Why was a user with frequent conflicts with Polish users and me trusted to judge the "super sekret evidence" ?
Why was a user with frequent conflicts with Polish users and me trusted to judge the "super sekret evidence" ?
--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
*I for one am sick and fucking tired of this nationalistic bullshit leaking all over the project. New proposal, effective immediately: any editor who refers to another editor's nationality in a pejorative way is immediately topicbanned for a year from that subject area. Do it a second time and it's a permanent ban. Same goes for chronic nationalistic POV-pushing. We have put up with this insanity for long enough. As for the 'secret evidence', Piotrus, calm down and be patient. //[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;font-size:80%;">'''roux'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="border:1px solid #082567;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;"> </span>]] 17:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)</small>
Hi there friends. I've been trying to sort out why our Barack Obama coverage is being allowed to violate our WP:NPOV policy. In case anyone is unfamiliar with the policy it states that: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Yet significant and notable criticims, controversies and perspectives are being deleted from our Obama coverage. No I'm not talking about fringe craziness, although it should be included appropriately, I'm talking about the 44% of the United States, and the people on the political right and far left, who are having their views and media coverage of their issues excluded in violation of our policies (ie censored). I understand the decision was made to eliminate most criticism articles, but the content is not being integrated into any of the articles. So what then is the alternative? Help, suggestions, and ideas welcome. Thanks for remembering to assume good faith and for keeping the personal attacks to a minimum. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by examples. Do you want examples of the content that's being excluded or examples of the objections to it? To generalize, every possible policy is brought out in objecting to any addition no matter the phrasing or the source. Saying it "may" belong in "some other" article is also a familiar meme. If you clarify I'm happy to respond with specifics, but I don't want to burden the discussion with details that you're not asking about. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean diffs where properly cited, reliably sourced, NPOV information was censored or objected to or removed. I think it will be very hard for anyone here to stop the problem without knowing exactly where it is happening or who is doing it. In general I think everyone will agree that, per the policy you quoted, all significant views of his presidency should be expressed. 7talk | Δ |03:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at [1] for example I would agree with you, that you added a properly cited comment. I'll let an admin reply, because I was just really looking for a clearer picture of what your concern was. 7talk | Δ |03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume ChildofMidnight doesn't know the answer. Here's the short version: Wikipedia policies (meaning policies or guidelines) that have no enforcement mechanism are something closer to aspirational essays than actual policies. Unlike WP:NPA and WP:BLP, which have enforcement mechanisms, after a fashion, there is no enforcement mechanism enforcing WP:NPOV if a group of editors successfully camps on a particular page or group of pages. WP:CANVASS, an asinine policy that goes way beyond what's needed to prevent over-spamming of user pages, actually discourages you from going out to find a larger group of editors to overrule the POV fanatics who camp out on particular pages. If you do get that larger number of editors to overturn the campers, the definition of "consensus" will be expanded by the campers to try to deny that you have such a consensus, and since there is no set definition of it, you'll have to argue about that. Along the way, the campers will snipe at you for any procedural problems with your proposed consensus, helped by the fact that Wikipedia has vague strictures on procedures for developing a consensus, so if someone is motivated to argue about something, they can usually argue it for a long, long time. As you're trying to do all this, expect to be sniped at, continually, by campers trying to get your goat so that if you snap back in a way that steps over a behavioral guideline, admins will slam you with a block as AN/I commenters attack you mercilessly. These are, in fact, the rules as they now stand, and they are pretty much iron rules. We really ought to have a set of written-out real rules to help editors through the actual challenges of this website. The way it is now, it's kind of like a Congressman trying to get a bill passed only by reading some "How a Bill Becomes a Law" pamphlet, rather than by realizing that a certain committee chairman needs to have his ego stroked or a certain lobby needs to be mollified -- except when trying to get NPOV there are no unwritten rules, either: unless it's the unwritten rule You Can't Get There From Here. Extreme cynicism on this is the wisest attitude.
Can it change? Glad you asked. It's next to impossible to get any policy change on this website. SlimVirgin has a proposal still under discussion: Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. That proposal isn't my preferred way of going about it, but you and I and anyone else frustrated by Wikipedia's enormous failure in this area should probably discuss the matter there or somewhere. Keep in mind that, like any proposal, you'd be fighting ignorance, stupidity, complacency, bad-faith bias and a number of other problems I'm probably forgetting about on your way to establishing consensus for some proposal that probably hasn't been created yet and which might or might not work. Personally, I prefer to edit List of mammals of Connecticut. -- Noroton (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet one must consideer how 'out of bounds' the situation in an article may really be. CoM, for example, wants to see more in the BO article focusing on both the Ayers/Acorn/Wright stuff, and on criticism of his policies and presidential actions. The former are covered in a proportion which finds consensus, and doesn't become a tarring and feathering, which most of those opposed to the current proportion want implemented, and as to the latter, there's an article for that already. On highly contentious topics, like Obama, Wikipedia suffers as much from POV warriors as it does from apathy. We get a set of editors as regulars at that page, and unfortunately, they spend a great deal of their time fending off POV pushers. Regretably, the people inclined to 'drive-by' edit in a contentious edit aren't your average person, they're people with a seriously adhered to set of beliefs. They aren't going to be interested in hearing our policies, and they aren't interested in 'neutrality', though they shout that word a lot. They're interested in smearing the topic. A few of those may learn some policy, and shout it out, hoping that like whack-a-mole, they'll hit an effective argument. Unfortunately, that presents a misrepresentation of 'consensus' and 'neutrality', because they've simpyl gone from POV Vandals to the 'Civil POV Pusher'. They still aren't serious, reasonable editors. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretably, the people inclined to 'drive-by' edit in a contentious edit aren't your average person Neither are the people camped out on the article. Both groups tend to be POV warriors. You can't solve the problem of POV editing by bashing one type of editor over another. (In fact, no one can actually "solve" it anyway, all we can do is ameliorate it.) One idea is to have some mechanisms where we attract a broader group of editors to an ongoing dispute, so that advocates of one POV or another will need to appeal to a group that is, overall, likely to be a bit more neutral. Another idea would be to conduct some ongoing disputes more like XfD discussions with set periods to discuss, and a third party to make an ultimate decision in a process where there are some well-understood procedures. These ideas would build on what we already do, so they innovate as little as possible and might, eventually, sometime, somehow, get consensus. Just a couple of thoughts. -- Noroton (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is NPOV a core policy or not? How can we make sure it is enforced? And as far as what particular criticisms and contrary perspectives are the most notable in regards to Obama, I am very flexible and interested in collaborating on phrasing and sources. But certainly there are notable issues and concerns that have been widely reported on and that are that are appropriate to include. Excluding this content violates a core policy and it needs to be addressed. I don't think RfC provides an answer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
some requirements and policies can be specified more exactly than others. NPOV is always going to be a matter of judgment. Nobody is actually neutral on any important controversial topic. Even when one edits intensively on something one does not care about in the least -- some dispute for example involving two groups neither of whom one has the least interest in., it is almost inevitable that one will become of the opinion that one side is more in the right than the other, or that one has more sympathy for one position than another. We can try to repress the grossest expression of our biases, but we cannot do so completely. Nobody can. Most of us realise that there are so topics we care too much about to work on in an objective manner, or at least, that the strain of trying to do so is excessive. A reporter will always have the tendency to turn into an advocate. Inevitably also, the mix of people here is not uniformly distributed among all possible viewpoints. No work can be done totally objectively. All encyclopedias, all histories, reflect the views of those who write them. all group works reflect the group. The older encyclopedias reflect the cultural views of the time. This one will inevitably reflect the general views of those people most interested in contributing to a work like this. Given the nature of the work, there are going to be several general tendencies: one is towards general political and social liberalism, the other is to a somewhat libertarian attitude, both left and right. given the possibilities here, there will also be people of very extreme positions on all sorts of issues. the hope is to find some sort of balance. The general run of people here are not zealots; the y will normally give a very wide tolerance to opposing positions. I'd say, in fact, that of all works of this sort, Wikipedia gives an extremely wider tolerance than anything else I can think of. The sort of people who who support Obama here are by and large not going to be extremists about it. They'll accept a good deal of material from the other positions. And remember, there are people here also who oppose him--from the left. They too will help keep the fans from running away with things. The practical attitude, expressed rather cynically but not inaccurately by Noronton, is that you will get a good deal of what you want if you do not ask for too much. DGG (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comment. I will try again in the next few days. But we've gone from having criticism articles to having criticisms "integrated" out of existence for Obama. I believe it is an issue of censorship and it goes to the heart of Wikipedia's integrity. Many editors find the criticisms objectionable. They simply don't want them included, just as many of our articles on overt sex acts are objectionable to many, but we aren't confronted with them because they aren't topics that most of us work on regularly. But the policies seem clear.
Are we to believe there are no perspectives or criticisms that should be included in a U.S. president's biography? Are the criticisms about his approach to economic policies, foreign policies, associations (yes those!), not worth a couple sentences? Clearly there are sources discussing these issues. Clearly they are mainstream opinions even if they aren't majority opinions. If NPOV is a real policy, I don't see how it's acceptable not to include perspectives that are critical of Obama. We certainly include perspectives that identify his popularity, speaking ability, charisma, awards and recognition etc. And if there are more notable criticisms or controversies then lets include those instead. I'm flexible. But let's not have such an important article on Wikipedia that contains only the narrowest of perspectives and that violates one of our three core policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know you're dealing with POV pushers when they object to numerous criticisms, each of which has been made by significant, reliable sources, often many such sources that represent significant points of view on a subject. You know you're dealing with an area in which Wikipedia just doesn't work well when you bring up the problem and no one has a real answer for you. But you're not going to change a thing until you change your focus from your particular problem with the Obama article to the problem of POV in general. By focusing on Obama so much, you undercut your own case by making it appear that you're only interested in promoting your own POV, not promoting NPOV across many subjects. You seem to expect a greater level of intellectual and emotional maturity on the part of editors here than is justified by Wikipedia's history. Editors in general, and admins as admins, seldom respond to pleas to help other people with promoting their points of view when it's a POV the audience doesn't share, and a majority don't share the general outlook you and I do when it comes to Obama. Therefore, in their immaturity, they don't view the POV problem with that article as a particularly bad problem. They also view it as a knotty problem (because Wikipedia makes resolving POV issues incredibly hard to do when there's a determined group camping on the article, and everybody with experience on Wikipedia knows this). In other words, you're wasting your time by complaining on this page. I assume this thread hasn't been archived just yet because there's a bit of sympathy for the fact that there really is no adequate spot on Wikipedia to air this particular basket of dirty laundry. -- Noroton (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, The fact that we can't be perfect (or even nearly perfect) in terms of NPOV doesn't mean that we couldn't make enormous strides toward fair coverage. WP's free-for-all atmosphere on article talk pages is fine for typical discussions, but it tends to favor editors who aren't being fair but who have enough allies to push their own viewpoint. So far, the game has been to get editors on the other side to commit behavioral violations because that's the only way admins will eventually ban them from the topic. It seems to me that the best solution would be to create incentives for editors to be on their best behavior -- not just in terms of civility, but in terms of reasoning calmly and striving to be as objective as possible in their own thinking. By bringing more third parties to the page, POV pushing editors realize they need to provide adequate arguments to promote their view, and they tend to respond with arguments that are as reasonable-sounding as possible. When a discussion is subject to more rules and when there is someone there to enforce those rules, discussions tend to be more productive, more reasonable and less emotion-laden. I think even the worst XfDs are seldom as bad as the very contentious article talk pages for just that reason. Court trials and our own ArbCom cases have more rules and enforcers, and, despite the fact that very contentious subjects are discussed, they seem to work better than our free-for-alls on controversial-article talk pages. I think that's the direction WP needs to go in, and, I think, eventually it will. -- Noroton (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree with you about the problem. I think required decent manners even from devoted content writers would help tremendously. But I do not think formal process at Wikipedia works very well; if it did, why do we have repeated arb cases over the same issues? They don't lead to closure either. And neither do XfDs. I've been arguing the same topics for 2 years now. But yes, greater participation is the solution to many problems here. We can;t prevent a general trend that way, but we can prevent a few people dominating a subject. DGG (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think formal processes like ArbCom and XfD work better than the free-for-all situations where we have large numbers of POV warriors dominating an article, so it would be useful to have some kind of more formal process as an option for intractable content disputes, especially larger ones. By "better", I mean "more reasonable" and "with results bringing us closer to NPOV", but even "not as nasty" and "with less edit warring". I think the fact that XfD discussions are more formalized results in more editors taking part in them than would otherwise. -- Noroton (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably more suited to an RFC that details specific shortfalls of NPOV in it's initial findings, sourced to mainstream media (since while no source isn't partisan somehow, the general mainstream is arguably the most centrist). Since admin tools can't be used directly in regards to content disputes, and NPOV isn't a policy whose violations can be sanctioned for basically short of RFAR, there is nothing any admin can really do here based on this discussion. rootology/equality16:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal of topic ban for ChildOfMidnight
COM has been parroting on about wanting a "criticism" section in the Obama article for months, now. I should point out that no featured article, outside the arts, has, or should have, a "criticism" section. And why is that? Because they inherently violate NPOV by focusing solely on negative opinions. And that's the exact reason why Criticism of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) doesn't exist any more, and why there was a strong consensus to keep an Obama criticism deleted. And honestly, seeing how the Bush articles ended up, said articles will invariably end up criticising his choice of cheeseburger toppings (because it was discussed in reliable sources, after all). This is the point that COM just won't get. It's becoming very disruptive now. Sceptre(talk)13:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rorschach test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been home to a content dispute that has been in progress since 2005 regarding the display of File:Rorschach1.jpg (an inkblot used in the test) in the article. It is claimed by some that the viewing of the inkblot could damage the results of a test the viewer might one day take, and as such, Wikipedia should protect the reader from the image somehow. Based on the above linked review, I have determined that community consensus rejects this notion and supports the display of the image in the lead section of the article. I submit the report for review and ask for neutral eyes on the article and dispute. –xenotalk03:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely approve of the image in the lead. Wikipedia is not censored for any reason as long as the image represents the subject. We also do not disclaim spoilers. While I can appreciate the sentiment of the argument, it does not apply to our standards. Keegantalk05:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Echo Keegan's statement, and also props to Xeno for working that summary out. I appreciate a lot of work must have gone into preparing that. Ironholds (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive work on that compilation! I briefly stepped into the middle of that a year ago (already?!) to enforce consensus after one of the debates, which you have presented in your review. My opinion then was simply to try and gauge consensus. I do fully side with that consensus, and believe the image should stay right where it is. I am not surprised that the debate rages on, however. Like the Muhammad images, it is going to be a controversy here until Wikimedia shuts down the servers for good. Resolute23:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting argument for the suppression of an image, but really, now, content disputes lasting years over a few ink blots? Sigh... props I guess Xeno for not walking away and finding something better to do :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)23:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merged page
The page Sydenham, Warwickshire was recently merged into "Leamington Spa". The merge was formally listed as a merge proposal on the article pages and recently at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. The discussion was closed by an editor who proposed the merger and who was involved in the discussion being in favour of a merge. There was some on-going discussion and the merge was then completed. I am questioning the merge, because I feel that this merge is not without controversy, the "votes" being 3 to 2, and also because the wiki guidelines indicate that an uninvolved administrator should be asked to close a controversial merge. Also, I there have been a number of edits initially on my talk page regarding aspects of the merge, which I perceive as undue criticism and which I am becoming uncomfortable with. I have copied the discussion on my talk page to Talk:Sydenham, Warwickshire, where the discussion can be continued. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus isn't a vote. There were no good arguments from the "no merge" side, the obvious choice was to go ahead with the merge. Jenuk1985 | Talk15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jenuk1985 - consensus was reached, with no adequate reason given against merging, and no attempt in 1 year to reach notability. This argument is moot - by removing the merge banners, Snowman had already subverted the process. As per guide above, further discussion of this issue should continue here Talk:Sydenham,_Warwickshire. Widefox (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the situation as a completely uninvolved admin, having read the discussions on the talk page and looked at the sources referenced in the article, I agree that there is a consensus to merge. Arguments opposing the merge did not address the issues raised in a way that was well grounded in the inclusion guidelines; the arguments to merge were well made and well grounded. Editors' own testimony carries little weight without support from reliable sources, especially those which point to things "being obvious". See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
I would note that the RM should really have been closed by an uninvolved editor (to avoid these sort of disagreements), and I would advise everyone to avoid using the word "vandalism" to refer to others' edits, as it rarely does anything but cause friction. – Toon(talk)01:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now might be a good time to clean up our Scientology articles; I note that the articles associated with entheta and enturbulation are deleted and now we have merely a circular redirect and a pointer to a particularly inscrutable Wiktionary definition; since the terms explain (or would have) the Scientologists' efforts here (see [3], perhaps one of them ought to be recreated. - Nunh-huh12:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More Bambifan101 weirdness
I just tried something on a lark. The password this individual actually provided on a talk page for his sockpuppet accounts is apparently that of pretty much most if not all of his other socks. I just picked two at random and was able to log on to both. Any advantage to going in and changing these passwords since they're blocked anyway? This just gets stranger by the minute. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the passwords are freely available, the accounts need to be blocked with email blocked, to prevent abuse by third parties. Or scramble the passwords. Thatcher11:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this is a bad idea. It's a checkuser nightmare waiting to happen. Should any checks be done on this account, your IP will show up and your account could be suspected to be involved with Bambifan101. Also, it will mess up the SPI bot because it uses article edits to search for socks. Icestorm815 • Talk16:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HaX0r3d by PMDrive1061? - It would really be best to scramble the passwords.. If you really wanted to have fun with them, leave the accounts unblocked & let them spend hours trying to guess the password. (less time to abuse other accounts, and yes - I know there are all kinds of really bad things that could happen with this approach). Collecting them as "trophy accounts" probably isn't a great idea either. --Versageek18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoo boy, have I learned all of that the hard way. I had to unblock my own IP at work! :) No more "trophies" for me, thanks. Thanks for all the help. Meekly, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
application
I was topic banned by Administrator Fut.Perf. on 21 January 2009. So I expressed my opinion here (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Topic ban). Then Administrator Shell_Kinney ordered me like that spend some time working in other areas and show you can properly handle disputes; after a few months of that, ask for the ban to be removed.[4] I obeyed her order for months, and I have not edit the areas from 20 January 2009. Certainly, I made mistakes, and I caused people problem, sorry.
I asked her to release the ban on 26 May 2009.[5] Then she recommend me to ask Future Perfect at Sunrise. So I asked Future Perfect at Sunrise to release the ban. Future Perfect at Sunrise replied like that Sorry, I am currently too preoccupied with other issues to give further attention to your issue. If you want to have your ban lifted, I recommend to take it to the wider community (best post an appeal at WP:AN); if admins there agree to lift it, they are welcome to do so as far as I am concerned.[6]
Please release my ban. Because my edition[7] remains on Comfort women for months until now, it tells us my edition is not bad faith. And I tryed to talk at Talk:Comfort women when I was banned. However, I admit that I have tended to revert editions before the ban done, sorry. I mend my rough behavior. I keep promise, trust me. Please release.--Bukubku (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why not, but if a POV returns then consider a longer, or permanent, topic ban if the community decides it's necessary. Until then, they've been a good editor, no real issues, I see no reason not to AGF. Canterbury Tailtalk12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the level of sniping and finger pointing that's going on here makes it a bit difficult to sort, but the comments from my talk page still stand. While Bukubku did wait several months before requesting to remove the ban, I don't see anything that he did during those few months that would allow me to evaluate whether or not his behavior has changed. I think the responses to Caspian blue in this thread are an indication that Bukubku has not learned how to handle disputes and its likely that removing the ban would lead us right back here. And on that topic, Caspian blue really ought to consider that his comments in this thread reflect very poorly on him as well. The two of you either need to handle your dispute like grown-ups or find a way to avoid each other. Shellbabelfish14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for cool judgment. I need more time and more contributions. I accept your comment, because you formerly told me I need months. But you think I need more time. If you think so, that right. Thank you. Please give me advice.
In addition, my Internet access provider is not the one which Caspin's claim of cherry blossom. I don't use socks.--Bukubku (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shell, as your comment, I may have toned down my wording a bit. However if you had been falsely and constantly accused of "racist" (such verbal attacks are immediately blockable), "liar", "sock" without any evidence by Bukubku ever since he created his account, I don't think you can be much patient of such user. He harassed me with bogus ANI reports to justify his unwarranted blanking campaign. Instead he inserted original research and distorted "history" and "facts". As you noted, his first response to my opposition was making personal attacks against me here. Thus his behavior warrants not to unban him. Checkuer said there is a chance to proceed for Checkuser on him. When Bukubku meatpuppeted a notorious block-evading long-term vandal, checkuser said the result was inconclusive. However the vandal in the end turned out to be the sockpuppeter that I've known. He used various sock ISP"s including "internet cafe"'s. Behavioral evidences are very strong. If Bukubku wants more investigation, I could formally request for Checkuser on behalf of him.--Caspian blue16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bukubku should not be unbanned from his indef.topic ban
Strongest possible oppose for the unban' See these are "some" of disruptions that Bukubku has caused to the community. His indef-topic ban is a very much generous decision by Future given his falsehood to Korean related articles. He not only harassed me by calling me "racist" several times because I restored his massive blanking of referenced contents that he dislike, but also by forum shopping to admins (including emailing), so he tried to make my reputation bad. His "bogus ANI" and "horrendous attacks" can be seen in his reports. Bukubku knows Future has no time taking care of Bukubku's recent edits and activities because of the Macedonian ArbCom case. I'll show why Bukubku should not be free but be sanctioned more. His insistent and false usages of primary sources that scholars define "unreliable" are all disruptive. His habitual lying to attack me such as accusing me of a liar (his lies were revealed, he never apologized to me), and harassed me whenever I corrected his misuse of primary sources. He admitted him doing wrong so deleted some of the sources that he used, but he deceived me as if he deleted all sources as if he uses two different types of primary sources. See below;
Reminder One of the topic-ban conditions is that if Bukubku evades his ban by using "socks", he should be indefinitely blocked. And I have a suspicion that Bukubku broked the restrict. So I request Checkuser on him. Before Bukubku had disrupts Korean related articles especially Empress Myeongseong, some anon with Mesh Isp appeared to insert "unreliable sources" to the article. See the edit summaries. After the anon's insertion, Bukubku created his account and and then his wiki-knowledge was way beyond newbies'.
Request for Checkuser Recently there are tendentious edit warring going on Cherry blossom. Bukubku appeared to edit the article, and his edit does not breach the ban (not to edit any Korean subject or mentions and not to leave to such articles' talk pages)[12]. However, a Mesh Ip user 220.144.194.227 (talk·contribs) appeared to edit and gave this insulting agenda 6 days after Bukubku appeared.[13][14]"South Korean's lie", that is what Bukubku has used to attack me and Korean editors. Given the previous appearance at Cherry blossom and the similar edit summary, and agenda, and Ip, I'm pretty sure the anon is Bukubku.
Besides, after he has got topic-banned, his edit to English Wiki is hugely decreased, so we do not examine how he has been improved himself. All his noticiable behaviors is to complain about his ban to Future, or protest somebody's breach of a Arbcom probation. Moreover, if the anon saying "South Korean's lie", indef.block is what Bukubku would deserve, not his freedom.--Caspian blue13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian blue and me had some troubles. I'm sorry. I apologize to everyone. Sometimes I made mistakes. Sorry. I regret what I has done beyond my translation skill. Sorry. However..Cherry blossom? I only insert picture explanation.[15] Is it wrong? Talk:Imo_Incident#Massacre and No Original research is not my OR. Do you know Boston Massacre? The casualties were less than Imo Incident. But I don't know correctly massacre mean how many casualties. Someone teach me. My talk inTalk:Korea_under_Japanese_rule#Togo Shigenori is wrong? Certainly, my words was not polite for Caspian blue. So I mend my attitude. What is the racist? What is the socks? I don't want to take advantage of Fut.Perf.'s busyness. If Fut.Perf. want me to wait his time, I would wait him for months. I am not cowardice. Please, don't insult people. Well, Caspian blue was blocked as his harrassment of other users in April 1, 2009. I don't want to create with your new drama, sorry.--Bukubku (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your harassment and disruption led your "indef.topic ban" and I can back up your racist attacks with diffs. As for my block, another user was blocked for the same case, and you intentionally forgot to mention about it. You're the ONLY ONE that has been INDEFINITELY BANNED in the history Future's banning editors because of your massive disruption. He has either banned 2 or 3 months, not indefinite time. I request the checkuser, so if you're innocent, you don't need to worry about. However even if you're not the Mesh anon who insulted Koreans on Cherry blossom, there are plenty of evidences that should not endorse your unban. However, you falsely accused me of a sock without any evidence because you wanted me to ruin my name. B'crat warned you for your insults to me. I gave the valid evidence in which is of course no insult to people nor you. You mislead this thread as if you're editing constructively. Since you're requesting for unban to the community, as I'm also one of the community members, I do not approve your unban. So behave nice. Moreover why your activity is hugely decreased since your ban? --Caspian blue15:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of transparency it should be noted that Caspian Blue has been blocked by Future in the past for edit warring on the same article on Comfort women, and harassment of other users. Plus has been blocked by other admins for 3RR and edit warring on Korean and Japanese articles. Canterbury Tailtalk15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well my blocks by Future are related sockpuppets from 2channel and I shot my feet by requesting Future to look into cases. He blocked me together with socks and others for making noise. In the interests of transparency it should be noted that Canterbury Tail has edited Japanese related articles. Canterbury Tail's first comment shows that he did not do research at all.--Caspian blue15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have edited Japanese related articles, but not edit warred and not gotten blocks on it. My original comments still stand. What IPs did before the OPs account was created is not the subject of this. Canterbury Tailtalk15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not revert more than 2 times per day even thought I was blocked for edit warring. You're entitled to your comment so does mine. Please respect my opinion. The diffs of a Mesh anon's edit are to show that Bukubku may evade his ban by using a sock ip. He is not allowed to edit anything Korean subject. So my checkuser request is valid.--Caspian blue15:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Shell Kinney's comment about your unban request.[16]I'm concerned that you seem to have mostly stopped editing since this discussion in February and I don't see anything in your editing since then that would indicate that you've learned to handle disputes. I'm not sure that you're going to get the outcome you're looking for here, but as I said, please bring it up with the person who placed the ban. Thanks. Shell babelfish 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're misrepresenting her comment too.--Caspian blue15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I highly respect Rlevse unlike your numerous rudeness to him User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_12#Unfair, and my request for checkuser is regarding the mesh anon on Cherry blossom. And you meatpuppeted the notorious sockpuppeter, Azukimonaka (talk·contribs) back then when I requested a RFCU on you. Since you're requesting the Community's approval, as I say, I don't allow as such. --Caspian blue15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's good idea!! I edit Cherry blossom, only one time. I don't use socks. It's good. Please check Cherry blossom. And please stop insult others.--Bukubku (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. This does not look like it will end cleanly or amicably. Taking a first look at the evidence (& AGF), each side is a bit sloppy in how they present it. On one hand, Caspian Blue's cite puts Shell's opinion in better context than Bukubku's. On the other, Bukubku did edit the article in question only once under this user name. Pending useful comments from Rlevse &/or Shell, is there any objection to Bukubku being allowed to contribute to the articles in this area by contributions to the Talk pages? (By that, I mean other than by Caspian Blue, whom we can assume will object?) -- llywrch (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian blue and Bukubku should both know that CU can't be used to prove innocence. CU is also not warranted here based on the evidence in this thread, but perhaps with more evidence it would be. The issue at hand is "Do we un-topic ban Bukubku?". The ban was "I am therefore banning you from all topic areas dealing with Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies". I'd have to say "No" because of these reasons: 1) few edits since Feb and even fewer outside his "home turf" of Japanese articles 2) it is readily apparent his combative nature has not waned and 3) I see no effort resolve disputes on the Korea-Japan articles but rather a lurking desire to "correct" the articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for comments.
Llywrch, I don't intend to colorize Shell_Kinney's comment. OK look her comment, this is the link User talk:Shell Kinney#Hello
Rlevse, 1) I edited mainly "home turf" since I have participated Wikipedia. Is it wrong? Now Caspin claim my edition of Cherry blossom. I don't use socks. And If Cherry blossom is related Korea-Japan, many article about Japan become relate Japan-Korea. Because most Japanese and Korean culture or history are overlaped. 2) My attitude was not good, I admit my former tendency. 3) I want to use talk page rather than revert. 4) Canterbury Tail's comment I see no reason why not, but if a POV returns then consider a longer, or permanent, topic ban if the community decides it's necessary. Until then, they've been a good editor, no real issues, I see no reason not to AGF.[17] If community think my POV returns, community should topic ban me. 5) Why only my ban is indefinite period? Caspian blue's ban is 6 month. And I didn't personal attack like.
My opinion is not match Rlevse's. However I respect Rlevse. Rlevse dealt with me fair all times. So what should I do? Please, guide me.--Bukubku (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bukubku, this is about YOUR UNBAN request from the indefinite topic-ban, but you're quick to attack me again. That has nothing to do with me. However such behavior just prevents you from releasing your indefinite ban. Your edits back then were all disruptive, so you're banned by Future accordingly for your disruptive editing to Korean articles with selectively chosen sources to shift the war blame to Koreans. Future said that your edit and intention are "cheap" and "disruptive". You also edited Korean articles unrelated to Japan and your countless edit warring with various editors are all vivid in my memory. There are many good topics unrelated to Korea that needs editing and expansion. However what did you do during the 4 months? Moreover, you have abused AGF and if you're changed, why you have posted the image on user box? (diff)
Rlevse saw the image once when socks from 2channel disrupted the Namdaemun to bash Koreans with the image over multiple language Wikipedias when a fire incident occurred to the Gate. Unlike other history userboxes on your page, you created the userbox instead of using existent ones that shows those who are interested in Korean history such as User:Historiographer/Userboxes/History of Korea and User:Mizunoryu/Userboxes/Korean history
I wonder why you use the image? You have nothing to show your improvement, but BATTLE ground attitude here and engages in NPA. You need to wait more after you can show you're improved by editing constructively.--Caspian blue01:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop machine gun. I like old picture, so I used old picture. I am very careful about using the picture. The picture was photographed in Joseon Dynasty period. If I had hostility, I would use burned picture. And there is other old good picture, but the one is Japanse period, so I didn't use the picture. Please, don't tell me bad.
If you think your above personal attacks could help your unban, keep continuing. You're very good at it so far. Why do you think that the burn-down Namdaemun image has to do with the one that has been used on your user page and socks from 2ch used to vandalise the article of Namdaenum? You also inserted the poorest image to the article of Joseon Dynasty regardless of the fact that there are obviously much better images taken before 1910 out there. Your introduction of the new image here shows that you have no interest in editing Korean related articles with neutral view. --Caspian blue14:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FriedC upped new clear image on 19:07, 28 May 2009. I haven't known until now. I changed my user page image now. I don't have any intention. Please, don't accuse me.New image upped on 19:07,28 May 2009--Bukubku (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really apologise if this is not the right place to ask for this, but I would like to respectfully ask an administrator to protect the Matthias I of Hungary article. I keep adding neutral, foreign sources about his Romanian origin (that is, his father was the Romanian nobleman John Hunyadi), sources from Corvin's contemporaries, yet I see someone tries to push a Hungarian or even Cuman descent on his father's side. I believe the vast amount of sources which indicate his Romanian descent at least allow for this "theory" to remain in the article, since there are many more numerous, and more objective, sources claiming he is Romanian, than otherwise. Thank you. --Venatoreng (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) The origin of the family is disputed by scholars. Maybe he was romanian or hungarian or cuman or serb we are not sure."Gáspár Heltai in his chronicle makes Hunyady the illegitimate son of King Sigismund and a Wallachian peasant-girl. Others try to establish the purely Hungarian origin of the family; others again put in a plea for its Serb or Wallachian origin. In view of modern investigations it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin; János Hunyady himself, however, may be regarded as a Hungarian from his birthplace; probably he spoke the Wallachian language only during his youth, and no doubt was born in the Catholic faith, which his father Vajk (Voik, Vuk) probably had already professed" [18] It was/is also disputed on the talkapge:[19][20]2.) Please do not remove reliable references from the article:[21]
Who is this person who doesn't even sign his username ? We have his contemporary and collaborator Antonio Bonifinius stating his Romanian origin, we have the neutral observer Ransano, we have his rival Friedrich the III who used his Romanian origin against him... There are sufficient sources pointing to his Romanian origin - it should be in the article, if this really is an encyclopedic article. --Venatoreng (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bonfinius? You mean the guy who wrote that the Hungarians are Huns and Matthias is the second Attila? Please read WP:PSTS. Also, this is not the place to discuss this.
Autofellatio is sadly well-known to many of you here for the legendary issues of displaying an image of someone fellating themself on the article. I'm afraid I'm getting a bit stressed out dealing with the same circular discussion over the past several months and several RfC's. I'm going to take a break but would appreciate anyone who feels up to it looking through the current talkpage and maybe the most recent archives to see if I'm misreading this. Any suggestions to put an end to this would be welcome, I'm afraid it feels a lot like quibbling semantics when the spirit of Wikipedia is not censored seems pretty clear to me. Any help or advice appreciated. -- Banjeboi03:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You document your unhappiness, but not what the issues are with respect to creating a fine encyclopedia consistent with our policies and guidelines. What is the issue? Difs, please. Common, suck it up and give us the details, no matter how much back ache it causes. Sorry to be a pain in the neck. Edison (talk)
OK, break was helpful. Autofellatio is the ability to give oneself a blowjob as it were. Since early 2005, possibly a record, there has been various ethical issues applied that have undoubtably resulted in our current policies on what is or is not censored. I'll leave it for others to decide for themselves if there are any implications of the heteronormative mainstream culture or WP:CSB concerns. As Wikipedia has grown so have policies evolved including the implementation of the MediaWiki:Bad image list, which really should be moved to the MediaWiki:Restricted image list, but I digress. Currently there seems to be support for at least one photo of someone autofellating themself without any masking, hide boxes, links to commons, etc. This is in part to confirm that what would seem physically impossible is, in fact, do-able. There is also a strong and broad community consensus against censorship. Previous efforts to hide the image were to use a template image link, the template has since been deleted. Over the last month an effort to find new ways to hide the image or otherwise make our readers take extra steps to see the image have been suggested and generally rejected with similar, IMHO, circular discussion. It's disgusting, Sorry, we don't censor with various nuances. Two RfCs, the second needed because the first RfC didn't add "and don't put the image at the bottom of the page", supported that generally ... wait for it ... we still don't censor. Since then we have had more theoretical and rather pointy threads all rehashing the same issue that has been recently resolved via community dispute resolution. I started a FAQ to help ease these issues but I feel this is starting to boil. I stepped back to avoid a 3rr myself. I hope some univolved folks could look at this and see if there is some obvious steps that should be considered, a projectwide ban of all naked photos?, a policy that any image seem as objectionable should be put in a click-to-see box?, something else? I feel there is an effort to disregard both the letter and spirit of the previous RfCs but I'm in the middle of it so would appreciate some outside perspective. -- Banjeboi08:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer? RfC's are a method of determining consensus; if they were closed with a consensus that the image should remain (and remain as the primary one in the article) then removing it is against consensus and is therefore disruptive. While, of course, consensus may change it needs to be demonstrated to have changed and therefore another RfC (or other method of polling consensus) needs to be held to certify that change of consensus. I suggest that it would need to be those who disagree with the existing consensus to put such a new RfC in place. Until there is another consensus reaching process that finds in favour of removing the image, the image should not be removed/substituted/hidden or in any way displayed other than as per the current consensus.
If you wish for someone to assist you in trying to convey that consensus is to be adhered to, and that the existing consensus is that the image stays as is, and violations of consensus is disruptive and may attract warnings and then sanctions should the disruption continue, then I shall do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I initially made a few comments at Talk:Autofellatio (I am adding this link in part for my personal convenience. A few minutes ago I unthinkingly clicked the link at the beginning of this section in order to get to the talk page, and was quite shocked when I realised that my 4-year-old daughter was almost watching. This might have led to her mentioning that "this man has the same thing at his butty as you, only much bigger" and asking why it is so much bigger and why he puts it into his mouth. Which wouldn't be a big problem so long as she doesn't ask at the nursery for further information. The nursery staff might decide to err on the side of caution and inform the relevant authorities what this little girl, who is living only with her father is talking about.) Then I stopped, because in my line of work there is only a handful of potential employers, and I can't risk one of them checking what my most edited Wikipedia pages are and coming up with Talk:Autofellatio!
It is being repeated ever and ever and ever and ever again what the consensus is: That the article absolutely must have the most drastic photograph possible, at the very top, and (latest detail) not even an option to hide it after first seeing it, to allow reading of the actual article without distraction. In fact, the reason I have heard it so often now is that each time someone says they don't agree with showing the photo, they are told there is a consensus to do so. I think it's safe to say that this is indeed the consensus of the regular editors of that article. It's also safe to say that there is a certain self-selection bias at work. And there are massive assumptions of bad faith and unfounded accusations of disruption against anybody who dares to disagree with the local consensus. There were no less than two "RfCs", but it seems that WP:Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex is not all that frequented, and apparently there were no efforts to advertise this further. There is also some inconsistency here between the treatment of sexual taboos on one hand and defecatory taboos on the other hand:
The editor who did this was blocked indefinitely soon afterwards.
Incidentally, I can't help feeling there must have been some secret canvassing going on. It is my impression that both RfCs had short bursts of "anti-censorship" votes followed by premature closure, against a steady trickle of commenters opposing the photo. Perhaps I am wrong, but the correct way to dispel such feelings is by going out of one's way to ensure the issues are discussed widely and in an orderly fashion, not by stifling discussion and making grotesque accusations of censorship against one's opponents. I wish Benjiboi and Allstarecho would learn this. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grotesque? Let's not go overboard, and let's not accuse people of canvassing either. What we've had in the last week on this page is a previously uninvolved editor who began a discussion about removing the image without having read the archives, and was told that we've already achieved consensus on the issue, and another editor who seems to have previously been involved coming up with yet another way to allow people to hide the image, seemingly circumventing both this article's consensus and general practice on Wikipedia. No one has accused anyone of censorship; people have stated that Wikipedia is not censored. There have been, as this section's title suggests, umpteen discussions regarding this issue. Wikipedia is consensus-based, and consensus can change, but revisiting the same issues over and over again ad nauseam is neither useful nor practical. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the consensus of 44 editors (against 75) in Archive 1? This is the only discussion in the archives that looks like a community-wide discussion to me.
As to "censorship", there were numerous RfC votes based only on WP:NOT#CENSORED, as if this was an obligation to break each and every taboo that we can legally break:
"Oppose - We are not censored, that's the end of the matter. If you have a problem with Wikipedias policy on censorship, take it to the appropriate venue. [...] No it's not. These individual disputes on each controversial page have got us nowhere. If there is going to be change to the censorship policy it will have to take place at a central point. Not an obscure article about men who can live without girlfriends (or boyfriends) because of their unique ability to self pleasure." (Realist2)
"Srong oppose. WP:NOTCENSORED is pretty clear and fair. Personally I may be offended at seeing people who aren't engaged in autofellatio - does that open the door for these convenient masking tools to be employed on every photo I can rally a group for? No, this will only lead to more arguments and splitting hairs and the community has somewhat reasonably sided to avoid images that are more pornographic for ones that are encyclopedic and prefer images of real people than the, IMHO, usually inferior graphics created. Apologies to the editor(s) who work on them but many are, inferior. There also may be some accessibility issues here but the policy of not censoring renders almost every other concern moot." (Benjiboi)
"Oppose: The users who 'accidentally' reach this page from Google can presumably speak for themselves. We should not censor a page to humour the sensibilities of certain editors." (Rōnin)
"Strong oppose: If we sacrifice the basic WP:NOTCENSORED principle here, what next? Slippery slope down which we should not slide." (ukexpat)
"Oppose WP:CENSORED." (Dlabtot)
"Strong oppose: we don't remove images just because someone finds them offensive, even if they were created to offend. NOT#CENSORED is clear on this: censorship of material runs against our mission of becoming a free encyclopedia that includes the sum of human knowledge. I should point out that Template:Linkimage was deleted because it was ultimately used for page 'sanitation'." (Sceptre)
"Oppose. Why are we still talking about this? [...] No, it's because certain people fail to understand basic ideas like "not censored." This debate has been going in circles for years; it's become ridiculous." (Exploding Boy)
Each of these !votes made an implicit assumption that there is opposition against the photo only for the sake of censoring – as if that made any sense. When people censor something they do it for a reason, and that reason is rarely a general desire to censor. We don't show everything. We don't show every single photo from commons:Category:Sunflower in sunflower, even though this would be feasible. Decapitation doesn't have a photo of a severed head, and won't get one even if one becomes freely available. There are obvious tradeoffs between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANITY. I could find no proper, community-wide discussion of this issue in the archives (except for the one in 2005 that started with Jimbo deleting a photo and in which there was a majority against the photo). And a large number of users including some of the owners of the article are refusing to discuss anything other than whether WP:NOTCENSORED is valid and worth defending. That's exactly as constructive as if the other side would refuse to discuss anything other than whether WP:PROFANITY is valid and worth defending. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this isn't something for Admins to deal with. Start a new RfC. I understand you're upset with that process but, unless you want to try an ArbCom (which I seriously doubt would be accepted), RfC is your best route for gauging consensus. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite16:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an academic with a real name account, I am not going to edit that talk page any more for the reason explained above. And the massive, counterfactual claims of consensus that are going on at this talk page are a matter for administrator intervention. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vaguely waving WP:PROFANITY around isn't going to help you, either. To quote that page - "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers..." - so good luck on defining typical Wikipedia readers. The only comment I'd make on the Autofellatio article is that the drawing is a bit redundant given the photo. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that WP:PROFANITY can't apply because there is no typical WP reader is only slightly more intelligent than the idea that WP:NOTCENSORED can't apply because the photo isn't obscene in the first place. Of course it is, for almost all readers. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's clearly obscene for almost all readers, then surely it would have consensus to be removed? Or are you insinuating that the average Wikipedia editor has a higher-than-average obscenity tolerance level? Or are you insinuating something else? I can't tell, to be honest, except that your argument appears to contravene NOTCENSORED (which is policy) whilst promoting PROFANITY (which is a Manual of Style guideline). So, er ...? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very likely that the average Wikipedian has a higher-than-average obscenity tolerance level. We're mostly young, male, a bit geeky, and familiar with the Internet. That adds up to a high tolerance level for sexual content. Yeah. -GTBacchus(talk)18:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment, I simply don't understand what's going on at this article. My best guess is that there must be either a severe cultural/generational gap between me and some of the defenders of that photo, or a bunch of people are trying to change the world by changing Wikipedia first, showing no respect for the encyclopedia's reputation and integrity. Or is it a failure to distinguish WP from Encyclopedia Dramatica? It just doesn't make any sense, and is completely indefensible, to insist that the photo must be in the most prominent position possible. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it's only in a prominent position if you're actually viewing the Autofellatio page in the first place? And if you're viewing that page, I'd guess that it's unlikely you've arrived there by accident (barring a 3,000,000-1 chance that you got there by hitting Random Article). A prominent position would be, say, on the Main Page, or on one of the Portals. Not there. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about native speakers of English, but a non-native speaker can easily come across this word in a novel with only a very vague idea of what it means. "Oh, no problem, I have internet in the office so I can look it up in Wikipedia." But this goes beyond what we should discuss here. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...they then see the image and in a microsecond they are educated as to what autofellation is, job done and in a very efficient way. --WebHamster16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very simple concept. The image that most accurately describes that which is in the article is placed in the top right position. It works well for thousands of other articles, so why should it not work well here? Or are you suggesting that the image doesn't accurately reflect the article's subject matter? The fact that it's a guy blowing himself is irrelevant from an encyclopaedic standpoint. --WebHamster16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think an ogg audiovideo would more fully and accurately reflect the article's subject matter. Oh wait --- that would be porn.17:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It might say something about Wikipedia's reputation and integrity that our policy structure allows such an article in the first place. But we do have it, so other applicable policies apply as much here as anywhere else. That includes image use. Surprisingly enough, it's quite a popular article. More so than bread and circuses combined, and slightly more than quantum mechanics. DurovaCharge!17:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The moustache makes me feel ill. I'd rather the drawing was in the lead (it fits the criteria given for lead image above), and any photo, a better one hopefully, could come later (no pun intended) - if it was agreed it should be included at all, after an RFC perhaps (with a choice of images or no image presented, perhaps). Verbalchat17:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Resp to Hans Adler) WP:Consensus is not that which is decided upon by the regular editors of a particular page - but which is decided upon by the community by means of discussion and reflected in policy. The fact that a majority of editors within a particular prefer something does not negate consensus generally - you cannot take an article and agree between the current editors that WP:NPA, WP:Civil, and WP:OUTING does not apply within those pages and say you have consensus (well, you can try and take the consequences). Consensus is that WP:NOT#Censored applies generally across WP articles, and images that illustrate the article subject are allowed.
I find your mentions of your daughter and father relationship, and the potential of employers finding out your editing habits, bewildering and not to the point - Wikipedia is certainly not going to be edited around your lifestyle and career choices. When you choose to edit a subject you should be aware that you are doing so to the existing consensus, and if you are unable to change the consensus to reflect how you feel is appropriate then you have the choice of abiding by that consensus or not editing the article. Your choices are not Wikipedia's "problem", but something between yourself, your principles, and your interests. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In your first paragraph you seem to agree with my point – which is precisely that global consensus breaks local consensus. The problem is that as far as I can tell there was no attempt to find a global consensus since the 75–44 result against a specific photo in 2005. Yet the mantra that there is a consensus for a photo is being used whenever someone brings the topic up. If there is such a consensus, I want to see it. Otherwise I suspect that this is simply a case of the autofellatist's new clothes.
As to your second paragraph, I reserve the right to edit articles that are not related to my interests. Normally this is considered a good thing hereabouts. In this case I didn't even edit; I responded to an RfC that was derailed by supporters of the photo, apparently in order to avoid the determination of global consensus. Personally I think the photo is unnecessary, but I wouldn't complain about its existence. What makes me furious is the insistence that the photo must under all circumstances be at the very top of the article. That seems to be motivated only by assumptions of bad faith or the desire to break taboos. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to echo LHVU's points, our "personal" issues or views with morality, ethics, sexuality, nationality, politics, race, religion, pornography, etc. are required to 100% of the time to take a back seat to policy and the way of this website. Sometimes this can be bad, but it's the only way to keep things sane on a global website edited by 10,000+ active users at any given time. If one of us doesn't like a nasty image, then change policy to get them removed. Attempting to enforce our own views on taste and discretion are inappropriate if they go against the general tone and tenor of the website. You find the image of autofellatio repulsive or inappropriate, perhaps. What about the millions who find images of Mohammed the same, according to their religious views? Or perhaps Piss Christ? Our tastes have to stay logged out when we log in. rootology/equality17:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Rootology. Writing and editing a Wikipedia article often involves choices of style and taste. Moreover, Wikipedia policy forbids unnecessary offensiveness in articles: "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the whole article was filled with photos, all-but-one could be removed under the WP:PROFANITY guideline. We always try and indicate the topic of the article with as clearer image as possible, including this photo. The whole discussion is about censorship, because some people (or even many people) will find it (maybe highly) offensive or inappropriate. Luckily, WP:NOTCENSORED deals with this issue - and makes it a non-issue. Wikipedia is not censored. We don't censor religious images, we don't censor nudity and we don't censor this. If you want to censor this, you'll need to get consensus to change NOTCENSORED. And seriously - you probably won't get it. Ale_Jrbtalk18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTCENSORED; "some articles may include text, images, or links that some people may find objectionable when they are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." Is an image of autofellatio offensive? Irrelevant. Is an image of autofellatio relevant to an article on autofellatio? Yes. Does an illustration of the act of self fellatio improve understanding of the subject? Yes (this picture shows that it is both possible and also difficult to achieve, and one does not need to read any text to understand the subject - while reading the text without the visual aid may not inform the reader to the full extent of the practice.) What are your encyclopedic objections to the image? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not irrelevant. WP:NOTCENSORED says: "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only ...." Do you agree that policy says that?
Yes, I agree it says that - which is why I gave the breakdown on why that image was appropriate for that article. As for the other subjects, I am not certain that there are free use images available (I am surprised if there isn't for anal sex or disembowlment, and equally if there are ones for abortion or necrophilia) but there is also the matter of how the illustration or lack of same effects the understanding of the subject. The photograph fulfills the requirement in a way that a drawing or other representation cannot, yet in the sister (sic) article of fellatio a drawing suffices because of an acceptance of the common frequency of the practice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, many people would find the image offensive. It is extremely obvious that the article would be no less accurate or informative if the image were at a less prominent spot in the article. Therefore, the present format violates WP:NOTCENSORED which bars use of images in a way that is needlessly offensive. It's very simple.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) ... not to forget that both photos (it keeps oscillating between the guy with the silly moustache and the guy with the vibrator) also seem to demonstrate that it's a niche subject. Granted. I can accept the position that a photo should be there, because it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is denying the obvious fact that this is in the area of tension between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANITY, and categorically rejecting the slightest compromise such as putting the drawing first. It's hard to assume good faith when confronted with this stubbornness, rather than the desire to spite editors with a different background. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those two images would be fine. The latter is not a photo, and the former is not a close-up of a live tortured person being disemboweled, which is the primary meaning of the term.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well they happen to be the best resolution versions of the respective subjects that the Library of Congress makes available. In order to get a photograph of burning at the stake it would be difficult to locate something other than a theatrical stage depiction. Could certainly get hangings, though. DurovaCharge!18:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I go out and burn someone at the stake (in keeping with my image), and upload a close-up photo of it to the corresponding Wikipedia article, I somehow doubt it will be greeted with the same glee found at the Autofellatio talk page. Anyway, I wasn't simply suggesting removing the image at the Autofellatio article. It obviously doesn't have to be at the top of the article to keep the article accurate and informative. In that sense, the current format of that article is blatantly contradictory to Wikipedia policy.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we have had photos of hangings; the one I'm thinking of was removed not because of "obscenity/profanity/shock" issues, but because it as a copyvio. Just wondering, what term primarily means "a live tortured person being disemboweled"? I see that definition below a comment that mentions anal sex, guano and circumcision. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's below a comment that says: "And am working mostly on text content this week, but will keep the suggestions in mind." See the links at the end of that sentence.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exploding Boy, I have contributed over 200 featured pictures, most of which are restorations of historic material. They cover a wide range of subjects and approximately 2% deal with hot-button subjects. Overall that's probably about the right balance. This happens to be a thread about another sensitive issue, and (at least theoretically) I would indeed support a featured picture candidate if the resolution, composition, photographic quality, etc. were of featured picture standards. Every now and then we get a low quality 'shock' image nomination, which quickly fails: FP standards are strict. But the nature of the material itself is irrelevant so long as its use is encyclopedic. DurovaCharge!19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to convince me, Durova; I support the use of a photo in the Autofellatio article, and have supported other explicit photos (and opposed some too). Exploding Boy (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It might surprise you what Wikipedia does use, and even features. This video, for instance, was taken just a few years ago. Due to the circumstances it is not a close-up, but three human beings die in it. It ran on the main page and received only one complaint. DurovaCharge!19:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, Durova. The video you point to would not have been considered obscene by a majority of people anywhere in the world during the Victorian era or any other era. In contrast, there are photos available on the internet which --- even today --- a majority of people would consider extremely offensive.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically this: at FPC one of our criteria is whether the image is encyclopedic at the article it illustrates. With regard to the subject of this thread, yes, the image there is highly encyclopedic. It would be hard to imagine anywhere else on the project where it would be suitable, but at that page it does an excellent job of illustrating the subject. The value of having the article itself is more debatable than the illustration. But that would be a different discussion. DurovaCharge!19:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not offensive at all. You can barely make out what's depicted in the photo. Here's a quote from Jimbo Wales: "In general, I will simply restate the obvious: imagery in articles is often one of the most attractive points for POV-pushing of all kinds, for a couple of reasons. (1) Images can have a strong emotional impact, thus making implicitly a point that would not be possible to make in the text. (2) Images are often 'either/or' with no easy way to work for consensus. My own perspective is that many of our articles have needlessly graphic photos inserted either by POV-pushers or by people who are borderline trolling... seeing what they can get away with."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So explicit photos are fine as long as "you can barely make out what's depicted" in them? Interesting--but non-policy-conforming--approach. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A vivid close-up photo of Daniel Pearl's death (or anything similar) would be completely revolting at Wikipedia, and would never last a minute here. Maybe a year or two from now, though, at the rate things are going.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we've established that you don't think there's a suitable alternative to having a graphic, vivid close-up at the top of the article. But perhaps a more reasonable attitude might be: of course putting the image lower in the article and putting the drawing at the top would be equally suitable, OR of course it would be equally suitable to leave the image at the top but give readers the ability to hide it while they read the article, OR of course it would be equally suitable to use only the drawing in conjunction with a link to the gallery at Wikimedia Commons, et cetera, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there's no need to get personal: I'm not the only one who thinks that. We've had pages of discussion and RFCs on that point. Second, the current consensus is for the image to be at the top; again, not just what I think. Finally, it's been explained to you by several other users why having a "hide" option isn't acceptable. Once again, not simply what I think. Your very language ("graphic, vivid close-up") shows how much the image offends you; that's unfortunate for you, but, based on our own policies, not grounds to remove it from a Wikipedia article. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why the fuck is this being argued both here and on the article's talk page? I wish someone would make their minds up where they are going to spout their conservative philosophies. --WebHamster21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WebHamster, would you consider withdrawing that four-letter epithet? Its use is not necessary here. Let's discuss autofellatio in as dignified and genteel? terms as possible. DurovaCharge!21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Personally I consider the word "fuck" above totally acceptable. But there is something really offensive on the article talk page:
"This is just another bible-belter tactic to get the world to come round to their narrow-minded thinking."
WebHamster, if you feel the need to engage in personal attacks against those who support moving the picture down a bit or other, similar "censorship", could you please make sure that you use formulations that can also be applied to open-minded European atheists like me? Thank you. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WebHamster has requested a review of their block. I'd request that there be no unblock without consulting me. I have posted diffs to User talk:WebHamster below the block notification. Before commenting, I'd ask editors to please review things thoroughly. Thank you. JehochmanTalk22:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck indeed. I am in complete agreement with Cameron Scott here. As is iridescent, who said as much on WH's page, and she's pretty much always right. //roux22:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The block wasn't for saying "fuck". Notice how we're all saying it? It was for being personally uncivil, repeatedly. Characterizing ones opponents as "spouters of bullshit" is not conducive to collaboration. WebHamster should know that. -GTBacchus(talk)22:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good block, I say. I would never cite WP:TROLL for any reason (unless I wanted to feed trolls), but otherwise I agree that WebHamster has been uncivil well beyond the use of the word "fuck", and responded aggressively to those who suggested he tone it down. Characterizing anyone who suggests moving the image a "bible-belter", and talking about people spouting their conservative philosophies... ever hear of "comment on the edit, not the editor"? It's quite possible to dispute someone's arguments without insulting their person. In fact, it's more than possible - it's expected. Take a collaborative tone, and you get blocked a lot less. Big surprise. Twenty-four hours isn't long. -GTBacchus(talk)22:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the edit conflict with the block notice and the subsequently added heading it now looks as if I am opposing the block. I am not. It's appropriate for "conservative philosophies", "bible-belter", and not withdrawing the former on request. These were all completely unwarranted personal attacks. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This block is ok, I read these as personal attacks along with some unencyclopedic pointiness as to the kerfluffle over the image. The f word has nothing to do with it. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he was blocked for saying fuck. He was blocked for snarkish comments about editors rather than about content. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) That's correct, Gwen. The language issue is negligible. Repeatedly characterizing those who disagree with him as "bible-belters," who are "spouting bullshit," after being asked to tone it down... that's a problem. Black Kite, is it your position that such rhetoric is appropriate, in a content dispute? I'd be surprised. -GTBacchus(talk)23:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas Hans Adler was so much more civil in his insults (i.e. "a bunch of people are trying to change the world by changing Wikipedia first, showing no respect for the encyclopedia's reputation and integrity" and "The idea that WP:PROFANITY can't apply because there is no typical WP reader is only slightly more intelligent than the idea that WP:NOTCENSORED can't apply"). Are you going to block him as well, or is the use of language the only thing that matters here? Black Kite23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I going to block him? No, I don't tend to block people, except for simple vandals. I prefer using other tools, and there are plenty of other admins willing to push the block buttons.
I agree that "a bunch of people are trying to change the world by changing Wikipedia first," etc., is inappropriately personal, and Hans would do well to avoid such rhetoric. It's not conducive to collaboration. He managed to avoid upsetting any admin who was willing to block; WebHamster didn't.
Hans also didn't engage in an interaction where someone asked him to cut out the personal rhetoric and he reacted aggressively. Reacting that way is a pretty good way to make a situation much worse, and to get blocked. WebHamster should have known that when he woke up this morning. -GTBacchus(talk)23:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I didn't say that. Read again. It turns out I'm not "defining terms" at all; I'm talking. I know what the policy pages say. You and I both know that in reality, nobody gets blocked until some admin sees them do something that they consider block-worthy. In actual practice, admins are not robots, and blocks are more likely when you manage to piss off people with blocking buttons. I'm not saying that's ideal; I'm saying it happens. People who don't upset admins get blocked less, de facto. Do you disagree?
No, I agree with you actually; I'm just pointing out that an admin ought to be able to point to a very clear reason for blocking someone apart from a few mildly pointy comments. If you're going to block people for claiming that pro-censorship views might be construed as "bible-belt", then our block buttons are going to be very busy indeed; and as I mentioned, I could easily block Hans for the same reason (not that I will be, of course). Black Kite23:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First you'd have to convince me that any view being espoused is "pro-censorship". I know what the word "censorship" means, and that's not what anybody here is suggesting. That's beside the point.
I think that, in a perfect world, Jehochman would have found another admin to push the button, and they would have cited different diffs for it. However, I think WebHamster was far enough across the line, enough times, that the block makes sense.
One can take a combative tone, and some of the time, this is where it leads. One can refrain from taking a combative tone, and one's life will be better. If you don't wanna hit the pavement, don't step off the edge of the roof. -GTBacchus(talk)00:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, people don't get tickets for speeding. People get tickets for getting caught speeding. Millions of people speed without getting tickets. Also, people who know how to talk to the cop, get out of tickets.
Is that "good"? I wouldn't make that claim, but I'd say it's real. If you try to live in a perfect world, you'll run into a lot of posts in this imperfect one. -GTBacchus(talk)23:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding the sequence (which is spread over at least 4 pages), WH was blocked for disruptive editing, WP:CIVIL, WP:TROLL and WP:BAIT (both of which are only essays, not policy), and WP:NPA based on the following 3 edits plus their comments on the blocking admin's talk page:
While some of their edits weren't civil, I'm not sure this user's edits really fall under disruptive editing. The second diff (re: small c) in particular doesn't strike me as problematic at all. So what we're left with is comments that some are reading as personal attacks, plus 2 posts to Jehochman's talk page, here and here, which personally don't strike me as problematic. In addition, most people are saying that the use of the word "fuck" wasn't a problem. I'll reserve judgement on whether the 2 comments constitute personal attacks, but I do think the blocking admin should probably have requested another admin do the blocking. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's at Talk:Autofellatio where I've been seeing the "spouting bullshit" language. Refraining from that kind of language is easy, constructive, and a Good Idea. I agree that it is generally better to get another admin to block, if one is oneself the target of personal attacks. It makes everything much cleaner. -GTBacchus(talk)23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I based my comment on what the blocking admin gave as their reasons for blocking, which were the above 3 diffs plus the posts on their talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that makes sense. I think that citing WP:TROLL while doing anything is a terrible idea (and I just noticed that he struck that here - sorry if I seem to harp on it). Nevertheless, I think WebHamster was acting in a combative manner, insulting other editors, and will do well to cool his heels for a day. It's a lot better here when people refrain from acting that way. -GTBacchus(talk)23:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that bible belters is an awful insult, it's a bit uncivil at the most, at least in England it wouldn't be. It's often used here (in a neutral way) to describe Christian fundamentalists. I'm a bit 50 / 50 with this, Webhamster seemed to be looking for a fight and Jehochman said if your lookin for a fight then have this, and blocked him. It was an easy way out, it would I think have been better if Jehochman had got another uninvolved admin to take action. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Just to clarify Gwen, I was commenting on the expression bible belters and its status as an insult, and I was in no way associating the expression to any editor. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Yes. The worries are a) it's still a put down, b) how does he know those editors are fundamentalists and c) his opinions about fundamentalists have no sway on the topic at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that he had crossed the line and was incivil, my point was only that he was not so wanton...An editor got away with the edit summary the other day of...Eat shit and die!..Which I would say was far worse than Webhamster's comments. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
WebHamster follows up at Jehochman's user talk with a request that Jehochman refrain from altering WebHamster's comments.[27]
Jehochman replies "Would you prefer that I block you for disruption and incivility?"[28]
WebHamster replies "I would prefer that you left my comments the fuck alone, but I will remain civil and not tell you where you can stick your threat".[29]
Four minutes after WebHamster's reply, Jehochman posts a block warning to WebHamster's user talk.[30]
The same minute as the warning, without further action by WebHamster, Jehochman blocks WebHamster for 24 hours.[31]
One minute afterward, Jehochman notifies WebHamster of the block with the post: "Since you asked for it, you are blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing."[32] The diff Jehochman cites in the initial block notice is the insult that WebHamster had posted to Jehochman's own user talk.
Now although I don't subscribe to the notion that difficult editors can force recusal by insulting administrators, it isn't best practice to give a warning and then an immediate block after the warned editor's most recent post. Shouldn't an administrator wait for a reaction first, in the hope that warning would suffice? And whatever other actions WebHamster may have taken, it is unlikely to deescalate the situation by posting "you asked for it" with a link to the an insult that was directed against the blocking administrator. Plenty of eyes were already on the main thread; surely it would have been better for Jehochman to have posted the objectionable diffs to the noticeboard for review by other administrators, rather than by acting in a manner that raises reasonable doubts upon his objectivity. If Jehochman is in fact dispassionate then please excuse any appearance of slighting his conduct: the important thing here is to uphold best practices. DurovaCharge!00:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure that WebHamster has given up for the night (it's after 1am here in the UK), but given Durova's sensible summary of the situation, if he did post an unblock request based on the above, I'd probably grant it. In fact I'm thinking about unblocking anyway, and am only hesitating because of a few good points made by others above. Black Kite00:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I ran across WebHamster a few days ago, and after attempting a more-or-less civil discourse I became the target of some pretty gross incivility from him and his cohorts (at least one of whom spoke on his behalf in this thread). If you zoom out and take a macro view of WebHamster (and pals), a pattern of incivility and misleading statements becomes clear. While I haven't investigated the entirety of the circumstances surrounding this block, the attitude and comments leading to his block seems entirely consistent with what I'd expect given my experience. //Blaxthos ( t / c )
I think, Blaxthos, that your talk page gives the lie to your sanctimonious claptrap. How many people now is it who've complained about your prissy behaviour? --MalleusFatuorum01:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike controversial blocks, and though this one had some support, there are enough concerns that I have decided to unblock. Please read my comment here to WebHamster. Thank you all for your feedback. JehochmanTalk01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI is the first impression, one can prewrite articles in user space it is common pre election to write a up likely candidates that dont meet notabitlity unless they win. It wouldnt IMHO be a speedy candidate Gnangarra06:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, okay. This is neither an endorsement or admonishment of the post.
If there was ever, ever, a user on Wikipedia whose opinion I would listen to, it's Jahiegal.
I am in no way saying that Marean is right or wrong, I would simply express that if Joe leaves you a talk note, it is good advice whether right or wrong.
There's less than my fingers of users here that I would ultimately go to the bat for (HI MZ AND YELLOWMONKEY! et al), so please take this into consideration when dealing with the ongoing situation ITN. Jahiegal has a voucher from me concerning good faith and attempting to resolve this conflict. Happy editing. Keegantalk08:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go a bit further - I endorse that post in its entirety, and it wasn't made in an uncivil fashion (unless I'm missing something?) Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I direct you to User talk:ZimZalaBim#CM as well as to prior discussions of your current events editing on your own talk page and this very noticeboard. Jahiegel is quite right that this edit of yours is crossing the line from disagreement into intentional vandalism to make a point.
I also note that you are continuing to add incorrectly dated material to current events. In this edit, for example, you added an event that occurred, as its source specifically states, on 2009-05-28 to the page for 2009-05-29. With this edit, and this edit, and this edit you did the same. ("Thursday", as stated in all three sources, was 2009-05-28. Two of the sources are even datelined 2009-05-28.) In this edit you added information to the page for 2009-05-30 that is not only not specific to that date, but that cites a source dated three days before, meaning that even if the event were date-specific it could not have possibly occurred on that date. You do the same thing in this edit. And in this edit you add an event for 2009-05-30 that the source itself explicitly says occurred on Friday 2009-05-29.
Jahiegel isn't an administrator, but several of us in this section are. I, as one, am telling you this: Stop! People are not reverting you because they are "terrorists" or because they want "only bad news". And they aren't being "uncivil" to tell you that what you are doing is wrong. They are reverting you because your edits have descended into vandalism to make a point and adding incorrect information to the encyclopaedia, namely descriptions of events that did not in fact occur on the dates that you are stating them to have occurred. Stop, and stop now. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Chuck has a long history of edits that myself, Jahiegal, and others have monitored, and largely, summarily reverted due to a variety of reasons. The way Chuck archives his talk page makes this difficult to highlight, unfortunately. Both Jahiegal and I have assumed good faith throughout, and, IMO, shown great patience. But I'm starting to come around to the notion that Chuck has tried the patience of the entire community, since we're constantly having to monitor his edits and revert accordingly. After multiple years, he still isn't making constructive contributions, and is requiring continued supervision. None of which is helpful for the project. --ZimZalaBimtalk13:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think my contributions are constructive. Most of my current events additions were referring to articles written on the same day, and all articles were still published on the web sites they were published on. People claiming an edit is unconstructive doesn't make the opinion true. I apologize for the "In the army" edit. That was on a whim. However, that was after several of my very constructive edits were removed. I would also like to point out that North Korea being "sanctioned" has two meanings. One is the UN approved of their rocket tests. It seemed to me the Press was almost hoping Nato and the Commonwealth would attack North Korea over their space program. I felt Wikipedia could do better than that.--Chuck Marean03:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have to agree with ZimZalaBim. I ran into Chuck on the TANSTAAFL article, where he was claiming that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" is, contrary to the well-known and commonly accepted definition, equivalent to "there is such a thing as a free lunch". He did this by citing the dictionary for "ain't" (which is "is not"), and claiming that "ain't no" = "is not no" = is. This is original research if I've ever seen it. The discussion on the talk page involved many editors telling him he was wrong, that it was a colloquial phrase, etc, all to no avail. Non-productive would be a kind description of his editing there. Raul654 (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look it up in the dictionary. The article's definition was ignoring the meaning of the word ain't. I was right and those accounts were wrong. Therefore, I am not bad. The remarks left on my talk page were against looking for good news for the Current events, as far as I could tell. I favor looking for good news for the current events to keep it from being a list of bad news. --Chuck Marean15:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Ain't no" is a colloqualism and doesn't follow the standard rules of english. It means "isn't any", as the the multiple citations provided to slang dictionaries on the talk page bear this out. Apparently you still do not understand that (a) you were wrong, (b) that you enganged in origianl research, and (c) your editing there, counter to everyone else who knows the meaning of this well-known phrase, was disrptive. In short, I think you've just made my point for me. Raul654 (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the comment on your talk page at User talk:Chuck Marean#Response to Election Results, for example, quite clearly told you that your edit had been reverted because you had inaccurately listed an event that didn't actually happen on that date (and which had been listed on the correct date almost 24 hours before your edit was even made). Whatever your philosphical position on news may be, what you are actually doing is vandalizing Wikipedia and adding false information. That is unacceptable. You have become so caught up in furthering your own personal philosophical position that you are paying no attention to the fact that you have begun to damage the encyclopaedia. This is a line, and you are crossing it. Stop and reverse your course. Right now. Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"My username (Aoganov) corresponds to my real name (Artem R. Oganov), with which I sign my edits. Within a short time I have made important contributions to WP. Being a professional scientist (and a good one), I can (and plan to) bring latest scientific discoveries to WP-pages, and correct (quite numerous) inaccuracies, currently existing on WP. Since I use my real name, I am directly responsible for my edits and can be contacted directly. I admit that in the beginning, when I lacked experience and did not know that this is a violation of any policies, I opened several accounts. Trying to correct errors, I edited pages related to sensitive/controversial scientific issues (thus, precipitating a conflict with editor NIMSOffice, the same user as Materialscientist, some of whose edits I found incorrect). With time, I learned more of WP policies. I can assure you that in the future I will use only one account for editing WP. You can already see that since opening of the account “Aoganov” I made no anonymous edits. I hope that my account will be unblocked."
I would like to take his word that he really wants to make positive contributions to Wikipedia and won't engage in sockpuppetry in the future. He is a new user who was drawn to Wikipedia over a conflict related to his area of expertise, a physical form of boron. But I do believe that he is learning and has a good chance of eventually becoming a productive member of the community. But there is the hot button issue of boron. So, I suggest a compromise: keep the block in effect for a week and then probation in the form of a indefinite topic ban on his editing of boron-related topics. This will give him an opportunity to prove he can be a nondistruptive editor by contributing to other articles. If that can be proven, then we can talk about lifting the topic ban. Any edits to boron-related topics or other disruption (such as sockpuppetry) in the probation period would result in immediate indef reblock. What does everybody think? --mav (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ban and unblock works for me. I note from his message that he plans to "bring latest scientific discoveries to WP-pages, and correct (quite numerous) inaccuracies" - it would be best to emphasise the WP:NOR and WP:V in any unblock message. Ironholds (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Topic ban and unblock after a week. When I can look into it more, I think I might support a topic ban for some of the others involved, unless they have clearly stopped with their own problematic editing of the Boron article. (It takes two sides to make a long-term edit war). Anyone thinking of adding their own comment to this thread may be enlightened by a quick look at WP:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy. I am glad to see that Mav has notified several others of this discussion, including User:Materialscientist (formerly NIMSoffice), for whom a topic ban might also be considered since he appears to be a real-life participant in the Gamma Boron controversy. (At least, Aoganov asserts this in the AfD discussion). Aoganov is connected to the use of sockpuppets, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GFZLab/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my suggestion that others should also be topic banned, based on searching the Boron edit history back to May 1. (See my comment below). I have a memory of past edit warring on this article, but that must be farther back in time. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am the blocking admin for this sockpuppet case, and I have received a couple of emails from Aoganov. In one of the emails, he states "While I do admit that I created accounts Dian_john1, GFZLab and ESRFBeam, the following account has nothing to do with me: 66.204.147.253". This shows that although he did create sockpuppets ("I created those several accounts only in the beginning (without knowing that this breaks any policies)"), he's admitting to creating them, so maybe willing to change his ways. Another point that he made, in regards to EdJohnston's comment is that "It would be fair to ban Materialscientist from editing those pages too. His edits are highly biased, and in this situation I believe it is better to let WP-community make proper edits, without (at least for the time being) those directly involved in the controversy."If this user (NIMSOffice/Materialscientist) is also causing problems for the Boron article, then I suggest a topic ban on this user too, per EdJohnston's suggestion. In regards to Ironholds' comment, in another email the user stated "As you can find, I am a well known scientist, and my expertise is definitely needed on WP. WP-pages contain many inaccuracies, and I have corrected many of those and added some new scientific information as well." I agree that this means that whichever admin unblocks should tell Aoganov about our policies relating to any edits he makes, to stop original research and ensure the information added is reliable. I can provide copies of the emails if required. Thanks, TheHelpfulOne21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think preventing him from editing the boron related pages, might me more than enough. His edits are good as long as the disovery of gamma boron is not the topic. Even the boron controversy article was not that bad. The personal involvement of him in the case makes it difficult to have a NPOV. He is highly emotional on the topic, but on wiki there are not banned users, which have a less civil way to comunicate than he does. He is not aware of the complicated and well hidden politics of Wikipedia. It took me quite some time to figure out what a Sockpuppetis and many other things are, so let the time cool his emotions on boron. The sad thing is that the controversy has a good chance to be eternal, because neither of the two sides has a prove of the their wrong and right actions and if all actions had the necessary ethical standart. On the actions of Materialscientist I only say that I liked to work with him here on many articles and that if possible somebody else should look if he has done something wrong on the boron page. --Stone (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock with topic ban. Since all the editor's problem edits have been related to one topic which he is emotionally involved in there is no reason to believe edits on other topics would also be problematic. Also support topic ban for Materialscientist since his edits in this area have also been problematic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They've been described as problematic, by Aoganov. But that's not the same thing as their actually being problematic, for which you'll have to supply concrete evidence. See below. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned to mav (before this discussion has started), I support this idea. The user has a history of sockpuppetry, WP:harrassment, WP:BLP and WP:COI (i.e. using WP as a vehicle of self-promotion), but that is understood and can be looked after. I would just raise another issue: the user has a tendency to grossly misinterpret facts and statements to his convenience, ranging from yes/no answers to complex scientific arguments. To me, this is one of the most important "not to" for a wikipedian of his area, and the sole reason for my confronting Aoganov. I would encourage everyone not not be blinded by the titles and check this issue whenever appropriate.
Regarding myself, I have completely refrained from editing the boron topic during most of the conflict. These 2 days, I took a liberty to update boron and allotropes of boron. Everybody is welcome to have a look and comment. I understand that the mere fact of my editing of the gamma-boron topic irritates Aoganov and I shall reduce that to the absolute minimum (of correcting others edits) for the sake of peace. That said, I do not believe that prosecuting on the basis of unsubstantiated rumors is a good example for the future. I trust people and wish to be trusted. If there are concerns about any my action, please raise them and I'll answer as straight and honest as I can. Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for the support and trust of WP editors. And I would really appreciate if the boron topic ban could be imposed on Materialscientist. Anyone who has corresponded with me knows that I am very straightforward and, unlike Materialscientist, do not have any tendency to distort facts. Even when facts are tough (like sockpuppetry, which I am still not sure I understand what it is), I face them and admit them. Facts on boron are not tough - not for me. And I've been watching Materialscientist's editing of boron pages, and while his recent edits look much better, I remain suspicious. Now he talks about "independent" structure solution for gamma-B: just looking at submission dates of the two groups' papers (our paper is 2 years earlier), and taking into account that the other group had our results during these two years - what kind of "independent structure solution" is Materialscientist talking about? I suggest a mutual topic ban, only this makes any sense. Edit wars have two sides, as was stated above. Artem R. Oganov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.95.70 (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem! Enough! We can point to three places where you have distorted facts here, starting with your claims to have never edited except under your own name and to have never edited prior to 2009-05-08. This sort of attack on Materialscientist and misrepresentation of your own actions is exactly what you should not be doing any more of. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the AFD discussion, don't take Aoganov's description of Materialscientist's edits as correct, and don't take xyr word for who Materialscientist might be in real life. Materialscientist has, quite rightly, not been drawn into a dispute as to who xe may or may not be outside of Wikipedia, nor claimed any involvement in the external dispute on either side. Xe asserts that xyr only involvement here is as a Wikipedia editor interested in materials science topics. I've yet to see any evidence that the true other party in the external dispute has actually been drawn into editing here. This is a good thing, of course. We don't want that external dispute being brought here, and it is best that we prevent it from doing so now, before we have a Bogdanov-like dispute on our hands.
I reviewed a lot of the edits when this first came up at the Incidents noticeboard. From what I saw, Materialscientist's actual edits have been misrepresented by Aoganov. For example: Materialscientist's original edits to Boron back in January were actually in good faith, from what I can see. There appears to be no ulterior motive; they were a simple good faith introduction of new information and subsequent attempt to improve that in response to a point made on the talk page. Much of the subsequent fuss and bother has stemmed solely from Aoganov, initially via sockpuppets and eventually via this account. For example: Xe has been claiming for weeks that Materialscientist didn't credit any sources for a diagram that xe uploaded. But, as I pointed out recently at User talk:Mav#Re:Boron, Materialscientist in fact did credit Oganov's paper (and others), within 15 minutes of the original upload — which is a fairly reasonable time for filling in the relevant fields of 7 {{cite journal}} templates, I'm sure everyone will agree — with a further update that same day. It's not good that people are taking the accusations at face value, without comparing them to the actual edit histories.
Thehelpfulone and EdJohnston (and possibly ThaddeusB too), you are basing your decision on what Aoganov says to have happened. Don't. Reality is somewhat different. And it has been like this all along, alas. Look at the actual edits. I leave Mav and Stone to speak to the nature of Materialscientist's edits in general, but as far as what I've reviewed of this specific dispute, xyr behaviour has been quite different to that of Aoganov, with no sockpuppetry, no repeated denials of sockpuppetry, and no outing. Any notion that the two editors warrant a single blanket remedy for both is not justified by the actual edits that each has made.
As to Aoganov's block, I think that the solution is simple: Thehelpfulone, you've just been a hairtoo helpful. You blocked all of the accounts for the sockpuppetry, rather than blocking all bar one. I suggest that you simply unblock the one, making that one Aoganov, which is both the seemingly best choice on name grounds and the account that the editor xyrself clearly wishes to use. You didn't block xem for something other than the sockpuppetry, after all. As Mav suggests, and as I think no-one will disagree with, if harrassment of other editors, or attempts to introduce personal off-wiki disputes into Wikipedia, resume in any way, editing privileges will be revoked again. And that includes any further contributions like the one immediately above. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have striken my comment about Materialscientist, which was based on what the other involved editors (not Aoganov) said and not personal experience. It does take two to edit war, but that doesn't mean he was not being rational about the topic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G, I agree with you with regards to unbanning Aoganov, as he seems that he might be able to make some positive contributions, and has admitted to all his sock accounts, which is why I agreed to this idea in the first place (of a topic ban + unblock). TheHelpfulOne09:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I have been notified, must be because I blocked a sock of this guy or something. I don't really care what happens as far as block/unblock is concerned, but all commenting are advised to read over Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GFZLab/Archive which contains the full case history and make a determination from that. —— nixeagleemail me03:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a request on my talk page asking for the restoration of the edit history for an SPI investigation. I didn't know how to simply restore or link to the history of the deleted article, so I restored the article, protected the title and left word on the body of the article itself. Hoping I did this right. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't really need to restore articles, just tell them to file the case and mention the deleted edits. The folks that close SPI cases are admins and can see the history themselves. —— nixeagleemail me03:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need an admin's opinion and intervention
Hi, would someone please take a look at my editing on Hatch Park and Evelyn Dunbar, and the conversation about them at User talk:MasterVerbosity? I came across the first article randomly, found some material that seemed to be lifted directly from this website and elminated it and cleaned up the article. This lead me to the second article, which also had the same material in it, and was, frankly, in terrible condition. I cleaned it up, removed the copyvio and some other material that seemed irrelevant, and left a note on the talk page of the user who I determined had added the material to both articles.
Comes today, and the editor responds, rather tartly. It turns out he is the foster-son of Evelyn Dunbar, and is incensed that an "ignoramus" such as myself had "insulted" his mother and father through my editing of his domain. I pointed out the COI problem and NPA policy but neglected to mention rules about "ownership" of articles. He claims to have writen the material I thought was a copyright violation for the publication where I found it. I pointed out the problems with this, but he wants the article on Dunbar deleted. I've pointed out that once posted, his contributions are no longer his to control, and that an article has to go through a process to be deleted, etc.
Now, rather than continue to get in deeper with this editor, whose response was clearly emotional, I'd like to disengage from my discussion with him, and let someone neutral determine if I went too far in my editing, if my interaction with him was perhaps too brusque, and to provide him with whatever answers he needs from this point on. Thanks. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c03:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to weigh in. When talking to potential infringers, I almost always use the templates for copyright problems just because they have been engineered in a rather velvet glove/iron fist kind of way. The "no thanks" template generated by the {{copyvio}} is better (if long) because it allows for the possibility that the contributor is the copyright owner. (It's inappropriate, though, when the material can be easily removed.) {{uw-copyright}} does not explicitly allow for that, or link to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, but it does rather straightforwardly note that the material has the appearance of a copyright violation with necessary links and explanations. (And the requisite block advisory. Very compact. :)) Removal of the text was the right thing to do. Until permission is verified, we can't published it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(With coffee before me :) User:MasterVerbosity didn't understand much about Wikipedia and was editing the article(s) with his own notions about how things were/should be. Hopefully he's learning that personal attacks are not on here. The COI is not a big worry so long as he follows policy. Likewise his having mistakenly put text he'd written elsewhere into the article. His sharp comebacks at the outset of learning about Wikipedia are understandable and can be wholly forgiven if he settles down within a few days. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an old case, for us. We've blocked multiple accounts, and repeatedly deleted the same Xena/Nightwish uploaded images, since at least November 2007. The puppet master is either Lykus xena (talk·contribs) or Tarja Lawless (talk·contribs), depending from whose block log one reads. I didn't waste time, therefore. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That draws attention once again to sockpuppetteer Frostie Jack (talk·contribs) (whose uploaded identical images from Flickr to the ones uploaded by identified "Lawless" sockpuppet Brazil 23 (talk·contribs)) and to the Flickr account "Nightwish Fan", which appears to be engaged in this same Flickr washing and which you should check for further images at Commons. Uncle G (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see the connection of "Nightwish Fan" and Frostie Jack, but yes, the Flickr acount consists of copyvios from http://ausxip.com/conventions/2005burbank/photos/index.php, that was easy to find and add to commons:COM:QFI. I cant proof that Frostie Jack joined Flickrwashing because in opposition to LL290368 there is a large timespan between Flickr and Wikipedia upload, but the upload text is very similar. However: they are blocked, case solved, the 3rd involved project is the pt.wikipedia, CommonsDelinker provided a list, I added some pages to my pt.watchlist which disables the problem on pt.wp and Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this SPI case several editors have referred to secret evidence (just search through the case and its talk page for the word secret). This has raised various questions and criticism (ex. [38]), as editors who have not seen the evidence are in the dark and not considered competent for full discussion ([39], [40]); further questions have appeared on why the evidence has been made available to certain admins not related to SPI/Checkuser/Arbcom: [41], [42], while others, like myself, cannot even get a straight answer if this evidence will be made public, and if they can see it. I am particularly disappointed by cryptic replies by AdjustShift, admin who has adopted the case, when I asked him if he can pass me the evidence: my request, cryptic comment 1, my request 2, cryptic comment 2). I find this very puzzling, and I find AdjustShift conduct in this case rather poor (the case was supposed to have been closed a week ago anyway: [43]). I would like to ask what the community thinks about the practice of having "secret evidence" available to selected editors without clear criteria who has access to it? PS. On a less grandiose note, I'd like to suggest that to alleviate the bad atmosphere at this particular SPI, the evidence should be made available either to everyone (my preferred choice), or at least, to all admins that request it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "select group" to handle the confidential part of the evidence are the arbitrators, CU clerks and the functionaries.[44][45] Uninvolved administrators are also welcome but no one connected to you. Please don't try to obtain it for your year-long instant messenger buddy ([46]) behind my back again.[47]Sciurinæ (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, Piotrus. The evidences are still being discussed on the functionaries list. There was no need to raise this here. I told you that when the right time comes, you will see the off-wiki evidences. As far as I know, I'm not going to close the case. The clerks interfered, and told me that the case will be closed by a clerk. See [48]. If clerks wouldn't have interfered, I would have finished the case yesterday (before 6:00 UTC). AdjustShift (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, can you please erase some of things you have said about me? Here I said that I will close the case on 29 May. If the clerks wouldn't have interfered, I would have closed the case yesterday (before 6:00 UTC). I also said that I will not take actions without publishing the secret evidences.[49]AdjustShift (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Uninvolved administrators are also welcome but no one connected to you"
"Uninvolved" includes user who together with Scinurae engaged edit-warring against Polish users(including me)[50] known for his long history of conflicts with Polish editors[51].
Example of edit warring
"I told you that when the right time comes, you will see the off-wiki evidences"
Why was a user with frequent conflicts with Polish users and me trusted to judge the "super sekret evidence" ?
--Molobo (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I for one am sick and fucking tired of this nationalistic bullshit leaking all over the project. New proposal, effective immediately: any editor who refers to another editor's nationality in a pejorative way is immediately topicbanned for a year from that subject area. Do it a second time and it's a permanent ban. Same goes for chronic nationalistic POV-pushing. We have put up with this insanity for long enough. As for the 'secret evidence', Piotrus, calm down and be patient. //roux17:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
