subsequently be made “private.” The strength of freedom of the press and the right of self-defense in the U.S. are considered to outweigh the privacy rights of those convicted of criminal offenses. Incarceration pays the criminal’s “debt to society,” but it doesn’t absolve him or her of the consequences of their having committed it. This understanding of the “social contract” is rather pervasive among both Western and non-Western cultures. Indeed, even the Avoiding harm essay notes that the "do no harm" principle “does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person.” In fact, that essay’s inclusion test passes this topic, although it would tend to discourage creating articles about the two murderers (at least if that’s their only claim to notability). The main policy limit on their treatment in Wikipedia is found in WP:BLP:

It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

In other words, it should be short, to the point, NPOV, cited to reliable sources, and without undue weight, and the way it is treated in Walter Sedlmayr appears consonant with this:

In 1993, half-brothers Manfred Lauber and Wolfgang Werlé,[1][2][3][4] former business associates of Sedlmayr, were sentenced to life in prison for his murder. They were released on parole in 2007 and 2008.

Given this, the preceding discussion, and Wikipedia’s various rules impacting this issue, there seems to be no broad-based dominant legal or moral support in favor of expunging the names of convicted felons from Wikipedia articles just because they are on parole or have served their time in prison. Indeed, the consensus (which does not mean unanimity) appears to be in line with keeping the malefactors’ names in the article on their victim, since the information is effectively in the public domain and beyond the court’s means to completely censor post facto. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Askari Mark, thanks you for this well thought out post, which is refreshing! Nonetheless ;) you have not addressed how editorial judgement can cover to omit information that intrudes into an area where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also, in my opinion we should'nt follow this essay on "do no harm" to the letter but should rather keep it's spirit. Moreover (hey I still like your post ;)) you did not address how the publics right of information might decay after an incident leaves the daily news rotation and people have served their sentence.

You are, of course, right on spot that limits on their treatment are to be found in WP:BLP as the possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement.

Can endangering rehabilitation lead to real world HARM done to a person? -> Yes.

Does omiting the names go along with a risk for public safety? According to the judge -> No.

Does public interest override our idea of "do no HARM" in every case? -> No, we wouldn't need the idea of "do no harm" (read editorial judgment) if public interest could not be restrain’d in favor of a subject's privacy where it is reasonable.

Is it reasonable TODAY to omit the names? Judge -> Yes. | You -> ? (...they broke the social contract and have no more right on privacy whatsoever?.)

Does citing old newspaper headlines and Google caches answer that question? Moi -> No ;)

Soooo, *lights a cigarette with a studied languor that Humphrey Bogart might have admired*

I got four lil questions for you ;)

1. You cited "weight the persons right of privacy against the publics right to be informed"

Why don't you do just that? ;) now instead of telling us how German jurisdiction has no effect on the English language Wikipedia or how American Law differs from German law (...which is welcome btw, you did a good job here ;))

please tell us why YOU think the privacy rights of these guys are clearly outweighed by the publics right to be informed in this particular case you know everything about thanks to Google translations of tabloid zines.

2. Do you think this Mike Godwin guy ANY editor posting here knows the case better than the judge in charge? You know the guy who personally interviewed all witnesses to understand the facts of the case... including medical and psychological opinions by experts ?

If so, why?

3. Isn't there the slightest possiblity user Ringelblume is just a disgruntled German editor who can't get her/his way on the German language Wikipedia, where such adds are currently immdiatley removed by the OTRS team and has therefore started this article here, ready to disease the article's discussion page with those names no matter the fact the supposed murderers of Walter Sedlmayr have zero notability outside Germany? What could be the motivation behind this behaviour given EVERBODY remembers these names in Germany (18 years later) like Ringelblume wants us make to believe?

4. Do you think Jimbo will be overzealously excited about the idea of having to call Mikey because he just entered German jurisdiction on some Wikipedia conference in Germany? ;) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC) ♫

• Fair enough, I'll bite: (1) My personal views, and those of any other editor, are irrelevant. Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and of civil law, are.

The notion that personal views are irrelevant in this discussion is just so amazingly completely wrong that it leaves me baffeled. We try to build consensus here (maybe even a new policy), so personal views are important when weighing reasonable privacy interests and ethical concerns (which are part of WP:BLP), something that can vary greatly with different cultural backgrounds. However this question aimed in another direction and that is whether or not you are in the position to judge sources facing the language barrier.

(2) Probably not, but that's irrelevant to the issue, as are the facts of the case or medical and psychological opinions by experts. The issue of whether it is a WP:BLP violation to report the names of convicted criminals is a basic one and does not - and should not - be affected by the particulars of the trials or the personalities of the criminals.

It is relevant to this issue to recognize that even a "lower court" judge in Germany does know a lot more about this case and has way more information to value privacy rights vs public interest than any editor posting here, which gives such order a lot of weight in my opinion. I'm basically just following TreasuryTag here, but see this not as a "courtsey" but more as a cogent reason when comparing my own limited knowledge about the circumstances with the possibilities of a judge in charge of things. Also psychological opinions by experts play a major role before some one is set free which directly counters some concerns from above (the sky is falling!). That Wikipedia isn't a criminal record database for foreign people of little notability is out of question. So, yes we should volunteer to respect the wishes of accredited judges abroad to use TreasuryTag's wording.

(3) I refer you to WP:AGF ... and you really don't want to go there, because one could just as readily ask why you are so passionately interested in keeping people from knowing about these names. There are thousands of articles about notorious crimes where the names of the perps are given, and there's no reason to presume that everyone who edits a true crime article does so out of suspect motives.

There are probably thousands of cases where German judges have given more weight to public interest than to the right of a criminal to disclose a name. However not in this case. due early release on parole, unclear motives and a new suspect out of country. Judges denied resumption of proceedings but set free earlier. As for WP:AGF I assume good faith as long as there is not evidence not do so. Looking at the history of Ringelblume we find two articles translated from the German Wikipedia, both featuring the full names not included there. The other edits and the constant claim to silence Zara1709 and just "move on" speak a clear language to me (as do the rants on the German article's discussion pages). Also I don't like to see editors who made some really good points getting scared away by people who scream censorship or post long offtopic rants (not Ringelblume though everything Feindstrafrecht is completely humbug) without addressing any of their arguments. As for offtopic, people often tell me that I am passionate in whatever I do... thanks ;)

(4) Jimbo's not the COO of the Foundation, wouldn't be making that call at all, and that's why you have an in-house counsel.  RGTraynor  15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter? One should not expose any member of the Wikipedia foundation to legal risks. Besides this one was really more on a humorus note than anything to lighten up the discussion :)

Conclusion: You condone how I indeed argue with BLP policies as the possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement.

Many more arguments have been made to omit the names, mainly about a decaying right of public interest, about the difference between a daily newspaper and an encyclopaedic record for eternity, about social sanctions not to be "prolonged" by a self-proclaimed anti censorship mob, about the idea of rehabilitation, about marginal notability of the subjects in question (WP:BLP1E), about media penetration Wikipedia vs print media, about the idea to respect the wishes of accredited judges in respected democratic countries and about language barriers when trying to understand the reasoning of a foreign court order.

We also have positions who argue some less drastic positions to omit the names like the observation that this information doesn't really add anything of value to this particular article as Neil put it, or a user named SheffieldSteel who said it might be a matter of common decency to comply with the German judge. Editor Guy notes these peeps have marginal to zero notability so the names could be left out, same goes for Zara1709 who sees no encyclopaedic reason for inclusion among privacy concerns. TreasuryTag argues for a policy addition even, which I'd favor too. To claim this dicussion has just ended with consensus or is a dead horse is way off.

The only thing that has indeed just ended is the idea it is possible to block consensus with offtopic rants (not you) or repeating the irrelevant fact that the Florida based Wikipedia can't be legally forced to comply with a foreign court order ad nauseam. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind commendations and provocative questions, 3vil-Lyn. No, I didn’t get into the particulars of my personal beliefs. After all, this is not a forum, so I tried to take a dispassionate approach to framing the issue of differing interpretations of moral responsibilities versus Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines with respect to obtaining a consensus under which Wikipedia.en is obliged to follow. Since this is not a forum, I don’t see this as the proper place for delving into personal views, as it’s a matter more of achieving consensus, which means we all give and take. So, I hope that you will forgive me if I don’t try to carry on a personal debate here, nor attempt to posture as someone especially knowledgeable about German legal and cultural mores. (Besides, I’m allergic to cigarette smoke, however languidly it may be enjoyed.)

I will point out, though, since it is relevant to the consensus regarding this issue, that “harm” and “moral weight” are relative and that any given “right” does not trump all others all of the time. I think we can agree that the harm done to the rights of Herr Sedlmayr are more grave than the prospective harm done to his murders having to continue to carry the weight of the reputation of their crimes. Likewise, where the greater weight will fall with regard to the person’s right of privacy versus the public’s right to be informed will vary from culture to culture. No German court nor American court nor other court can enforce a universal declaration of this balance on all others. Accordingly, unless and until there is a world court of universally accepted jurisdiction that can impose one, a minority German (in this instance) “determination of weight” has no ability to trump all others. Since Wikipedia is governed by consensus, neither does it trump other traditions. As I mentioned earlier, the German court’s ruling may (or may not – I don’t know) have bearing on Wikipedia.de, but it has none such a priori effect on Wikipedia.en. For the latter, one would expect US law and custom to take precedence since it and its servers are domiciled there, with custom tempered by that prevailing more broadly in the English-speaking world. And that is what forms the consensus here in this case – to whatever degree we like it or don’t. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "legal risk" to English wikipedia from this, because Germany has no jurisdiction in the matter. The most they could do is to somehow prohibit the German people from accessing this website. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Three points here. Keep in mind, I am not stating my POV on anything. I am only pointing out the most basic, fundamental issues of the Project that are apparently unknown to some of our editors. Please excuse my tone if it seems brusque, but, again, this is ironclad fact.

• 1) The issue of the English Wikipedia community being legally obligated in any way, shape, or form to censor essential information based on the wishes of a German court, or any foreign court, is a non-issue. Utterly. Completely. It's not even a consensus-decided policy, subject to the approval of the community. It is a Jimbo Wales, Owner-Operator, God-King decided policy. This is crystal clear per Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Legal_and_copyright and it is not up for debate. Mike Godwin is our lawyer. We are under explicit instructions from Jimbo to refer all legal issues to him. End of story. Anyone continuing to argue otherwise should be warned for disruptive editing and then blocked if they continue. Because you can't argue it away, and all you're doing is wasting our time and energy in trying to explain it to you. I'm sorry if that seems rude, but I can't say it any other way.

• 2) The issue of English Wikipedia being morally obligated to remove the names is based on consensus-determined policy, specifically WP:NOTCENSORED. This policy is widely endorsed by the community of English Wikipedia, and forms one of our core policies. It has withstood the test of time against many, many arguments for "self-censorship" similar to this one. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED for the community's definitive statement on this subject. Again, this policy is firmly and strongly supported by community consensus and has stayed this way for the entire existence of English Wikipedia. If you wish to attempt to gain the consensus necessary to overturn a core policy, you would need to take it up on the talk page of WP:NOT, with an appropriate notice at WP:AN and WP:VP. This is how we do things here. Any decision this big would need to be made after a long discussion process involving all users in the chance to comment. And once policy is supported by consensus, it is not broken except in specific instances by Jimbo himself (please see WP:OFFICE).

• 3) There are precisely zero arguments other than these two that matter. The material has been proven several times to have met WP:V pertaining to verifiable information. This "discussion" needs to be archived for posterity (or deleted) like the last 29 perennial legal proposals that have been raised because all you're doing is shouting at the rain. I'm getting sick of seeing people demand we change the color of the sky because blue offends them. It's not changing. Get over it. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 09:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Betacommand

Betacommand (talk · contribs) For using or appearing to use automated tool on hi main account in direct violation of the community sanction that is logged here. In his recent contributions I counted nearly 80 edits in 2 minute period - in addition to the edit summaries clearly indicating the use of twinkle: [7]. Viridae^Talk 10:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For full discussion, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand.

Comment on the subpage please, and add a new time stamp here to prevent archiving, if need be. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki based WP:OR "assault"

Hi. The Anonymous anti-Scientology crew is currently "harpooning" List of new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to include Scientology as an "alien-based" and "supremacist" religion. Please see their thread - "Wikipedia Entry on New Religious movements equals lulz". Both those claims are OR, biased, and based on a selective interpretation of primary material. At first I was reverting both but I decided to stop fighting the "alien" one and just hold the line on the "supremacist" claim as that is very clearly OR (in addition to not being true). Problem with this is that it is leaning toward a content dispute but with the problem being that these editors are not acting in good faith but are seeking to promote their POV and there are more of them then there are of me. Any ideas? Thanks. ps - currently the page is protected in the "harpooners" preferred version. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is alien-based, but I can't see I see any sign of it being "supremacist". However, I cannot ethically edit the article, because of previous conflicts with Scientology, unless the church specifically releases me from a voluntary pledge I took back in the 90s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not "the church" but I am a Scientologist in good standing and likely the only such actively editing Scientology articles here. I certainly do not hold you to your pledge and personally see no reason that you should not be editing the articles. I mean every other critic of Scientology edits them, why not you too? (Assuming you are a critic.) I would rather have responsible editors of any stripe editing than inexperienced SPA POV pushers. Present company excluded, of course. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As cited in the reference provided there, it is shown to be supremacist. If needed, I can provide a completely done website that demonstrates this. Also, as you can see, I "harpooned" the user in question. ie http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/preface.htm --Groupsisxty (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That website doesn't demonstrate anything, it claims things. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability for an explanation of our requirement that material - particularly contentious material - must have been published by a reliable source. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than clutter this page, we can move discussion to my talk page if you guys like. Groupsisxty (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, the entire listing a OR. Every item can be contended, to include Westboro Baptist being in the supremacist section, or even the definition of "New" Groupsisxty (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That point is not without validity, however if you go to the specific article in question and the classification is clearly justified then perhaps the unsourced nature of the list is more understandable. Your attempt to smear Scientology with every negative connotation that you possibly can is just that. And we both know that. No reliable source has ever claimed that Scientology is a "supremacist" group and it needs to come out of that part of the list. I already said I will not argue the "alien" bit. So let's remove it from the "supremacist" list and be done with this. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As another side note, I am currently the only person editing the talk page. There is no "attack" called on this page, and I am acting in good faith, citing sources. Justallofthem has reverted several edits, without giving cause other than "Once more and I'm taking it to the mods". I have called for discussion in the Talk Page prior to the lock, without response, and the user's talk page is locked, so I could not alert the user to it. The "attack" was circumvented by myself. I stated "Cited sources, abide by the Wiki Guidlines". This is not pushing a POV, contrary to Justallofthem states. I think we can remove this section from the alerts page, and continue to reach a consensus on the Talk page for the article. Groupsisxty (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing and can we please wrap this up?

Well that is not exactly true, Groupsisxty. There were a number of IPs and SPAs reinserting the OR materials:

• Marc abian (talk · contribs)
• Groupsisxty (talk · contribs)
• 65.213.127.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 86.139.125.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.243.175.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 24.117.105.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Not to mention this repeatedly inserted on the talk page:

Thank you to the Wikipedia mods for allowing the truth to be told, although I'm sure eventually the so-called 'Church' will bully and threaten Wikipedia into removing the material they don't like, as that is their way (lalala - Justallofthem). I hope Wikipedia, shining beacon of truth and knowledge, stands tall and refuses to do so, even under inevitable threat of being sued.

Scientology denies their belief in the Xenu story because if they told people they really believed that, people would stop joining them (I mean come on, it is just a tad ridiculous)! They deny their belief that they are a master race ('Homo Novis') as it would be further proof that Scientology is in fact the biggest threat to the free world since the Third Reich (woo hoo Godwin's law - Justallofthem). They lie, cheat, blackmail, infiltrate levels of government, and they most definitely have blood on their hands. The truth is out there on the internet and other sources for anyone to read, we encourage people todo so and spread the word. KNOWLEDGE IS FREE.

We are Anonymous. We are legion; we do not forgive, we do not forget. EXPECT US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.241.81 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is to your credit, Groupsisxy, that you reined that Anon in both here and in your forum though your call for /b/ackup in that selfsame forum is not considered exactly kosher:

Why don't you faggots register there and start adding to the talk pages. It seems (to them) like I am the only one pushing this and we wouldn't even to rule on "Consensus"

You are new here and it is an understandable error. However the time is now to please revert this to my last which was a a compromise and change the protection level to semi. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, to have a number of people writing this Wiki is not what is desired? Especially with sourced info? Huh wut? I told people to register so people can offer their their POV into the article. How is this not kosher? And as I said, I am currently the only one. As for wrapping it up, there are citations on the talk page supporting it's placement, and none to the contrary. And don't presume I'm new here. I had an account here quite a few years ago, and forgot what it was so re-registered. Groupsisxty (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No disrespect intended. Even if you have some experience here you might not know that what you did is considered disruptive canvassing on several levels. No harm done that we cannot undo right now. The point and only point is that your inclusion on the "supremacist" list is your WP:OR based on your read of primary materials and others have already said as much here. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"The number of engrams in a Zulu would be astonishing. Moved out of his restimulative area and taught English he would escape the penalty of much of his reactive data; but in his native habitat the Zulu is only outside the bars of a madhouse because there are no madhouses provided by his tribe. It is a safe estimate, and one based on better experience than is generally available to those who have conclusions on 'modern man' by studying primitive races, that primitives are far more aberrated than civilized peoples. Their savageness, their unprogressiveness, their incidence of illness: all stem from their reactive patterns, not from their inherent personalities… The contagion of aberration, being much greater in a primitive tribe, and the falsity of the supersitious data in the engrams of such a tribe both lead to a conclusion which, observed on the scene, is carried out by actuality." - Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (1988 ed.), book 2, chapter 8, p. 183 - 'The Contagion of Aberration'

So, this quote doesn't matter then? It states clearly that the Zulu's are insane and primitive, and should be taught english in order to evolve (as per the Tech Dictionary defintion of "Homo Novis")? Secondly, that call for people to register and weigh in the TALK page can not be weighed as such since it was made after the lock. I think we should have another Admin weigh in on this one, since you being a member of the Church of Scientology could be construed as a conflict of interest. Groupsisxty (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the correct process is WP:RfC. Since you have stuck it out this long and there is no-one else from your crew helping I think we can safely say that this has devolved to a simple content dispute between the two of us and unless one of the admins wants to take my suggestion on wrapping this up, we can pursue an RfC after this closes. No hurry, the page is frozen in your preferred version. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Is this serious? The cited quote is only evidence of what Hubbard said, and nothing more than that. As evidence for anything else it's what we academics call "a load of ficking bollocks". Any editor seeking to take it beyond that is hereby put on notice that repeated addition of such material will result in blocking for disruption, as will any addition of that material to any article in breach of WP:UNDUE. We are not a vehicle for nonsense here, on either side of a debate. The suggestion for WP:RFC has merit, but bear in mind all Scientology-related articles are still on probation. --Rodhullandemu 01:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There are more citations on the talk section. Not just this one. --Groupsisxty (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free . . . Help still needed

To close this as resolved and to please comment at Talk:List of new religious movements#RfC. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, at this point I feel you are abusing your position to push your POV into this article. My inclusion in the category is sourced, and an admin has weighed in. Are you just being combative, as I have already suggetsed a citation to state "Certain Members object to this listing." Seriously here. --Groupsisxty (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As the disruptive off-wiki canvassing by Groupsisxty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues (here) after warning above and has yielded the desired result of a number of SPAs effectively vote-stacking the RfC at List of new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by the continuing to add primary materials and push for WP:OR on the talk page, I am going to continue to ask for some sort of positive intervention here. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure of how I have "continued" the off-wiki canvassing (If it could even be construed as such). I have even been trying to prevent vandalism to various pages through my forum. At this point, should we up this to ArbCom, or quit escalating this every time consensus has been met? Also, I have made several attempts in Good Faith to come to a consensus, including adding the RfC personally to the article. Justallofthem on the other hand has escalated this to where it is now, even after a temp ban due to the 3 revert rule. --Groupsisxty (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Weirdo82

Weirdo82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems unable to comply with WP:IUP. He is uploading copyrighted images and marking them as pd-self. He as been warned time and again and again. The first warning was responded by a diatribe indicating a complete lack of comprehension, but the second one received something that looked more promising. Regardless, he's back at it today, recreating images that got deleted yesterday.
Kww (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given the user a final warning regarding these kinds of uploads. Let me (or any admin here) know if he continues to do so, and a block will be issued. Shereth 23:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Further problem: he reposted Image:Claire.jpg, which was a blatant copyright violation when he posted it last night ... still is, but he now has gotten smarter, and doesn't list the source URL when he claims to have taken it himself. If one of you kindly admins you could look at Weirdo82's deleted contributions, it was one of the images that was deleted around 12:43PM on August 20th. My CSD notice included the URL, which is what I need for a copyright violation CSD. Sure would be nice to have the ability to view deleted contributions without having to put up with adminship.
Kww (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted this latest image, plus one earlier one. Kevin (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

70.181.114.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)is apparently his IP which he sporadically has been editing at. He does very little talk/user talk editing. But from what I've seen the user may be a non-english speaker/young person who has some comprehension issues. From this diff [8] you can see some text they removed, it gives me the impression this is a very young person with a comprehension issue, and frankly there are some civility issues in there. If someone wants to take on the coaching of a young user and this person is willing to accept that, it would be the only viable solution. It doesn't seem like anything else but time to gain maturity would change their behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about age, but given his musical tastes, having Chinese as a first language wouldn't surprise me a bit. I agree that we seem to be having a comprehension problem, not a malice problem. I got a question this morning from Stupido222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who just innocently happened to notice the problems with Weirdo82. I cautioned Stupido222 about using two accounts, tried again to explain the image policy, and offered to try to arrange help in another language if he needed it.
Kww (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is this particular bit that makes me think young user and not foreign language user: What is wrong with editing? Can you stop blocking me? It is super annoying! Plus, what is wrong with posting Angela Chang's images? Blocking isn't your job, fungus person.... yeah...that means you! Just stop blocking me because that is none of your business!!! Just stop! STOP STOP STOP! teaching foreigners (including chinese) doesn't give me the impression of an ESL issue, it gives me a clear impression of someone very young. The grammar and vocabulary choice just don't seem right for someone having an esl problem. I've also posted a friendly note on weirdos page to offer some advice.--Crossmr (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I missed that bit ... it must be somewhere in his deleted contributions. I'm losing hope of a good resolution: Stupido222 has just posted a reply saying he didn't understand what I was talking about.Kww (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is part of the text that gets deleted in that diff I posted above where I mention the IP address. This user just oddly removed a bunch of content from one article [9].--Crossmr (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit [10] pretty much confirms the IP and both user accounts are all one in the same..--Crossmr (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:65.216.70.60 etc.

User: 65.216.70.60 has been cutting a wide swath in the last few month, being involved in a 3RR violation on the Gemstone IV article, edit warring on the Superman (film series) article, edit warring with severe WP:BLP violations on the Ray Carver (darts player) article, vandalization of user pages [11] and numerous hostile and uncivil edit summaries and user talk page posts to myself and several other editors [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], both from that IP address and two other IP addresses to which he has access - Special:Contributions/68.239.20.96 and Special:Contributions/72.72.118.129, discernable by editing one IP's talk page from another, from two of the accounts editing the Gemstone article and all three reverting on the Carver and Superman articles, and indiscriminately posting to user talk pages. The 65.216.70.60 address has been blocked three times within the last week for some of these violations, only to open up again directly after the expiration of each block, and is now under a two week block; nonetheless, he's using the 72.72.118.129 address for more harassment [21].  RGTraynor  03:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And make that yet another one. [22].  RGTraynor  23:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet another one. [23]  RGTraynor  14:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Man with a tan

I've reblocked Man with a tan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per several questionable edits not least this one: [24] (I nuked the redirect as being entirely inappropriate per WP:BLP). His deleted contributions also show evidence that he's here mainly to play silly buggers, including some WP:BLP violations. I think he's in the wrong place, he has mistaken Wikipedia for Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Note that he had to get IP block exemption due to chronic abuse from that IP range - looks to me as if he is part of that particular problem. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the block and concur with Guy's assessment. I've offered him a {{second chance}} to give him an opportunity to demonstrate a willingness to work constructively and meaningfully, and I hope that he'll take the opportunity. I guess we'll see though. Gazimoff 09:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He already had a second chance. He blew that one. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he needed ipblockexempt to get round a hard block suggests to me that this is a returning vandal/troll. I agree fully with the block. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was he granted with IP block exempt in the first place? His very first edit was a request for exemption. If the flag is being dished out willy-nilly to new editors with no contributions, nor with a checkuser to confirm the hard block then the system is very very flawed. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I ran a checkuser -- he is on a range that is hardblocked with a specific invitation to request ipblockexempt. He is the only new user to have been granted it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... If the account was caught in an ip range hardblock then the only pages they could edit was the userpages - and a request for ip exemption thus makes sense. I admit that such knowledge displayed on an accounts first edit might be suspicious, but there is the matter of AGF. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the block reasons that expand on attempting to edit a page now specifically describe how to request IP-BE, so I would not be surprised to see larger numbers of ranged blocked accounts asking for it. MBisanz ^talk 13:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To expand a bit more on RyanLupin's question, this is a problem of the ipblockexempt system, as the actual vandals/trolls/abusers on the range are able to get a new account, because it's tough to prove via checkuser what individual is behind the IP. However, as we see in this case, the user got blocked pretty quickly, with only 156 edits, and most of them since August 4. So the system works here, IMO. Maxim (☎) 13:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the only thing that went wrong was us (including me) not watching closely enough after the exemption was granted. But little damage has been done, this is just a bored kid I think. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please withdraw "second chance"

Man with a tan has already had and blown one second chance, he has now taken to describing me as "that thing", which is not really indicative of a likely future good Wikipedian. He's also accusing me of having a grudge against him and while he is certainly doing his best to make that happen I have absolutely no idea on what basis I am supposed to have a grudge. I responded asking him what is the evidence for this and he removed the comments leaving his baseless assertion in place. As a rule, editors who use their pages to attack others and give no grounds for claims of bias against them end up with their talk pages protected for trolling. Honestly, I think this guy is just jerking us around, stringing out the good faith of those who engage with him. The behaviour of this account combined with the long history of vandalism from that IP range would seem to me to indicate that it's time to close down that particular debate.

As an aside, the IP which is supposedly stalking that user makes edits like this: [25]; I believe they may be one and the same, playing a good-hand-bad-hand game. Guy (Help!) 17:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done an investigation into a possible relationship between 81.149.250.228 and Man with a tan. It is certainly possible that they are one user. Given their singular obsession with each other, it would not surprise me in the slightest if they were indeed the same. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think he's dicking around with us. Life's too short. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I was looking at this matter in light of what you said above and was considering that - despite Keeper76's efforts - that it would be best to blank and protect (probably after a chat with Keeper). I was somewhat dismayed to see that you - as an involved admin - have already done so, and with one of your usual on the edge worded edit summaries (since "dicking about" is not a reference to WP:DICK). The template & protection stays, as it is the right decision, but it was enacted by the wrong person. I have no idea why I think you might listen to me, as you don't other people you likely have far more respect for, but I felt I should make you aware publicly that I don't approve of your conduct in this one instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

RSPCA Australia

Resolved

 – Alexcan99, indefinitely blocked by EyeSerene. Anthøny 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Alexcan99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding a Controversy section which I have no issue with however most of it was unsourced POV and OR. They readded it again today with a new cite however it didn't state on what was said in the article. The user has readded it which is now a copyvio since it uses the word for word ("Shockingly, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) generally supports this legislation." [26][27]) but the issue is it's only about a law that the RSPCA supports and not really an action of the RSPCA and it's only one source by a site I know nothing about. Bidgee (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor added this "Treat the other posts the same or get out of editing you hypocrite. [28]". I understand that the article is unsourced and I plan to do some work on sourcing but ATM I'm busy on other matters that I'm working on. Bidgee (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the editor's first activity since January (at least under that user ID), so it's effectively a single-purpose account, and obviously a POV-pusher. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted his latest attempt. I think there's a 3RR situation here also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The red-link editor was already blocked last fall for OR, and his one entry in January was an editorial paragraph about pit bulls that has since been removed. Clearly a strictly POV-pushing account, maybe with good intentions, but inappropriate to wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a POV-pushing type but I've not looked into all the edits the user has made. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

His edits are in little chunks. The first group was some editorializing about dogfighting which was eventually removed. The next was a lengthy series of edits about some Austrailian public figure that bought him a lengthy block. Then came a couple of edits in January about pit bulls, also reverted. His main focus seems to be to knock the Australian SPCA. He could be right, but he can't provide valid citations for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this guy before (either here or at AIV), and thought I'd blocked him previously for POV warring, but obviously haven't since I can't find it in my log. He seems to want to set the record 'straight' concerning dangerous dogs. This is apparently a recurring problem, and with every edit designed to push a POV and nothing constructive, I'm inclined to indef. EyeSerene^talk 12:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been warned and blocked and won't stop, so indef-block would be the normal course of action. He can always appeal if he thinks the block is unfair. So far he hasn't bothered to respond except with uncivil snide remarks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There have been plenty of prior warnings, a previous block, and no indication of cluefulness. We really don't need another POV-pushing editor. Indefblocked. EyeSerene^talk 12:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good. Case closed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block (with regret: we really should have attempted to educate him when he started this silly nonsense, rather than letting it fester to this point); closing discussion as resolved. Anthøny 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"I've seen this guy before (either here or at AIV)," <yes, i had opened a ANI about it previously. see: RSPCA Australia(and the Controversy Section) {Archive 465}. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 09:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Time to block?

Is it time to block bannedtruth (talk · contribs)? In my opinion this is a single-purpose POV-pusher who is unwilling to play by the rules. Their only contributions are talk-page posts in favour of Holocaust revisionism and some POV-pushing in articles (all reverted by other editors). After this warning from me, their last contrib is a veiled threat and a complaint that Holocaust revisionism is not allowed at The Holocaust. Correction: it's a statement that David Irving is not an anti-Semite... citing a YouTube video. Would a short block be appropriate, or do we wait? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this users conduct would be considered bannable at this point if it were a less distasteful POV. (Although I do like that he seems to use an almost stereotypical "but some of his friends are Jewish! And his lawyer" argument without realizing how that comes across). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at his edits (such as this, and stuff like this.) That's about all we're getting out of this account. I've blocked him indef. Grandmasterka 19:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good block. I don't recall seeing anything, anywhere, that says we need to be naively tolerant of an endless stream of cranks, crackpots, POV pushers, and bearers of the truth who won't accept that Wikipedia is not here to be their voice. EyeSerene^talk 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You must be new around here. Harry "Snapper" Organs (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. This seems like a hopelessly POV individual. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, that does come over as a bit ranty, doesn't it? I honestly wasn't commenting on any other posts (or posters) :P EyeSerene^talk 20:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I support this block on Bayesian grounds, without reviewing the editor's contributions. If a username contains a permutation of the word "Truth", the pre-test probability that it's a tendentious agenda account is 96.923%. Further testing and review is therefore unecessary and potentially misleading. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

96.923%? That low? EyeSerene^talk 20:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There's always the two or three people who are big fans of Ron Killings, so... Rdfox 76 (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• And on that subject may I spam Wikipedia:Agenda account and encourage others to work on it. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar and Rlevse and possibly Scarian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Yami, your problem here is that you are trying to edit against a consensus and getting frustrated and losing your cool when you do that. You need to learn how we work here before you will be sucessful and I strongly suggest you seek advice from Editing assistance or third opinions when you get into a situation so you can learn how to work with and change consensus. This isn't something for us to deal with as admins don't dictate content except in extreme biography of living persons cases. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

I am posting here because I feel that Dreadstar and Rlevse have done me wrong. For a month or more a situation has gotten out of control and Dreadstar and Rlevse have failed to prevent it. I am sorry to say that you can only understand if i explain the full situation from start to finish. I give you my apology in advance, but this is a complex situation. Dreadstar and Rlevse have been involved with all three of my blocks in a month's time. On July 20, 2008 I had removed a video from the Ejaculate article. I did so as I felt the video did not add any more educational value then the text or image. I cite this in the edit summary which can be seen in the diff here This was reverted by a editor known as The Wednesday Island, who request i look at the talk page. Apparently I had went against a "long standing" consensus that I did not know existed, or even expected one to exist for a video such as this one. Also the video had apparently been in debate for a long period of time. 2 days after I had removed the video and it was replaced, I went back to the article and notice the video was there again, and that someone reverted it, and left a comment in the edit summary. I went to the talk page to post like requested. (I have been ridiculed for the 2 day gap in time for a response by another editor or two, but will detail that later if i remember.) I posted on the talk page this comment [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEjaculation&diff=227289450&oldid=226322099 here] Now my comment might sound as if I had the intent to filter or censor, but that is not the case. I have a hard time explaining what I am trying to say, as my grammar in that comment might illustrate. I made that comment because I believe if the text and a image on a article can illustrate the point of the article and it's subject matter, then a video is not needed. No need to over illustrate is the basic point of my argument, and what led to the depute. I use the intercourse article as an example because I believed it would be the most likely article with similar subject matter which would have text and images that efficiently illustrate the point without a video. As we all know to well there are videos that can illustrate it, but I don't currently see one in use on that article. Well the editor who reverted my removal of the video made a rather inappropriate comment back [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ejaculation&diff=next&oldid=227289799 ] I admittedly commented on my disapproval of the comment s/he left. Being that it was a serious discussion, and such tones should not be used. Well the discussion goes on from there with many other comments from the editors, and The Wednesday Island that are more or less Trollish and uncivil, but please do not take my word for it, and feel free to judge for yourself on the ejaculate article's talk page under the heading Video. I more or less feel that he was only trying to get my goat, and was there just because of the easy targets that come to that article. Logically if that article had no video or article I doubt there would be many disputes, not that I am advocating the removal of both image and video mind you. I am only saying that these two things combined or not will draw a crowd, and a debate which people like. I believe that the editors on these articles, who have stuck around them a long time are just using them to get a conflict going. Please don't take my word for it, use your own judgment. That is when the first of it started. I get singled out when there are editors on those articles that use the no censor policy as their sheild and sword and stick around the articles keeping any new people away. The Wednesday Island, Atom, Honeymane (I guess not as much as the others), Asher196, Dreadstar and Rlevse are all editors i've had nothing but trouble with on these talk pages for the last month. From The Wednesday Island's counter productive behavior, To Atom's We don't censors, you're censoring, you're sexualizing images, or that is just my opinion of you, attitude. Another case would be Asher196 making a ruckus by reverting my edits not just on the article, but on his talk page as well. I can see the Breast Article's Lede image being reverted if it was in a discussion, but leaving comments like this in the edit summary? [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=228949115&oldid=228948908 "Not This Again" ] After I changed the lede (without knowing Asher196 reverted it) I noticed the Gallery on the article was quite large, 57 images in fact. Much of it was filled with many miscellaneous pictures. It just looked like someone just threw in anything breast in there. I removed 8 of these images bringing the total down to 49. This action was undone by Asher196 as shown by this series of diffs. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=prev&oldid=228949811 my removal of the image ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228949811 Asher196's revert] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228950202 My second removal of these image ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=228952105 The second revert from Asher196 with a comment asking me not to make "major changes without consensus" ] Removing 8/57 images is not a major change but a trimming. The problem here is I'm being targeted because i'm the new guy to these artiles, and all these editors know each other and those admins. I get blamed for edit waring when Asher196 and Atom are converting the edits yet that was ignored by Dreadstar. Asher196 edit wared with me on the gallery over 8/57 images and Atom edit wared with both me and asher over the gallery table being hidden calling it censorship. Asher196 hid the gallery to keep the stretching down. I mean loading 57 images causes the scroll bar to jump around like an idiot. Well here comes Atom to revert it saying it was broke. I thought it was a honest mistake and i corrected him and told him it wasn't broke but programed to hid to help in navigation of the article. He reverts it again, this time claiming censorship. I revert his revert and assure him its not censorship. Well i guess because i reverted twice i am in a edit war? He reverted 3 times. once Asher's edit twice my own. Asher196 hiding the gallery http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=229168263&oldid=229167936 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229168263 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229169608 Atom's Reverting it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229169608 Me correcting him http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229329371 Atom reverting it a 2nd time, this time using the censor card 2RR http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229373351 Me correcting him a second time might be considered 2RR but that's a case by case thing I guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229633092 Well after this episode Me, Asher196 and Atom got were trapped in a sea of editing and reverting. It got to where it seemed hey were reverting edits just because I made them. I had to remove a non creditable site and a image that was already represented in the gallery multiple times because of it, which is another thing dragged into the claims of edit warign by Dreadstar. Dreadstar had came to my talk page after I commented on the Breast Article's talk page that "I don't indent and never saw a rule on it," and even thought this rule isn't strictly enforced he continued to bring it up with more and more uncivilness in his tone. Well i plainly told him not to focus on me, because Atom and Asher196 were equally guilty of edit waring. He asked me for the diffs and I was a little frustrated that he would go and find diffs to show "My Crimes" but not take a quick look at their diffs. After I gave Dreadstar this info, and he still focused on me not indenting, and edit warring. Gave me the old speech "You're responsible for your own actions" That is when i accused him of being bias. I had seen his presence on that article and its talk page, discussing the topic and how to improve it with the others. I felt he was to involved and as far as i knew or still know he could have been friends with Asher196 and Atom. The conversation just completely fell apart from there. as no one was thinking straight, and i asked him not to contact me anymore. It was after this drama that Rlevse contacted me for the first time. He gave me a warning after the fact. I hadn't even edited that article the entire day when he gave me that warning. He then protected the Breast article a hour latter, and editing was impossible so i couldn't do it even if i wanted to. I discussed the lede image with the other editors like Rlevse asked buy the next day I got blocked for being Uncivil and going against consensus. Now how can i go against consensus if the article is protected? This was Rlevse post on my talk page (now in archive) "Since you insist on being disruptive and incivil, you have been blocked for 48 hours. Towit: calling someone a headstrong ass, etc, accusing other's of being disruptive for commenting, refusing to accept consensus on a content dispute. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Re your email to me. You seem to fail to realize you are edit warring against several people. Even if your claims in the email are true (ie, basically that he's the guilty party), it does not mean it's okay for you to call people names. I'll ask User:Atomaton to comment here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)" I admit i called Atom a headstrong ass, but that was on my own talk page so i don't really see the logic of doing a block based on that, maybe a user page protection but a block for something on my own talk page that i can still edit? Maybe if i had called him that on the artile's talk page but how would a block stop me from talking or saying something on my own talk page? the second and third diffs were taken out of context, and the other editor i was accused of calling a liar even said so himself. Also as for the last diff, i don't even see how its possible to go against a consensus when editing is impossible. I had simply stated that "even if we reached consensus to day, there is nothing we can do" because the article was protected. You'd have to wait for either the admin to unprotect the article or let it protection expire naturally. How can me saying something out of common sense be going against consensus? Well i disputed this to Rlevse but s/he completely ignored me. Then while looking at Rlevse and Dreadstar's talk pages I saw that they had awarded eachother the same day that Rlevse blocked me. They also were working on the same article beforehand and Dreadstar has a active presence on the Breast article. After finding this out i told them both "Oh this puts the icing on the cake. I thought Dreadstar was bias but this Society Barnstar For finding key public domain documents that proved George Thomas Coker's military record and were key in helping improve that article and helped to settle issues regarding it, I salute and thank you! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC) The Guidance Barnstar For providing invaluable assistance and teamwork in uploading and formatting the Coker military documentation on both Commons and Wikisource, I salute and present you with this award! Dreadstar † 02:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Both of you come at me and it turns out you guys are at least on a friendly enough basis to award each other. Plus don't think i didn't see that you were involved on the Breast Article. You shouldn't be getting yourself involved in matters on a Article that you are affiliated with, an you shouldn't get on someone with another admin you are affiliated with. I ask that both of you admins never contact me, never involve yourself with me and remove yourselves from this discussion, from this situation and from my wikipedian life. Yami (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)" Well after this episode i decided to wait out the block,cool off only to get it extended by Scarian. IT seems that Dreadstar, who i remind you i called bias, was talkign with Scarian. Scarian then posted this one Rlevse Talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARlevse&diff=230415690&oldid=230414485 (read both sides of the diff grey and green) Well after this i E-mailed AGK about this and opened a public complaint against them. The extension and what ever of the first block was left over was undone, and It seemed like they were all to eager to play nice since I stumbled upon their dealings. Well I had disagreed with Atom who claimed no consensus on a Poll that was up for 2 weeks with most of the people decided on the day it was created. for 2 weeks not one ne comment and the results were 5 people for change 4 to keep that article lede as is. Atom is the user who started the survey and claims that we would need at least 75-80% for a consensus in favor of changing a image that has been disputed for months. I and a few other editors didn't agree with him automatically declarign consensus when he is the one who has been against change from the beginning and i have accused him of WP:OWN based on some of his actions. If you wish to discuss that please let me know but this is about Dreadstar and Rlevse. Well Dreadstar and Rlevse start to accuse me of WP:TEND and i told them and Atom that their actions could be counted as WP:TEND and WP:OWN. Dreadstar, even after my multiple request for him to leave me alone, contacted me on my talkpage. Talking about me being disruptive WP:TEND and misrepresenting consensus. We exchanged the usual unpleasantries known between us. I asked him for the umpteenth time to leave me alone and he has this to say http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYami_Takashi&diff=233027652&oldid=233018944 Well unknown to me at the time Rlevse was working in the background collecting these diff between me and Dreadstar and then Rlevse contacted MBisanz, who has associated with Rlevse at least a few times before then. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMBisanz&diff=233030929&oldid=232908519 Well obviously not knowing the past between me Dreadstar and Rlevse the user blocks me using diff that said i was being uncivil when i do not feel i was so. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYami_Takashi&diff=233032474&oldid=233032248 I feel that Dreadstar and Rlevse are unethically treating me, and pulling any strigns to get me in trouble. Until i meet these two and the editors on the breast article i have never been blocked. I feel these admins and editors are to closely related and it is unethical for these admins to get involved as that is a conflict of interest. Plus i have accused both of being bias, and have asked both to leave me alone one multiple times. I ask that their actions be looked into and investigated, and i ask that they not be allowed to contact me on my talk page, or accuse me of anything on any talk page. I will contact them to tell them of this post. Yami (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I think you've wandered into the wrong doorway. dispute resolution is down the hall. Corvus cornixtalk 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC) tl;dr. John Reaves 20:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I'm asking for a review of the action of two admins, i just gave the back story so people would understand. I feel that these two have done my wrong and that a general investigation into them accure. Yami (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I fully intend to review the above, as requested, but could you give us the problem in a nutshell? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I gave Yami a detailed assessment here. In short: the admin involvement was all kosher, the blocks were a little on the heavy side, but Yami keeps begging for blocks by appearing to be in tendentious pursuit of content changes without consensus, and calling for the heads of admins who have been telling Yami to slow down and seek true consensus on these difficult articles. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC) This is about Dreadstar focusing on me and ignoring the others, about admins working together in a gross misuse of power, about editors who are hurting the article, and not being brougth into light because they were there way before me. This is also about Two admins overstepping the boundaries of decency and ethics by pick on a person, and get them in trouble when they retaliate. For the first block i would have understood a block to cool down, but the arguments for the block were weak. The most creditable reason for blocking me was calling Atom a headstrong ass, but that was on my own talk page. Doesn't do much good to block for what is said on the user's talk page that is editable even blocked. Maybe if i said that on the other users talkpages or the article but still that's a warning at best and a sign to have both fighters go to their corners. As for the other stuff i clearly stated why it was bogus, and was ignored. As for the 2nd block or the block extension that was Pork and meat with dairy. Dreadstar who i accused of being bias was talking to Scarian. Not to mention Scarian's general attitude was less then civil. As for this latest block Dreadstar and Rlevse seemed to be working together just to get me in trouble. Dreadstar gets me to tell hjim to leave me alone and Rlevse collect the diffs to frame me up. Basically I was wrogned when Dreadstar chose to ignore the others edit warring against me, and put a person vendetta against me. Yami (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Excuse me john, what is your relationship with Rlevse? I ask because after a month of this all i am paranoid as can be about admins, and have been checking their talk pages just in case. I noticed Rlevse came up a bit in my browser find mode. Its 1:44 am so i can't really read anything right now but i just want clarification. Yami (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I have explained my ties to Rlevse when I posted a long and detailed summary on your user talk page. I did that because you are accusing everyone of being related to Rlevse - no surprises there - he is a bureaucrat who 154 people voted for; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Rlevse. However your insinuations of guilt by association, and paranoia about the motives of others, is wrong and are part of the reason you have been blocked twice now. It is "FUD". There has been no vendetta against you, however you are getting treated more harshly because you are not doing very much good editing at the moment, which means admins will have an increasingly short temper when reviewing your talk comments. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Month worth of events in nut shell I think that this is as tight as i can get it in a nut shell, it might sound like a caveman but i'm nut shelling a month worth of stuff. New guy arrives at article, new guy gets singled out, new guy discuss article with others, editors and new guy fight, Admin knows the editors on the article, Admin ignored other editors and focuses on new guy, New guy tells admin he's bias, New admin that other admin knows comes into the picture, new admin warns new guy, new admin protects the article, new guy continues to discuss the article while being ridiculed by other editors, Survey gets made, new guy gets blocked for things that make no sense by new admin, admins working together, Oldest admin brings in newer admin who extends the block after talking with oldest admin,new guy gets public complaint opened against admins, admins shaped up undo everything and act innocent, New guy questions admins who ignore new guy and plays nice, new guy decides to let it go, not beat a dead horse, RFC is made on Survey, Survey comment period ends Survey maker who was against change from start declares no consensus, Newguy with others dispute this, Editors accuse new guy of Forum Shopping when RFC rep came to the article and commented making similar comments like New guy and some others, Admins come back and call new guy WP:TEND, Oldest admin comes back to new guy's talk page after asked not to, oldest admin threatens new guy, new guy tells oldest admin to leave him alone, second oldest admin working in background to frame up new guy, second oldest admin gets newest admin who doesn't know about the past to block new guy.Yami (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC) The linear non caveman form. I'm new to a set of articles Breast Ejaculate and penis (<~ not so much the penis) where a group of editors have been for a long time. I brought to much change and they all gang up on me. Dreadstar is active on the breast article and is possibility protecting the article and the other editors who were there before me. I feel i got singled out for being the new guy, and Dreadstar is looking the other way on the actions of the older editors. I call Dreadstar bias because of this, and ask him to leave me alone. Then Rlevse who was working with Dreadstar comes to save the day. I get warned by him, the breast article gets protected, and somehow even though the article is protected, I continue to debate and disccuss the article on the article's talk page. A Survey is opened this is important for latter) while still in discussion with the other editors on that article, i get blocked by Rlevse for things that makes no sense, and even after i disproved where he said i and even another editor did wrong he ignored us. A third admin Scarian comes along and extends the block, and protects my Talk page for continuing to accuse Dreadstar and Rlevse of wrong doing. I find out Scarian and Dreadstar had been talking before Scarian extended the block about extending it. I e-mail AGK and open a public complaint, they quickly shape up in front of him, undo the block and protection and try to play innocent. I questioned them but they ignored the questions, so i just let it go. on the breast article a Survey that was up for 2 weeks, which was practically decided the day it was made (august 4, 2008) comment period ended. It had changed little in 2 weeks. the only change was 1 editor went to neutral and a late poster was to late on the draw. Atom the one who created it and the editor i have the most conflict with for various reasons (which you can ask for) Declared no consensus on it. the results kept being misrepresented and I kept correcting him. He had been against changing the lede from the start and i found it was a conflict of interests for him to declare no consensus when more voted for change. There has been a RFC request before the Survey ended. I and other editors Atom's claims of no consensus, RFC rep post in favor of change, and I got accused of Forum shopping by the people on the other side of the argument. Then Dreadstar and Rlevse accuse me of being WP:TEND when Its Atom who was being WP:TEND and WP:OWN based on his comments (i'll supply them to you if you want) not just that article but all the ejaculate article and maybe the penis article. (I don't go there much) Dreadstar comments on my talk page despite my telling him not to multiple times. He threatens me, i tell him to stop threatening me and leave me alone, while Rlevse is in the background collecting the diffs. He presents the diffs to MBisanz who blocks me for being uncivil. Yami (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC) TL,DR. Next time use commas... it's late, i clicked "Breast Ejaculate" thinking it was one link to something i should look up for porn, but no, just two old articles. Commas are your friend. ThuranX (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Heh? Breast ejaculate? Didn't we just go through a long discussion on something similar?? Dayewalker (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WhisperToMe (crossposted from Help Desk)

Is there a new policy where every survivor (and possibly the fatalities) of airline crashes are to be memorialized with redirects to the incident/crash that they were involved in? I ask because of the numerous redirects that User:WhisperToMe (contribs) is setting up. Dismas|^(talk) 21:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is the most appropriate guideline we have. To put it another way, no. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So, any admin feel like using the admin rollback? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, redirects are pretty cheap/harmless. I don't think there is any pressing need to wipe the redirects. Shereth 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

They can't be speedy-deleted anyway. A mass RfD is the way to go. But first, why not bring it up at his talk page? This is what they're for. . . Chick Bowen 22:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As said elsewhere, these aren't memorials - they are intended to deter creation of memorial articles and to direct inquiries to the article about the disaster. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are not memorials. It's a logical way to deal with people who come to Wikipedia looking for information on one of these victims. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You could always list them on WP:RFD Exploding Boy (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like a preemptive measure. After the Virginia Tech massacre, articles were created on every victim and most were eventually merged or redirected to the main article. I didn't see anything on WhisperToMe's where he was asked to explain what he was doing. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a pre-emptive measure. I am doing this for incidents old and new. Most of these names are not mentioned in these articles at all. These people are notable, but they are only notable as a group, so they are redirected. People who are notable individually who happen to be in a disaster, like Frank Huddle, get their own articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should heed Shereth's advice and just leave them be. It prevents other users from creating stubs about those persons and as Shereth points out, redirects do not harm anyone. SoWhy 23:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If they're not mentioned in the article then the need for redirects is debatable, in my opinion. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The need is certainly debatable, but as they are already there and not causing any problems, it just seems more trouble than it is worth to go through the hassle of running these through a RFD. Shereth 23:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Shereth. Potentially useful as search terms, more trouble than they're worth to get rid of. GlassCobra 23:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. If nothing else, keeping them could encourage others to create similar redirects. Are we to redirect the name of every person killed in an accident, disaster or attack? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If the redirects aren't causing a problem, then what's the big deal? I seriously doubt that someone is going to be encouraged by this spate of redirects to start creating droves of them, but even if they do it is not a real problem. They're just redirects. Shereth 23:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Above, WTM says he is "doing this for incidents old and new." Exploding Boy (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case but I still say "so what". You are right in saying that we do not need to have these redirects, but we also do not need to get rid of them. I wouldn't have advocated their creation but since they are there, it's best to just let it be and move on. It's not doing any harm and isn't in need of any dire attention. Shereth 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason we delete articles and other pages we don't / no longer need. And for the added reason that, to me, it seems rather like a violation of Memorial. And for the additional reason that having a redirect could well encourage or be used as justification by someone to add the person to the article. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your concerns and I'll just leave it at that - clearly we have differing opinions. In any case, it's pretty evident this is a non-issue (in terms of immediate administrative intervention) so if you're intent on having these removed you'll have to take it to RFD. I'd still advise against it. Cheers, Shereth 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm intent on removing them, but I would suggest that perhaps we can ask WTM to refrain from making such redirects in the future. He should review WP:NOTE, and Wikipedia:Redirect. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read these policies, but they lead to more pertinent ones like this Wikipedia:BLP1E#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event - I'm not sure how exactly the policies are to address redirects that prevent creation of biography articles for people notable for one event. Therefore, these people are notable, and notability does not expire, but they are notable for one event. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a more pressing BLP concern here. How do we know that these people were involved in the accidents? We certainly won't be putting in a list of the victims to add sources to it, so we have no way of making it verifiable in the article. Without any verification on wiki, then we have no real way of showing to our readers that these people who they've come across via a search engine have anything to do with the disaster that's been redirected to. It's a bad precendent to start, because we could have malicious redirects created of people who have never been involved in an accident. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I wasn't planning on bringing this up, but WTM has been admonished before regarding unnecessary redirects, in that instance for creating numerous redirects based on unlikely misspellings and misromanizations of Japanese names. We removed many of those on similar principles, ie: that they can create confusion. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For people who are still living they can be "sourced" by commenting in links to reliable sources. For people who are dead, while BLP doesn't apply, the sources can also be added. It should be easy to source them. Anyway, regarding the Japanese redirects, I do not remember them being removed. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but adding sources etc to redirect pages is just an invitation to expand them into articles, when those people are not, as you said, really notable.

Regarding the Japanese redirects, I thought some of them had been deleted; I certainly remember that as the outcome of the discussion. I just checked one I particularly remembered and it still exists; I think I'll just delete it now.... Exploding Boy (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessarily the case - It's hard for newbies to edit redirects, and --> makes the source there, but discreet. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Exploding Boy: Which one is it? AFAIK I would RFD it first. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of the names will also be held by more notable people. Various people (several look potentially notable) called "Jeff Arnold" have 36000 Google hits [29], and we redirect Jeff Arnold to an article not mentioning the name. It seems confusing to people searching information about any Jeff Arnold and wondering about the connection to the redirect target. Also, the crash was 9 years ago. How often would an article about a crash victim or survivor be created more than 9 years later? I think most of these redirects do more potential harm than potential good when the subject is not mentioned in the target. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, some of the names (whether or not it's the same person) are mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, for example Jeff Arnold [30]. Instead of getting useful search results, a user clicking Enter or Go will get a page they may not understand the meaning of. And wikilinks on the names may go to a page irrelevant to the person in the context. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

{undent) I initially thought this was from the recent crash, but these are old crashes. If anyone was going to create articles on any of these people, it would have happened by now. The redirects are being used to populate Category:Survivors of aviation accidents or incidents. I really don't see this as useful. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Some are recent, some are old - Anyway, the intention is NOT to create articles on any of these people, but to redirect from people to events. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also many of the older crashes are covered in recently-released TV documentaries (Seconds to Disaster and Mayday (TV series)) - many of the names I redirected are of people who appear in these documentaries but who should not get their own articles. These documentaries feature living people who speak about their experiences, and they feature deceased who are sometimes represented by actors in individual episodes. Also crashes have litigation and "anniversary" newspaper articles. This is why I redirected some names of people in 1990s disasters and a select few before the 1990s. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's questioning your motives, but some of us are concerned with the result of creating such redirects. There seems no good reason to create a redirect for someone who is not notable, and will never have an article about themselves, for all the reasons given above. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring blocks on Taekwondo

I have blocked Melonbarmonster2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for escalating the latest edit war over Taekwondo, which I have additionally protected for a week. I think they both exceeded 3RR today; regardless of whether they did that or not, it was clearly in violation of the edit warring policy. Brought here FYI, in case anyone else wants to review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Both users are now asking for unblock, so if anyone has the spare time to review... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good use of the mop; both editors were using the article talkpage to shout at each other and anyone else who happened in the way, and looked likely to use ip's to further the slanging match. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice that it was on ANI, so I contacted Georgewilliamherbert first. For the reasons noted on the user's talk page, I think that the unblock request by Badagnani should be granted. I've not reviewed the block of Melonbarmonster2, because there is no active unblock request by him or her.  Sandstein  09:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein. Badagnani's only edits at 22:19 and 22:38 do not amount to an edit-war - after those edits, he stopped editing the article and confined himself to the talk page for about half an hour, however heated that might have been. Then at 23:52, he was blocked - I don't think this was appropriate and Badagnani needs to be unblocked (and the unblock summary for the block log needs to state enough so that it does not prejudice administrators in future sanctions, should they be considered at a later date). If there's no response (by the blocking admin) in the next hour or so, I request someone unblock the user accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, and I have unblocked. The two reverts were different reverts, well spaced out in time, and the talk page comments from Badagnani were civil. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My contributions are being deleted

Hi,

I provided references at the Norse colonization of the Americas article and its being reverted for no reason. I think its because I added a chapter on how the Native Americas were able to fend off the Norsemen. Anyway, its good stuff there and I don't think the reversion are in everybodys' best interest. One reason for the misunderstanding may be in relation to this page. Special:Contributions/InternetHero (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Whose contributions are being deleted? User:InternetHero's or User:69.60.229.218's (the one who posted the above)?

If the former, your/his edits seem to be rather controversial, judging by his talk page. You/he have been warned for rude edit summaries, for one thing. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I typed that at my friend's house, so its for InternetHero.

They're much worse to me---the only problem is I have better things to do with my time than to complain on the internet. Are you going to help me? InternetHero (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing. So far, I see next to no discussion of these edits on the talk page, and what little discussion there is seems to be against some of your additions. I do see some reversion in the page history, but you're doing your fair share. Your last edit, marked "improved quality of article: fixed the poor quality of grammar: added a chapter on the indingenous warrior," is more or less a revert back to your preferred version.

My suggestion is to discuss on the talk page and try to work it out amongst yourselves, without making remarks about other users (edit summaries like "x user is clueless. He is simply vandalizing the article" are to be avoided; similar entries on the talk page are similarly to be avoided). I will leave a message there as well. You could also create a sub-page to the article talk page and rewrite the article there as you think it should be, and invite discussion on the main article talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Added: since a revert war seems to be brewing, and since no-one seems to be bothering to discuss, I have protected the article for two days and encouraged all editors to discuss the issues with it on the talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I have added a note about your page protection at the rfc. --Hordaland (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Harry "Snapper" Organs

The confession at User:Harry "Snapper" Organs might be interesting to some around here... 71.204.176.201 (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Raymond arritt (talk · contribs) is not banned or blocked, so he is free to return using a different account. I take the rest as a not very funny joke. Chick Bowen 03:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Two possibilities (a) Raymond is just being a silly sausage or (b) "anarcho-authoritarian" is actually a word, I mean wtf... — CharlotteWebb 03:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a few of us who go a bit silly on Friday afternoons (CW caught "anarcho-authoritarian" but missed "fascist liberal"). Please accept my apologies for having offended anyone. Harry "Snapper" Organs (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe she didn't miss it, maybe she's a Jonah Goldberg fan. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No comment. — CharlotteWebb 18:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with User:Raymond arritt, but the name "Harry 'Snapper' Organs" was used by Terry Jones in skit on Monty Python's Flying Circus. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. I've redirected it to the episode, if anyone cares. — CharlotteWebb 18:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block requested

Resolved

Please see the contributions record of this individual who is a new member but is being disruptive. I recommend a block. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User has already been blocked by Luna Santin. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks very much. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Lame edit war

Resolved

 – Page protected by Carnildo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

[31] --NE2 05:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for asking but what exactly is your point? Do you disagree with the protection or with the reason the protecting admin gave? SoWhy 09:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Add it to WP:LAME if you want, but this doesn't require admin intervention as Carnildo has already protected the page. Khoikhoi 09:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I have not noticed that his post is so old. Well, next time I think reporting at WP:RFPP will stop it faster. SoWhy 10:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For something this lame it would be preferable to block the edit-warring users. I'm pretty sure other users are more likely to want to edit other parts of the article than to give a flying fuck whether there are spaces between the shield icons in the info-box. — CharlotteWebb 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Music/TV hoaxer

Resolved

 – hoaxer indef-blocked by Guy

Avago UK (talk · contribs). On a recent hoax article posted by this user, an anon IP commented: "Hi, the person that created this article is Paul Akinbola, a popular internet person who vandalises wiki articles for fun and also posts crap on www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums", and on digitalspy we find:

Paul Akinbola is a famous troll around here. He copies and pastes other people's posts and uses them as his own and comes with up with bizarre ideas for TV channels and companies, he gets banned and re-surfaces a month later. I've noticed him recently trolling the Challenge TV forums requesting to get ITV chart show on Challenge TV!!

Have you seen Wikipedia recently? He's invented a new Digital TV platform called "Box New Channels" (Wikipedia have since deleted that article, rather unfortunatly), and a new music download/tv channel called "Four-pack Music Sky Broadcasting". And don't forget his claims that 4Music is going to be opened by Eminem covering "Black or White".

The user's talk page makes it seem likely that this is true; he has a whole string of hoaxes and little if anything in the way of constructive edits. I have posted {{uw-create3}} for his latest hoax, but I suggest a block is in order without waiting for more hoax articles. JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ten minutes trawling through his edits was enough for me to indefinitely block him as a hoaxer. His deleted contributions - see Avago UK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - suggest that this is a long-standing problem, as exemplified by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feak on the Dance Floor. If unblocked he would need an enforceable editing restriction demanding that every single edit be sourced from an unimpeachably reliable source, but I don't see the benefit of unblocking. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I nominated for deletion one of Avago UK's suspected hoaxes, Four-Pack Music Sky Broadcasting‎. I am also a significant forum member within Digital Spy and I have to admit that the threads started there and the edits made by Avago UK are very similar, particular edits in regard to Channel 4, Bauer Verlagsgruppe and British Sky Broadcasting articles. He is also known on TVForum as well and a search of Google shows another user accused of being the same person, but doesn't have the same pattern of edits as shown by Avago UK. GMTV Chart Show (talk · contribs), another person suspected as being Paul Akinbola appears to edit the same articles in the same way as Avago UK does, and a poster on that thread also suspects he may have more than one account too. --tgheretford (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting after checking the block log for GMTV Chart Show that he was indefintely blocked for exactly the same reasons that Avago UK was blocked, so it would be safe to assume that Avago UK may have been created by the same person as a way past the block on GMTV Chart Show. --tgheretford (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

More Abtract at Masculine (disambiguation) and Feminine (disambiguation)

User Abtract takes delight in reverting my edits wherever he happens to be. I'd actually like that dealt with at some point, if it continues, however, the current issue is just too trivial to be worth it.

Currently, he is insisting on linking the first word of these pages in a way that introduces a double redirect. He claims he doesn't realise what he's doing. I speculate he just wants me to go to the trouble of continuing to report him.

Anyway, the fact remains, it's a double redirect, it's hard to see how it aids clarity, in fact it introduces mild confusion, but it's counter to redirect policy anyway. Could someone do something please. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, it's a single redirect. [32] shows that he has the better wording but that you have the better target. A piped link (Masculinity|Masculine)would fix the problem in a flash. Try that. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Emily Eddey

I deleted Emily Eddey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was tagged as {{db-a7}} but also read as blatant advertising. The author, Geddey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has emailed me challenging the deletion. In the email he states that he is the subject's father. Subject is 19, has released one single via the internet and once appeared on the same stage as Alexander Slobodyanik when she was 8, apparently. "Emily Eddey" +singer gets 43 ghits, including the YouTube form which some of the article was sourced. No evidence of any authoritative biographical coverage, which is my minimum standard for a WP:BLP these days. I think we should wait until (a) she has released "her first fully-produced studio album", which daddy says will be recorded some time in October, and (b) someone other than her father chooses to start the article. But I am a heartless bastard so I bring this here for others to consider whether that is fair. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How dare you shatter the dreams of an aspiring young lady! Endorse deletion, perfectly correct. --Rodhullandemu 14:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Without substantial third-party news coverage or anything else that hits WP:MUSIC (national/international tours, a hit single), even one studio-produced album doesn't really cut it. Meanwhile, the deletion was spot on at the moment. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion This is why we have {{db-band}}. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 15:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User replacing all external links with single link to DMOZ category.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A new user has been replacing lists of external links to the relevant DMOZ category page "since Wikipedia is not a directory of links." This is new to me; is this what we're doing now? It hardly seems likely since doing this removes relevant links to issues discussed in articles. At Border Terrier, for example, there was an external link to a page concerning Canine Epileptoid Cramping Syndrom, which affects BTs and is discussed in the article; there is no such information in the DMOZ category. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand a cursory review of the links that have been replaced reveals that there were a large amount of unsuitable links. On the other hand, the categories linked to in the Open Directory Project are incomplete (some contain less links than were replaced, contrary to what I expected), seemingly indiscriminate and not something we can control. So, in conclusion, I don't think we should link the Open Directory Project without careful review because frankly it's a bit rubbish but the external links sections on the dog breed articles do need de-spamming. CIreland (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Linkspam is always a problem, but on review of the external links guideline and of the DMOZ article itself, I'm inclined to say this should be specifically disallowed since we have specific requirements for external links and 1) we can't control what DMOZ selects for their categories, 2) external links should be relevant to the article content, and 3) DMOZ has apparently had some problems with non-neutrality in the selection process. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be a bit worried about wholesale changes to link pages without attempting to gain consensus when the replacement link is so variable in quality. My initial feeling was that this was probably aqa user who had had external links removed, and had responded in this way; however this doesn't seem to be the case and I can't see any malicious intention here. That said, I don'tbelieve that it's helping WP. --Ged UK (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking to DMOZ is usually a good thing because we don't do link directories and DMOZ's purpose dovetails with ours. We should check the list of ELs that we plan to compress and check them against DMOZ and Yahoo Directory, and link to the best one. However, if we have an important EL that they don't, we should keep it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ged UK: I don't think the user is being malicious either, although he is quite new to be citing policy... Still, I think he's probably acting in good faith, although misguidedly.

Re:Squid: linking to Yahoo Directory is not part of the EL guidelines. While we're not a link directory, we also don't provide links to link directories (just as external links should not be to Google searches, for example). It is far easier to control what we're linking to when we can see the links on the article page, and this also allows us to select which pages we'd like to link to, since, once again, links are supposed to be relevant to the article content. Other rules apply as well which would be far more difficult, or impossible, to enforce. All in all, I don't see any reason not to continue to provide a small number of carefully selected, relevant external links at the end of each article. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Our external links guidelines (#3) do suggest linking to directories in some cases. This editor didn't follow the same process outlined there but their bold edit does not seem out of keeping with the intent. -- SiobhanHansa 17:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, linking to DMOZ is generally fine for articles where there will be hundreds of fanclubs, owners' clubs and so on, but it's not, of course, a substitute for sourcing; if there are links which should be part of the article as sources then that needs fixing. WP:SPAMHOLE is still a problem and good-faith link pruning is not a bad thing. If, on the other hand, this is retaliation for past removal of some cherished link of the individual's then of course it would be WP:POINTy. Let's assume good faith and try to educate the user to be more discriminating. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User looks to be related to the very spammy looking trainpetdog.com (see here), which is untouched by the replacement of external links with searches, since they are references. Possibly spurious references. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

After spotchecking the articles trainpetdog.com appears in, it is the first reference in each article, and the domain name appears bolded. If I were to set aside AGF, this looks like a very deliberate "link placement" campaign, with trainpetdog.com standing out at the top of the references section. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The spam guideline recommends that a spammy link section be replaced with a link to DMOZ. - MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• OK, this is lighting up the spamdar. Is there any evidence that trainpetdog.com is a reliable source? See Special:Linksearch/*.trainpetdog.com. Never mind, there does not appear to have been any debate about these links on talk, I have removed them. Or trainmypet.com? Guy (Help!) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look like the world's most reliable source, but it's an interesting read: http://nancyrichards.org/. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The links lists I've checked that have been replaced by this user didn't seem particularly problematic. In dog breed-related pages it's common practice to link to several breed clubs. The Border Terrier article in particular had only a small handful of links, none of them spammy. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking to dmoz is often a sound method for reducing external link farms and spam; the inclusion of any link not already included at dmoz should be specifically justified in these dog articles, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, as already pointed out, none of the articles in question seem to have been particularly problematic as regards link spam. second, why should the inclusion of any link not already included at dmoz be specifically justified in dog articles? They are not Wikipedia, and they have different criteria and aims. And yet again, our guidelines indicate that links be related to our article content. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There is administrative action possible in response to this incident. The link removal was arguably supported by policy and circumstances. Nobody is going to block or warn that user over a content disagreement. Please, take this matter to the article talk page. This noticeboard is not the place to argue about content. Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't believe that this should be dismissed offhand as a "content disagreement". It appears to be an attempt at search engine optimization on Wikipedia. The method was (a) insert links into Wikipedia articles (ie linkspamming); (b) give them artificial prominence by ensuring they were the top link in the references (ie link placement); and (c) eliminating all competing websites by removing the external links. I think some people missed what was really happening here. As for admin action, I've started a sockpuppetry case here, if anyone wants to expedite it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil exchange between two users

• Kelvinthekiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kperfekt722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just come across what looks like a very uncivil exchange between Kelvinthekiller (who's username looks like a violation of WP:USERNAME) and Kperfekt. Looking at the diffs, here's how I see it:

• Kperfekt722 "warns" Kelvinthekiller. Looking at Kelvinthekiller's edits, they are vandalism, but at the same point, Kperfekt722 doesn't WP:AGF, nor does he warn Kelvinthekiller with the proper {{uw-vandal1}} template.
• What followed was two highly inflammatory and immature comments by both users, see here and here.

Both look like very immature users, and to be honest, I would support a block for both as they both seem to be personally attacking the other. Neither seem to want to contribute to the encyclopedia, with both sets of contributions suggesting WP:MYSPACE and WP:VANDALISM to me. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you made any attempts at contacting either user to try to see what was going on, prior to coming here? (Besides the obligatory, usually inflammatory "Hi, we're talking about you at ANI type posts). Just curious. Keeper ǀ 76 17:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(E.C.} Have you questioned either of them yet? -- iMatthew _T.C. 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • No, but looking at their talkpages they look like another user here trying to cause trouble in little squabbles that aren't here to improve the encyclopedia, but are instead here just to rant and make the atmosphere around here bad. D.M.N. (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left both of them a warning. If they continue, a block may be justified. -- iMatthew _T.C. 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Murderer" might be blockable, "killer" doubtful. If he's a vandal, the name doesn't matter. Template-based communication is highly over-rated anyway. If you can't come up with a real message there's probably no point in saying anything. — CharlotteWebb 18:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Einsteindonut disruptively moving Palestinian-related articles

Please see the history of this article, as well as his move logs for evidence of his disruption. He's shown a willingness edit war (I reverted his initial move, and he moved it again), to enforce his moves, including using typos to keep non-admins from being able to move the article back. He has refused invitations to discuss the move at talk, from both me and an administrator (on his other move) and he needs to be blocked for a short time, to prevent further disruptive moves. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I never received an invitation to talk w/ you to my knowledge. I'm new here. I'm seeing all sorts of problems with neutrality. I'm not here to disrupt anything but to make things more neutral. I'm not that clever to use typos as you suggest. That was actually a mistake. I'm happy to discuss any of my edits. You claiming that I have refused any discussion is false.--Einsteindonut (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In the edit summary of my revert of your initial disruptive move, I very CLEARLY asked you to discuss any further moves you might wish to make. And you'd been previously "talked to" by Ceedjee about just this issue as well. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Additionally, his last move needs to be reverted by an administrator, since he used a typo and double-move to make it unrevertable by regular editors. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  Would an administrator please handle at least the move back? This page has been sitting at an improper title for 25 minutes now. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

He's moved a few pages but I think he's got the message now that he should discuss such changes beforehand. Gatoclass (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

True. And I didn't see what Jameson "very cleary" wrote actually. I didn't notice he made a revert.--Einsteindonut (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Not true at all. You may not have seen my edit summary, but the last portion of your statement is simply untrue. You made the move a second time, and made it unrevertable by nonadmins by including a "typo" and doing a third move. The second move proves you at the very least knew that I had moved it back. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I barely even know what I'm doing on here, so I think you're giving me far too much credit. Thank you for the idea though. --Einsteindonut (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You may well have actually accidentally done the typo. However, the fact that you moved it a SECOND TIME, proves you knew it had been moved back, it's as simple as that. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 04:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut was just here on AN/I for other POV pushing agendas as a part of his participation in, or support of, the JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force). Unfortunately, it appears that he's here for the singular purpose of pushing through a certain perspective about Jews, Israel, and the history of both. He shows a desire to eradicate references to Palestinians, based on the 'there was never a formal nation of Palestine' meme, despite the fact that Theodore Herzl himself called the region Palestine. Regardless of the history of the matter, they are called such now and to refer to them as 'Arabs' is to lump them in with everyone from Tunisia to Iraq, or everyone else in with them, in the case of the migration article referenced here, which is obviously disingenuous and not specific enough to make the topic clear. I don't think that Einsteindonut is likely to alter his behavior either. As such, I propose a topic ban: Einsteindonut should be banned from editing any article about Judaism, Zionism, Israel, Palestine, Arabs, or the politics of any group, or relationship politically, culturally or otherwise between any combination of aforementioned categories, to be interpreted with broad latitude. ThuranX (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Isn't a topic ban a bit quick for such a new user? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 05:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropiate context in talkpage

Resolved

[REDACTED] [33] --Namsos (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

He was given a 'last warning' before on his talkpage, and here again he attacks the editors of the page.--Namsos (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The last warning is about a year old. I've given him a fresh warning. This is a good situation for WP:DENY. I have remove the offensive comment here and on that other page. No point to inflame people. Jehochman ^Talk 19:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A fresh one? They don't have an expiry date. If you've been told, you've been told.--Crossmr (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikiarrangementeditor edit warring

Resolved

 – blockage

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

This user has a long history of edit warring but continues to do so and push a single agenda. As far as I can see from looking over the edits, this user's only goal here is to promote the Nissan GT-R either by extoling its virtues or by casting doubt on its competitors. I have a history with this user, however I am not involved in the current dispute and while Wikiarrangementeditor has not explicitly violated 3RR since the last 1 week block he/she has continued to edit war and has not made an atttempts at discussion. I feel an block is in order, but given my history I would like other admins to look over the situation and make a decision. Thanks. --Leivick (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• A clear case of WP:TRUTH. I've blocked him, feel free to come back and ask for an unblock if you are able to talk him round to a position where he's ready to edit productively. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Date warring on 2008 South Ossetia war

Skyring (talk · contribs) has been editing this controversial article, almost entirely to change date format. [34]; [35]; [36]; and [37]. There may be others; and he seems to be arguing for the same change on other articles.

The claim that WP:DATE requires this is spurious; I cannot find anything describable as consensus on talk. (There was a discussion on talk to make this uniformly Month day, year; but I can't see any to make it day month year.)

More importantly, this article has enough problems. It is mostly Month day, year, and should probably wind up that way; but we don't need dancing Date Warriors adding to the confusion of the conflicting Georgian and Russian claims. Could someone have a word with him? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at his edits, he appears to have been doing little else than date warring. He has done so at Pope Leo XIII, Pope Benedict XIV, Pope Pius XI, and (most inappropriately for an American citizen) Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette. Some of these have been reverted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"most inappropriately for an American citizen"? What the hell does that mean? John Reaves 00:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess Septentrionalis is not referring to the editor but to the subject of the article. Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette says "Lafayette was the first to be granted Honorary Citizenship to the United States." Then a US date format may be more preferred than for Italian popes (see WP:MOSNUM#Strong national ties to a topic). PrimeHunter (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment: I and a group of other editors have been working assiduously on that particular article. We decided to use international date format because, although he is an honorary US citizen, he lived the majority of his life in France and is well known for his actions there, as well (in addition to being a French citizen). Further, Skyring did edit the dates, but was in no way uncivil towards me or the article's other collaborators. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a striking lack of consensus building on all sides here; see this previous discussion. I don't think administrative action is called for here. Chick Bowen 00:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that admin action is probably inappropriate. I'm very disappointed to see that anyone is getting into arguments about date formatting so soon after date-autoformatting has been deprecated at MOSNUM. I'll be yet more disappointed if Pete is going to derail what is a major change in WP's formatting practices by proving the critics right: that dispensing with the blue dates will spark edit wars. My advice to him, which I've communicated more than once, is to cool it, at least at the moment, never to edit-war over date formats, and to take issues to the experts at WT:MOSNUM—that's what they're there for. Please let go of any nationalistic fervour attached to date format: the US military uses international format; many non-US newspapers use the so-called US format; it's a mixed bag. I thank Anderson for bringing my attention to this. Tony (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to let people know outoformatting is deprecated, maybe by a watchlist notice? I've become so used to linking dates that I just do it by default. --NE2 06:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pmanderson. It seems the only reason Pete has come to 2008 South Ossetia war is to engage in enforcing a dating POV as his edits/contribs on this article seem to be only dating related.--«Javier»|Talk 07:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG, involved editor, protecting article in violation of policy....again

I am writing about an issue with admin JzG which is something which seems is not a new issue. However I shall focus this specifically on the most recent issue. To be exact, JzG is an involved editor on the St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine article making edits recently such as this. So then I am very confused as to why he is protecting the page to his preferred version. JzG has long been involved in a content dispute on the page (as have I) and this page is absolutely no stranger to controversy. Thus, it makes every sense that someone who is an admin must distance their admin tools from their editing skills in such a controversial page in order to reduce drama. Right? So, what is to be done now that JzG has violated policy by edit protecting a page which he is so thickly involved in the content dispute of? Bstone (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what sort of dispute might be going on over there, but it seems JzG has only employed semi-protection to the page and it's not actually stopped anything beyond one IP editor (in the last 24 hrs or so). If you feel he's done this to control the state of the page, you might wish to explain a bit about this article. Even if I couldn't assume good faith about Guy, I just can't see what's to gain. --InkSplotch (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, FFS. He semiprotected the page, because an abusive IP which has socked on the page in the past is once again editing it. I suppose he could have blocked the IP instead, but semiprotection is an alternative approach. I am happy to put these actions in my own name instead of Guy's, since it is simple fulfillment of a basic administrative function and an obvious call. This article is under ArbCom sanction because of abusive sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry aimed at whitewashing the school's status - perhaps we could at least not go out of our way to impede the few admins willing to deal with that ongoing issue? MastCell ^Talk 05:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the dispute, but shouldn't Category:Semi-protected from banned users be a hidden category? Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

no comment either, but yeah, I think it should be... and here's a chance for me to show off recently acquired category skills! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• This article has been the subject of abusive edits ever since it was created, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. It was raised to full protection several times, and the last time it was taken back to no protection rather than semiprotection. I fixed that. It needs to remain at semiprotection due to the extensive history of abuse. I think the talk page should also e semiprotected. There has never been a comment or edit from any IP other than the banned and consistently ban-evading users mentioned in the arbitration case. In this case my attention wwas drawn to it when the anon removed the crucial word "unaccredited". My "involvement" is primarily that I was the one who was viciously attacked by these users for trying to make the article compliant with policy, again the arbitration case tells the whole story. And that was pretty much the conclusion last time Bstone came here pushing the "evil rouge admin" barrow. The article is a long-standing problem to the encyclopaedia and of course I'm watching it for more crap from the abusive editor(s). Given that the locus is a single page, a long-term IP block seems to em less appropriate than a remedy centred on the page itself. I don't think this is even remotely controversial given the article and abuser histories. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Stale AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minority-opinion scientific theories

Nobody has commented on this AfD or the associated article or talk page in over a week. I !voted, so could someone else please either close or relist it? - Eldereft (cont.) 04:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; inappropriate deletions?

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has taken it upon himself to mass-delete several non-free images with seemingly appropriate rationales, thus short-circuiting discussions he is involved in here and here. This seems to clearly contravene Wikipedia:Administrators: Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. Whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. An image I uploaded, Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg was one he nuked, which is my potential COI; I would therefore not use admin tools in connection with the matter. I invite uninvolved editors to review his actions with a view to helping him to be a better admin in future. Thanks in advance for any time you can give to this. --John (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just because you don't agree with a deletion doesn't make it wrong and I see that no deletion review has actually established the action was incorrect. ANI is not the place to discuss cases like this. Raise a conduct RFC if you can find evidence of a pattern of abusive actions rather then this being a simple case of sour grapes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you may be missing the point. Try reading what I wrote again, especially the bit in italics. Again, whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. I am perfectly well aware of the function of this page and I know what a user RfC is. As I said, I am seeking uninvolved input, and if you have anything salient to say, I'd love to read it. --John (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)According to WP:CSD#7, WP:NFCC#2 violations are 48h-notification speedies. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use provides authoritative guidance about the interpretation of that rule. All the images I speedied yesterday fell precisely under its scope. I pointed this policy out to a number of people in a number of places recently, including some IfD cases similar to the ones I closed. The fact that I told people about the policy doesn't make me "involved" in the sense of barring me from applying it. Just as an admin who explains CSD A7 to a user isn't barred from applying CSD A7 on a similar article the next day. – In the present case, there were IfD discussions about these speedy candidates, with a few "keep" votes in several cases. All the "keep" opinions boiled down to a logical confusion between necessary and sufficient criteria. We have a round dozen of NFCCs; the must all be met; but all keep votes were effectively saying that one was met so the others can be ignored. Such votes being obviously outside policy, they must be discarded just like you would ignore a "hangon – but they have a page on Myspace!" tag as an objection to a A7-band speedy. It's just irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • • That is your interpretation of policy. It is not shared by others and discussion is in progress about this. You didn't "advise" you plainly !voted delete. You were a participant; then you used admin tools as an involved editor. Ty 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (ecx2) First a user mass noms images on a contentious point. Fut. Perfect participates in some of these discussions, agreeing with the nom. Then he deletes others, where there is debate still in progress, and there's still 3 days of the IfD to run. It's a blatant abuse of admin tools. Ty 06:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, and he is being pretty economical with the truth here as well; he didn't just "[tell] people about the policy", he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and even edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before abusing his admin tools to delete the images in question. If this is allowable, why would we even have an IFD process? --John (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Edit-warring? Get your facts straight. I removed the original image, perfectly within process; then a user – instead of contacting me – immediately uploaded a new version of the same image under a new filename and reinserted it. Of course I deleted that again (duly removing the redlink from the article), and told him to take it to DRV. That's the normal thing to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• This is an ongoing problem with Fut Per. He once threatened to block anyone who dared readd an image he removed from an article, and closed an IfD as delete where every one of the three recommendations was a policy-based "keep." He's using his admin tools as a weapon to enforce his disputed view of image policy, which is completely unacceptable, and needs to stop immediately. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 07:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So far, what's apparent from this discussion is that John and Ty think that FP's deletions were invalid and FP disagrees. The place to debate that is obviously deletion review. Also John and Ty claim that FP misused his tools in a content dispute, which FP denies. If they want this charge to be considered, John or Ty will have to document the content dispute with diffs. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also been the victim of this editor deleting an image when the consensus was clearly that the image should be kept. I believe I gave an adequate summary of why the image counted as fair use in the rationale given when I uploaded the image - used in the Chillenden Windmill article. I'd like to know how to go about restoring the image to the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I see that nothing's changed in the world of policy wikilawyering whilst I've been gone. Claiming that a policy is "disputed" because there's a conversation going on about it is quite neat - on that basis I could claim that any policy with a talkpage is disputed. The editor two above me is entirely correct - DRV is the place for this, not here. Black Kite 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, if an admin is unilaterally reinterpreting a policy consenus on their own, then that is a AN or ANI problem. And that's what's claime here. And I tend to agree there's a problem - The foundation had Mike take a look at non-free fair use and his response was (to greatly paraphrase) that we're not in any danger of being sued for what we're hosting, that our standing policy is far stricter than it needs to be from that standpoint. Reinterpreting NFCC to include "no press image can be reused as it might infringe on someone's future profits" is a pretty big deal, and contrary to policy guidance (informal and nonspecific as it was) from on high. So, I think there's a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Gxxxp vandalism in progress

Hacamuli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Corvus cornix_talk 07:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 sorted - Alison ^❤ 09:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Requesting User's Talk Page Deletion

Resolved

 – userpage deleted by LessHeard vanU Dayewalker (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange one here, so I'm bringing it to ANI for admin attention. An anon IP 67.167.225.223 (talk · contribs) is blanking the talk page of User talk:Twilightzonexxxx, claiming to be that user and wanting their entire page deleted. I reverted the deletion notice and tried to get them to discuss it on the talk page. They answered here [38], then deleted their comment [39] and reattached the db-author tag [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Twilightzonexxxx&diff=prev&oldid=233891580. I thought I'd bring it here. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: And now it seems good faith has gone out the window with this comment. [40] Dayewalker (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the page, as it was old and unused per the request - but blocked the ip for 55 hours owing to the un-necessary personal attacks (I would likely have blocked for "necessary" personal attacks, too) contained in some of the requests. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)