Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Death of Baby P

GranvilleHouston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently adding the surname of this child, unsourced or poorly-sourced and apparently against consensus. He appears to be on some kind of crusade to have this name included. Since I have expressed an opinion on content, I bring this here for fresh minds to tackle this issue. Rodhullandemu 15:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We all know his name anyway since it's all over the Internet, he deserves the dignity of at least being accorded a proper name. This is not a UK-based site so there is no reason at all not to name him. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

• I've no objection in theory, though I think the addition is unnecessary and tacky. A decent reference would be essential - I've just reverted the addition of a reference from a site that proclaims "The Daily Squib is a curious satirical publication and should therefore be taken fu**ing seriously ;)" - to be fair that's at the bottom of the page, so it's maybe not as obvious as, say, The Onion, that it's satire... Incidentally, I'm UK-based and I guess I don't fall into the "we all know..." category since I tend to get my news from TV, radio, and those newspapers I can buy at my local Co-op ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• We do have precedent for names of minors unreleased because they are minors: Nevada-tan. The argument in the RfD was that, often, (fairly) reputable news sources will respect the legal system and not disclose names, which leaves the ones that do to be unreliable and unusable. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some comments:
  1. The people best placed to judge the wisdom of publishing the name are the UK courts; whilst they may be slow, they are not capricious and if they believe that publishing the name is not appropriate then I see no reason why we should doubt their judgment, even if non-UK editors have no legal obligation to follow it.
  2. Contrary to some of the vile nonsense on the talk page, BLP applies to everyone equally - guilty, innocent and victim alike.
  3. I am inclined to indefinitely block rather than debate with editors who advocate for the murder of the guilty and then pursue a campaign to include court suppressed names in the article. CIreland (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Point of order: while BLP applies to everyone equally in theory, you'll get more praise for vigorously applying BLP on a barely-known person than a really famous person. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The courts are a load of rubbish from Europe anyway and executing child murderers is not murder. There are NO reasons at all not to name the murdered child and the murderers, it must be done at once. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Blocked for 72 hours for disruptive, tendentious editing. Tan | 39 15:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• The child has siblings, and there are apparently other pending court cases against the parents, these two factors resulting in a UK order to suppress the name. Oversight has been dealing with this repeatedly; I originally questioned the rationale for this (as Wikipedia is not UK based) but the other factors are sufficient to convince me to at least leave the decision in the hands of other smart people. The general consensus on oversight-L is that it is acceptable to suppress this information, at least for now. Thatcher 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that- thanks. Perhaps I should send recent diffs to be oversighted, or is this already in hand? Rodhullandemu 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've been at this article for a while now, and since it seems to have spilled over here, I have a few remarks.
  1. Despite GranvilleHouston's pugnacious attitude, he raises several valid points. We do have a policy that Wikipedia is not censored, which has been blithely ignored in this matter. By no precedent which any have raised has WP:BLP extended to the censorship of the names of adult criminal suspects, much less convicted perpetrators.
  2. I previously agreed not to strongly contest this matter while jury proceedings were ongoing. That is, to the best of my knowledge, no longer the case.
  3. Peter does have siblings (one of whom is a rape victim), which is the current sole remaining WP:BLP rationale for restricting his last name. However, this argument is being made in a vacumn. It seems unimaginable to me that, after a case of this degree of publicity and magnitude, that the siblings' name would not be changed. Furthermore, the last name at issue here is a common one, and its power of identification without a first name is insignificant. Without putting out forbidden information, let's just say that it's more common than Thatcher and less common than Sheridan.
  4. Wikipedia should not, indeed cannot if it is to remain true to its mission, get into the business of deferring, sight unseen, to the logic of courts which do not have authority over it. I trust the current business in Iran, and frequent cases in China, provide ample reason why. We can only reason on the information given to us, which is thus far grossly lacking in details about practices, and seems to reflect a "censor in deference to the courts" attitude. Ray^Talk 16:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd agree, based on CIreland and Sceptre's points, that the name shouldn't be disclosed at the moment. I think that GranvilleHouston's last point undermined his credibility quite nicely (The courts are a load of rubbish from Europe? What tosh. We don't have a single European court in the English legal system). I appreciate Ray's argument, however, and I'd be quite happy to support inclusion if a reliable source can be found. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Reliable sources are the key. I recall a case awhile back, where a couple of paroled murderers had somehow swung a deal to allow them to "restart their lives", and there was a brouhaha about wikipedia carrying their names. However, reliable sources had the names, so the BLP argument failed. Similarly here - if reliable sources have the info, and if those sources have not been enjoined from publishing that info, then there is no reason wikipedia can't publish also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Reliable sources aren't the problem here. [1], [2], [3], [4] (not English), [5] have all been posted to the talk page in the past. Ray^Talk 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Like I said, if the courts have enjoined the media from publishing the names, then in theory the media don't have the right to publish the names. So how are they getting away with it? Or did the court issue an order that it had no right to issue, and is thus leaving such publication unchallenged? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Also, presumably the BLP issue is about identifying the parents, right? BLP obviously would not apply to the dead, unless it would compromise BLP rules for the living. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
          • No, the BLP "issue" is about identifying Peter's unnamed sister. Custom and common sense is that convicted criminals do not enjoy the right not to be named. Ray^Talk 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Convicted criminals do enjoy the same protections under our BLP policy as everyone else, Ray, no matter how terrible their crimes. CIreland (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Yes. They have the same rights, including the inalienable and mandatory exercise of the right to be named if they commit a serious crime that is relevant and encyclopedic to report :) Ray^Talk 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
            • (ec)The court placed an order that the mother's and her boyfriend's name not be disclosed; this isn't for the sake of them, but because the mother has other minor children, and the court felt they would be harmed by the inevitable exposure. The court didn't make a similar order against the third adult involved in the case, because he wasn't a member of the family (and, their reasoning went, this wouldn't lead to the children being identified). This Newsweek story goes in to more detail, and it answers Bugs' question - those that have published are risking prosecution, but many internet sources have, so they're going on the theory that there's so many that they won't. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We should make these decisions based on our own policies. Who cares what the UK courts think? Their opinion is irrelevant here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Our own policies include taking into account the opinions of those more fully acquainted with the facts and with greater experience of dealing with such issues. For example, the UK courts. CIreland (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

But the issue here isn't a legal one (something the courts would be experienced in) but an encyclopedic one. Unless you want to call up David Eady the opinion of the courts is irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In contrast to the case of the two paroled murderers that I was talking about earlier, this involves protecting the innocent. Sounds to me like wikipedia should not be in position of putting the kids at risk, if in fact that is a legitimate concern. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What policy says that? As far as I know, the policy here is that legal issues are the domain of the Foundation and unless Mike Godwin tells us to do something, we should simply continue to follow our own guidelines without trying to worry about the opinions of various courts around the world. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think, legal issues aside, the question is do we really want to come over as a bunch of insensitive pricks over the death of a child? Does the name's inclusion, right now this instant, add anything to the value of the article that we can't possibly live without? It strikes me that, just because we can do something under cover of our policies, it doesn't mean we should. EyeSerene^talk 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This. //roux   18:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming the dead child, by itself, has nothing to do with BLP, as the child is dead. The parents do not warrant censorship either. But the innocent children do, if in fact they could be at risk. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, though I was trying to avoid the 'c' word ;) I think this is one of those situations where common-sense can usefully be applied for now, until the whole issue becomes moot when (presumably) the other children are resettled under new names and the reporting restrictions lifted. EyeSerene^talk 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it didn't matter, the courts would permit the release of the name. While the court's decision may be predicated on matters unrelated to our own WP:BLP's concerns which may moreover have been made moot by the apparent non-mainstream release of such information, that doesn't mean we should necessarily go against such a media blackout.

Furthermore, WP:DEADLINE people; there isn't one. This is a common problem with articles on developing events, and while it's made all the more controversial by the distasteful nature of those events, I don't see any compelling reason to treat it any differently than another article on a current event. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm of this opinion that this falls under the "do no harm" principle and "presumption in favour of privacy" principle. When we are talking about minors we MUST be extremely cautious and prudent. Better to omit information than potentially cause harm. Exxolon (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I second Chunky Rice's " Who cares what the UK courts think? Their opinion is irrelevant here." As internet nerds, we're surely better placed than anyone to make such judgements. I propose we form a Council of Brights, chosen from those wikipedians whose World of Warcraft characters have the highest INT scores, and have them decide such matters. I'd trust their judgement over any mere court. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder if I call Granville a little shit if I will be capriciously blocked for 3 hours without attempt at discussion? Just wondering, mind you. Not actually doing so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That's not relevant to this discussion. And yes, if you do call an editor that expect to be blocked. We don't tolerate personal attacks. Exxolon (talk)
    • Clearly, you are clueless as to the incident to which I refer, as well as to the point which I am making. This comment was not intended for you, I assure you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If you'd done a little more research, you'd know I'm fully aware of the incident you're referring to for a very good reason. Let me reiterate - the rights or wrongs of that incident are irrelevant to this discussion and debate should probably be continued elsewhere, however using that kind of language about other editors is clearly a blockable violation of WP:NPA - this is a serious project demanding a certain minimum standard of behaviour which that kind of act falls well short of. If we're not sanctioning editors who use that kind of language we definitely should be. Calling me 'clueless' isn't particularly civil either and in posting to this public noticeboard you're inviting a reponse from any editor, not just the one(s) you were attempting to get a reaction from. Exxolon (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Then I stand corrected - you are aware, therefore being deliberately obtuse rather than innocently clueless. Thank you for clarifying your position. I am done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
          • 'Obtuse' now - again not very civil. Exxolon (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • • KillerChihuahua, Exxolon, this thread has gone from a silly joke to a disruptive squabble, that has no bearing on any actual issue for administrators. Please both immediately WP:DISENGAGE from this daft pissing contest; it's conduct unbecoming of you both. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was already done, see the "I am done" in the message above? Feel free to chastise others who have already ceased behaviors which bother you, though, if it makes you feel better. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

87.115.17.11 you are correct - I'm moving ongoing issues to KillerChihuahua's talkpage and will try and resolve them there instead. Exxolon (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As one of the oversighters involved in this, I have been waiting for some current reliable source to stick their neck out and include the name. We should not be the first. Barely a day goes by without new news articles going to print, and yet news sources across the globe are choosing to not include the names. We should follow their lead. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Whereas the order issued by the UK courts applies only to UK newspapers, and not UK websites, and many of the UK newspaper website items cited above predate that order, the bottom line, as as I see it, is that when WP:BLP issues arise, it is our duty to minimise harm, not only to those mentioned within our pages, but also to those who might be identifiable through what is published here. That's an issue of our responsibility as opposed to reporting what we might; the truth might well be a virtuous motive, but we are not investigative journalists, nor are we scandal-mongers, especially in the context of editors whose only apparent motivation in this context is bloodthirsty and ill-considered revenge. The two-year old girl who was raped deserves better than that reaction. Rodhullandemu 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If it lacks WP:RS on a BLP, that is one thing. If a reasonably-sized consensus supports suppression of the info per WP:BLP, that's another thing (though I would consider such a decision to be incompatible with the text of WP:CENSOR. But, not to put too fine a point on it, I'll eat my damned hat before I see EnWiki supporting automatic knee-jerk obedience to the laws of any foreign country, including Britain, based solely upon somebody's unofficial Euro-centric "interpretation". For the hundreth time: Wikipedia exists in the US and has a full-time lawyer whose job description is to "supervise [Wikipedia's] legal policy". If some questionable issue arises with the British legal system, its his job to determine whether or not we are obligated to make any changes. That's why he gets paid. For the record, he has previously stated many times that we don't answer to them. CIreland: your statement that "The people best placed to judge the wisdom of publishing the name are the UK courts" shows a fundamental disconnect with WP:CENSOR and a (thankfully rare) misconception as to what Wikipedia is not. You argue about second guessing the UK courts; how about not second-guessing the Project's lawyer, first? Or would you rather simply fire him and make all our legal decisions based on whatever Euro-centric viewpoint you come up with? Bullzeye ^contribs 03:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That kiss-up-to-authority-they-know-what's-best viewpoint was also attempted with the murder case I was talking about earlier, and was defeated. That vaguely fascistic mindset is scary, frankly. In this case, supposedly there are kids to protect, so BLP actually does come into play, assuming that the kids could be harmed if their parents' names were publicized. This is a little different from O.J. Simpson, a very-public figure whose kids were already well-known, so there was no protecting them this way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

While "think of the children" helps in this case, BLP also protects adults, including criminals, and the main reason why BLP comes into play is that no reliable source has yet knowingly printed the names after the court order. If the news had died down, it would be appropriate for us to make our own decisions in this matter, however every day new articles go to print ... without the names. This is a conscious choice by reliable sources to not include the names, so I view naming them on Wikipedia as ignoring the decision by reliable sources to not name the people. Once the papers start breaking the court ruling, we can follow their lead because we can reference them. Or if a reliable source reports that the court restrictions have been lifted, then we know - otherwise we are just guessing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What is "scary, frankly", Baseball Bugs is that when weighing the opinion of people who work daily with such issues and who are in full possession of the facts against the opinion of a bunch of amateurs (myself obviously included) with limited access to any details, you would defer to the latter. You may choose to describe giving more weight to the opinions of those with obvious expertise as "fascistic"; I, however, would prefer the adjective "adult" to describe the recognition of our own limitations.

Bullzeye, I don't understand what you mean by "Euro-centric viewpoint" - the issue is about knowledge and expertise, how is location relevant? And whilst the foundation lawyer may be well placed to determine what we can (legally) do, he has, so far as I am aware, no special qualifications that to advise on what we ought to do; just because we could, it does not mean that we should. If WP:CENSOR starts being used to justify "whatever we can get away with" then either it or WP:BLP has to go. CIreland (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a UK court has more "knowledge and expertise" with our BLP policy that we do? I find that hard to believe. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "Euro-centric" view, but what I'm seeing in some editors here is the same as with the previous case, that we the citizens should kiss up to authority. Maybe that's how they are used to doing things in mainland Europe, but not so much here in the USA. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

CIreland: To answer your question re: "Euro-centric", I would be less offended by this nonsense if it wasn't such a prevalent manner of thinking amongst certain members of our European editor set. Unfortunately, there has been repeated issues with UK editors attempting to boldly enforce their personal lay interpretations of UK censorship law on the US based English Wikipedia without any prompting from Mike Godwin. The Roger Took case and the Virgin Killer fiasco both featured heavy lobbying from European editors who felt ("as a courtesy") we should simply knuckle under any time the UK decides they want to censor EnWP. If a US judge cut an order demanding censorship of a UK-based Internet publication, he would immediately (and rightly) be given a tall middle finger from the other side of the pond. I am baffled why anyone would think EnWP should voluntarily act otherwise. Pretty sure there's a reason why US citizens aren't legally obligated to bow to the Queen. Bullzeye ^contribs 18:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The present article is almost unreadable because of the avoidance of names. The first thing we're supposed to do is be an encyclopedia & convey information, not confusion. There can be no further harm done to the child, and the other parties are convicted felons. I can so no rational basis for not simply using them. Am I saying the UK attitude is irrational--yes, I certainly am. I would feel very differently if the child had survived. We apparently need a policy specifically about our willingness to follow the UK rules on publication of names, and I have no doubt what will be the view of almost everyone at WP, except perhaps a few people who have unfortunately grown accustomed to censorship. DGG (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not just UK citizens. As I said earlier in the thread, we did the same for Nevada-tan, the reasoning being that most, if not all, reliable sources will do the ethical thing and respect the legal system by not disclosing the name. And our rules for biographies, whether alive or dead, say that we have an ethical consideration above and beyond reliable sourcing. Hell, it's the decent thing to do. That said, the only source given in this thread that actually gives the infant's name as "Peter Surname" is, AFAIK, the Evening Standard, which was published a year before the court order came into effect. I think that we should take the ethical considerations into account and wait until the court order is lifted, and also warn UK editors that mentioning the name may make them liable for contempt of court. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

we can certainly warn UK editors, in the same way we warn editors from countries like the PRC, that their editing here in an objective manner may cause them to come in conflict with the law of their area. Non UK editors, just like non-PRC editors, can report things properly. I'd like to know what ethics has to do with it exactly. My ethics is to tell the truth, unless living persons will be harmed, and that's the basis of our BLP policy. People in the UK may have assimilated their countries legal policy as "ethical" and I do not hold it against them--we are all influenced by our environment and people around us. DGG (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Were you aware that Baby P had a sister, a minor? Revealing her surname at this point could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be justifiable. I don't need the Law, nor do I need a BLP - and I would hope you don't, either - to tell me that exercising self-censorship right now is the decent thing to do. If that's still not enough, have you considered the negative impact on this project that we all care about, if the gutter press were able to headline "Wikipedia outs Baby P's sister"? --RexxS (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Redux

Back off his block, and adding the name again. Would someone care to keep an eye on this? Rodhullandemu 17:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has raised any valid reason at all why we should not immediately give Peter [redacted] the dinity of his real name. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

I can certainly give you yours, a fucking troll. Your above post proves it. --WebHamster 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I redacted the name which I'm sure you added inadvertently. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In a discussion about whether adding the real name should be done, is it a very good idea to blurt the name out here? Do you feel like you have gained anything by doing this? I'm glad someone else beat me to removing it really. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does the name need to e added now? Wikipedia will still be here next year; it's not a news reporting site; there's no pressing need for the name. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? Everybody in the world knows his nbame was Peter [redacted] and there are NO reasons at all why he shouldn't be named on this site at once. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

I didn't know. I didn't really want to know. Until you blurted it out in some kind of "stunt". Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

...and I redacted it again. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody knows, it's all over the Internet, all the legal business is finished, this is not a UK site, the murdered child deserves the dignity of a name, end of story. He must be named NOW. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

I have requested oversight of the edit- again. This situation cannot continue. Rodhullandemu 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's right, you can end it now by naming him. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Actually, it can ended now by simply blocking you indefinitely and having done with it. Which would be almost inevitable if you continue on your course, and quite soon, too. --Calton | Talk 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I would just create another account. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

"must"? You are aware of the actual meaning of that particular auxiliary verb? --Calton | Talk 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes I most certainbly am, and anyway the legal business is over and what the UK courts said doesn't apply here. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

No, you "certainbly" don't appear to understand the meaning of "must", as you have not even hinted at the faintest rationale why it "must" be included. --Calton | Talk 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

...and I see no reason why Granville (who I think is already a sock of a previously-banned user) should also continue to edit at Wikipedia if most simple of rules around consensus cannot be followed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no rules because this is not a UK site. He must be named at ONCE. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

"at ONCE"? Is there a deadline? Is there some sort of ticking timebomb? Do you have a bet going? --Calton | Talk 18:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Since there are no reasons at all why he shouldn't be given his full name then it certainly should be done at once. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

BZZZT, another vocabulary failure. "must"? "at once"? Could you demonstrate your understanding of those words by using them in a different sentence? Because I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. --Calton | Talk 18:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we all keep it civil, please? Exploding Boy (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Block Review

On the basis of this edit in the face of consensus, I have now blocked GranvilleHouston indefinitely for continued disruption. Doubtless I will be considered an involved admin, and invite anyone to overturn this or unblock and reblock as appropriate. Meanwhile, I take the view that WP:BLP exists for a reason and is not to be flouted by unsourced additions of names, even to Talk pages. Rodhullandemu 18:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to such flagrant BLP issues, you cannot be "too" involved as an admin not to make this block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and given your previous comments, I think filing an RFCU or a WP:SSP might be advisable. I think I have an idea who this is. Rodhullandemu 18:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I just put {{sockpuppet}} on both User:JohnRedwood and User:GranvilleHouston's User pages. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

...and {{ipsock}} on User:92.15.9.8 (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent block - there's a big difference between arguing your point and repeated trolling; clearly a WP:BLP issue. – Toon 21:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As a side, that should be oversighted... I'm guessing someone's requested it already? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur, as an uninvolved admin. However, those UK editors who want the name removed for reasons other than no reliable source has named it should be reminded that that is not Wikipedia policy; and, although they might be in violation of law to add the material, they would be then in violation of Wikipedia policy to remove it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP is, however, Wikipedia policy. In this case it's BLP-by-implication; the surviving sibling has a right to privacy and so on. So there is actually no violation of Wikipedia policy in removing it. In any case, this is one of those situations where IAR absolutely applies: how would you like to grow up knowing that not only was your sibling horribly murdered, but your name also got plastered all over the internet? Come on. → ROUX ₪ 03:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP for the sake of the kids is the sole, and sufficient, reason to keep the info out. If there were no other living kids, there would be no reason to keep it out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And if the name were published by generally accessible reliable sources, there would be no reason to keep the info out. We shouldn't be the first to publish potentially damaging information, but we shouldn't be the last. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're not familiar with the concept of two wrongs not making a right, then. → ROUX ₪ 03:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, BLP trumps reliable sources, at least where the innocent underage are concerned. However, I wonder if wikipedia is consistent in this regard? I was thinking of the Ramseys, which is a little unfair since they were never convicted of anything, but I think their surviving kid(s) names were well-known. However, that was also a much higher profile case. (Or was it?) Likewise with O.J. Simpson. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I misread WP:BLP#Privacy of names. My apologies. However, I would side with that policy not being ethically sound if the name really did appear in generally available reliable sources, but I'm willing to follow the policy anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of admin powers

User: Enigmaman has been abusing his position as an admin. On this page: :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_in_metal I have been formatting in what I feel is a better manner. If he, or any other user, disagrees then they are quite welcome to discuss it with me, but no attempt to do so has been made.

Instead, he and Wiki Libs have been consistently reverting me, giving no explanation as to why. I'm not removing any sources or inserting any new information: I'm literally just formatting. Then, just now, Enigmaman reverts again and locks the page for A WEEK.

This is yet another example of wikipedia admins abusing their positions. Yeah, yeah, I can hear it already: "But you were edit warring, he did the right thing." Wrong. Page locking is not there so an admin can selfishly and arrogantly lock a page in a format they like best. If either of them feels there is a problem, they can contact me, or use the talk page, or just put something in their edit summaries. Instead, they've simply been undoing over and again, giving no explanation for their actions, while I have repeatedly said why I am doing what I am doing.

This is misuse of the locking function. I know of course that nothing will be done about it, because on wikipedia nothing ever is. Admins abuse their powers every day, and nothing is ever done about it. But hey, you never know, there's always the chance a random sensible person like myself will see this and take some hope from it. 86.129.199.181 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD

You have to discuss if people don't like your "bright idea" – edit-warring will lead to page protection, and is not allowed. OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 20:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless the IPs' edits are actually vandalism or there's something else I'm missing, I think this is a kind of sketchy use of WP:SEMI as Wiki libs is definitely autoconfirmed. It would also seem there are a lot of article being affected by this user, and it seems definitely related to Talk:1960s in heavy metal music#Semi again. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

looking into this some, I have a few comments: 1) The IP has a dynamic IP and at least one of which was contacted and warned. 2) The IP's edits are on numerous pages and they are all being reverted. I don't necessarily think the IP is wrong in his edits, but would encourage the IP to discuss them. It is clear from the number of pages/editors involved that the IP's change does not (yet) have broader community support on making these changes. Is a week reasonable? I personally wouldn't have protected for that long, but I do think this edit should be discussed as it is obviously not shared by others.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Answering your query Balloonman... the main page the IP is warring over (the 1960s page) was already protected before for a week by Sir Scarian.. and then again for a month by WilliamConnelly. The IP sock continued his war (even declaring on the talk page a few days before the prot ran out that he intended to continue his war) so the page should have been protected for an even longer period. Through his edit war he has continued to ignore the fact the the page history and the talk page discussion all show a clear consensus to keep the content which he keeps blanking. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never touched any of these articles before, so I semiprotected the rest of the 70s for a week as well. If an agreement is reached, either unprotect or let me know so I can.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, Enigmaman reverted to his preferred version in a content dispute, and then used semi protection to lock out IPs (one person in particular) from the edit war. So, basically he violated the protect policy twice: protecting his preferred version, and using semi to block out IPs when autoconfirmed editors are also warring. ÷seresin 20:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks that way to me. Tan | 39 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above that should clear your mud. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's fun that your signature says "speak politely", and you are anything but. Please let this discussion/investigation continue without your sarcasm, snark, or pithy comments. Tan | 39 20:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment is not snarky, sarcastic or pithy. Previous comments showed that a few users were unfamiliar with the situation and I left a helpful comment to help them out. They were meant to be 100% helpful to everyone who is commenting based on this little puddle IP here and not knowing the whole sh-bang. I could have put a happy smiley at the end of my sentence if that would've helped. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I must have misinterpreted your intent on that comment. I apologize, and withdraw the admonishment. Sorry about that. Tan | 39 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's never a good idea to pithy-offy the people who might just help you... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - protection may have been technically the correct action (possibly) but to avoid any appearance of impropiety should've been brought to the attention of an uninvolved admin to administer. Exxolon (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually E_man was an uninvolved admin. He only stepped in to assist in an obvious/ongoing IP war when it was brought to his attention. Looking at the page edit history it looks, at first, like a back-n-forth between 2 IP users. In fact it is an ongoing battle between 1 solo IP sock and a whole series of IPs that originate from numerous locales (if my geolocate is working correctly) The Real Libs-speak politely 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that he didn't step in to block edit-warring users or fully protect an edit-war-torn page; he reverted the IP and then semi-protected the page. As the IP edits were not blatant vandalism, I really can't see how this admin action was justified. Tan | 39 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

When a user has been blocked from editing and chooses to use an IP sock to evade his block in order to continue editing... I don't see where his actions were questionable at all. The IPs edits weren't vandalism... they were a single user using a series of IP socks to revert an article(s) away from an established consensus because they disagree with the consensus themselves. And, as mentioned, evading a block to do so. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Wiki libs - had the IP not been dynamic, it might have been arguable that the best solution would have been to block the IP for edit warring. As that is not feasible, semi-protecting the page is justifiable. Those arguing for misuse of admin functions are, pardon me, behaving like process supercedes everything - rules-wankers, as it were. Suggest they take a step back and try to view the Big Picture. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"rules-wankers"???? - is this really an appropiate way to describe editors? Exxolon (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please review the situation before you call us "rules-wankers". The IP address was formatting. He was being reverted, either without explanation, or as Wikilibs said in an edit summary, "removal of cited material". I could be wrong, but I do not see any removal of cited material. The IP may not have gone about this the right way, but 3RR was not broken, and he was reverted with either disingenuous edit summaries or no explanation at all. This really is a matter of "I like this way more than your way", and semi-protection of the page as a way of stopping it was not warranted. None of the editors attempted to discuss this. Enigmaman, as much as I like him, stepped into an edit war between an established user and an IP account. The fact that the IP was dynamic is irrelevant. Siding with the account on the edit war, and then protecting his preferred version, was very poor form indeed. I am removing the resolved tag that that was capriciously put on here. KillerChihuahua, you apparently did not review this situation - at all. Try to view the big picture? Try to understand what's going on first. Tan | 39 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tan. You don't revert and protect an article because you don't like the formatting. Clearly a bad move. Law _{type! snype?} 22:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I counted the albums on that page a couple of different ways -- Wiki libs' version had 11 albums, the IP's version had 10.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: I admit perhaps I was a bit over-enthusiastic with reverts. But Wiki Libs and Enigmaman are just as guilty of it as I, and at least I am making an -attempt- at explanation. Oh, and in response to the "dynamic IP" issue, there's nothing I can do about that: My IP seems to change all the time, it's not being done out of malice or ill-will. It just happens.

Thank you to those who have actually shocked me by being rational. Oh, and yes my version has 10 albums: you'll notice this is because I'm removing one album that doesn't appear to have any source. So I'm still not removing any cited content. As I say, it's just formatting, and if anyone disagrees with that I'm perfectly happy to discuss it.

Oh, and Enigmaman has now done the same over at the 1960s in heavy metal music page. That one is slightly different because it's not formatting but it -still- doesn't involve removal of any sourced content. What I'm removing there is unsourced content, and I have explained several times on the talk page how this is in keeping with wikipedia's rules. Thus far the only responses I've received boil down to "We, a couple of anonymous people on the internet, think it's good this way. So there." I have asked time and time again that they simply provide sources, and in the past day or two with every revert I've used an edit summary asking that they look at the talk page. These have received no response whatsoever, and once again Enigmaman has locked the page simply to prevent me from doing anything.

This is not what the protection system is there for. It is there to keep a page stable while things are discussed and sorted out. But given the lack of any attempt at discussion, it would appear Enigmaman is just using it to force the page how he wants it. That's not on. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Admitting that you were overzealous in your reverts is a nice step. But claiming that I was just as guilty??? I really do not see where you are getting that. Prior to your edit war yesterday which went against consensus (where I reverted you twice) I had not viewed the page until back on June 18. And prior to that I had not made an edit to the page unless you go way back into April. So please stay focused on what events actually transpired and don't try and create some sort of false editing history. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, I do not like to see semi-protection used to lock out IP editors in a content dispute, nor do I think an admin should impose semi-protection after reverting good faith edits. If there is ever any question whether an admin is involved, they ought use WP:RFPP. –xeno^talk 14:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with xeno. Semi-protection should not be used to end a content dispute between registered and IP editors. Policy doesn't exactly make this clear, but does say that it should only be used to resolve a content dispute if all parties are non-autoconfirmed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the edit-warring was actually between our genre troll and various other IPs. Wiki Libs was just one of the editors he edit-warred with. I can provide links to other articles, if you'd like. Enigma^msg 17:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see a bit of a bandwagon developing here without a key piece of information. Wikilibs makes a comment above that this is a "blocked editor", and a section on Enigmaman's talk page seems to indicate that this is a long-term problem with an editor who has been blocked multiple times for similar edits. If this is true, I've seen several admins semi-protect articles from an IP-hopping long-term problem editor, and reverting their edits if they really are against consensus before protection is SOP. If it isn't true, then someone is being maligned unfairly and we have a problem.

Could someone who's been involved provide links to previous blocks on the IP addresses of this editor? Assuming for the moment that Enigmaman isn't power-tripping right out of the gate, it's quite possible this is a case of him knowing more than we do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why I spoke generally; I am working with only bits and pieces of information. –xeno^talk 14:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's another bit/piece of information: This thread] from a few days ago seems to be related. The IP isn't changing from 86.56.100.100 to 86.56.100.101 to 86.56.100.102, so it's too hard for my little brain to figure out whether this is all the same person. I've asked Enigmaman to come to this thread and provide some background, it appears he assumed yesterday it would be more obvious to everyone than it actually is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If this helps here is William M. Connolley's block on the same IP sock albeit for edit warring on a different page then the most recent ones (the edit history of the IP shows a habit of edit warring across several pages). The previously mentioned J.Delanoy sock block. The user switched to a different IP and went back to edit warring while still within the block time frame set by J.Delanoy. This sock cat including an 86.X IP may also be related link. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is an editor who has been socking for months. His claim of "unintentionally" switching IPs is not so believable when you see his last IP was just used by him a few days previously. Note above that Sarek did the same thing as I did. He reverted and then semi-protected. The editor in question is a classic genre troll and has been abusively socking and edit-warring for months over a slew of articles. My error was in reverting before semi-protecting, I suppose (I only did this on one of the articles I semi'd). I could have left that to someone else, but again, I wasn't the only admin to do that. Unless a checkuser is approached about a rangeblock, semi-protecting is the only thing we can do. This is not a new problem. Wiki Libs knows more about this than I do, but this has been going on for quite a while, and I'm disappointed in the rush to judgment without having all the facts. As Floquenbeam pointed out above, the editor in question just started a similar AN/I thread alleging abuse by J.delanoy two days ago. He has a habit of doing this whenever admin action is taken against him. I think you'll find a bunch more if you look back in the archives. Enigma^msg 17:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To add on top of that, there is not much use of placing warning templates or blocks on IP. All he needs to do is unplug the modem, replug it and get a fresh IP. Oh, did I mention that he won't even able to find out what messages was left on his old IP's talk page because his IP has shifted? Sometimes you have to be a bit imaginative when dealing with vandalism from dynamic IPs, as blocking it has little to no effect. And we don't want to induce collateral damage by rangeblock. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This users changing IPs are not random. If you follow the pages he tends to edit the most you will see that he is able to get back to IPs that he has used previously. Likely just moving around inside of a school or workplace. He does not have an endless list of IPs. I have noticed at least 5 that he seems to be able to use over and over. Even the IPs he posted with on this talk page are IPs that he has had access to in previous months of trolling. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I would like to hear about your action plan on how to deal with this. Certainly letting the otherwise-edit war continue onwards is not the right approach. We're choosing between the lesser of 2 evils. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP user has an account but chooses not to use it for the pages he wishes to edit war over. Putting a semi-P on the articles that the user refuses to acknowledge consensus on is an easy/effective fix for the situation. If he really wants to work within the community he can simply start using his account for these pages. He knows he can side-step WP:3RR, WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK if he just keeps using the IPs. And he knows he can just keep playing the system and whining here and wasting everybody's time as long as he keeps pleading his 'innocent IP' case. Keep the Semi-p's until the cows come home. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated, but hang on a sec .. am I crazy here? Wiki libs sig above is [[User:156.34.142.110|The Real Libs]]-[[User talk:Wiki libs|speak politely]] and logged in as User:Wiki libs. So, the sig User: refers to an IP address, pipe's an unknown nick, then links to the correct User talk. Is it only me that finds this strange (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you could ask them about it if it bothers you, but if you follow the link, the relationship between that static IP (with a long history) and their account is pretty clearly linked, and linking to both old and new accounts in the signature is more transparent, not less transparent. "Non-standard", maybe, but "strange"? No. I don't understand why this is being raised here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is unrelated but, yes, my sig links to my noble IP page (the static one). I was/am the champion of the anon (when they don't troll/edit war) and from the 156.X range I made over 30000 valuable/constructive edits before relenting to pressure and switching to this stupid account. I would still prefer the purity of anonymous editing if I could, BUT, as a wise administrator friend told me, "you kick a lot more troll/vandal ass with the silly login name" And so I do. :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 01:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson cardiac arrest / reported death

Per the reports in the UK regarding Michael Jackson being found "not breathing" and taken to hospital I have protected the article for 6 hours, so we can make sure we get proper sourced comment and no rumours. Feel free to unprotect/vary as required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Reuters has just reported believed (my emphasis) dead. Fully support full-protection until it's clear what's going on. – iridescent 21:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I expect Talk:Michael Jackson to get busy. Will watch, but will only be online for a while. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ reporting he's dead, but they've missed before. No reputable news source reporting it yet. Watching is a must, and protection probably a good idea. Dayewalker (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a situation where I favour pre-emptive protection. We'll know quickly what has happened, at which point it can be opened back up to the masses for ...tasteful... editing. Resolute 21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Miami Herald reporting that Michael Jackson is dead. seicer | talk | contribs 21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Miami Herald is citing TMZ. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seems everyone is picking up the TMZ report. CTV.ca is reporting it as well, again as a "report". Resolute 22:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

They have now sourced TMZ; it was omitted when I first clicked on it. seicer | talk | contribs 22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've taken the unusual step of semi-protecting the talkpage as well, before it becomes a BLP nightmare (if the allegations aren't true). Any admin who disagrees has my explicit consent to revert. – iridescent 22:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Have added an invisible note to Deaths in 2009 as well; I remember several past cases where horrible revert wars broke out there over celebrities taken suddenly ill. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Both LHvU and Iridescent's protections were a good idea. I'm sure we'll have more info in the very near future and can proceed accordingly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse both protections, obviously. See what happens in the news. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Only a note, USAToday got a confirmation he was taken to UCLA MC in cardiac arrest, before they stopped talking. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to register my disagreement. Pre-emptive full protection is going to far. There were a total of 5 (FIVE) reverts today. This is not a lot. Per WP:NO-PREEMPT, "Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection. Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Barack Obama, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism." Full protection is overkill. --Elliskev 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There were 5 reverts before the story broke, but when there are sufficient editors to patrol it we can drop the level down a bit - I am a veteran of the Sarah / Bristol Palin news frenzy, and this has even more potential of swamping. If it was the wrong decision I am making it for what I consider the best of reasons and I will accept the consequences. Also, I have enacted the same protections at Michael Jackson's health and appearance (following a request). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree. WP:NO-PREEMPT is no substitute for long-ingrained experience. Nobody could sensibly argue that any of these articles would not be the target of editors unaware of our various policies here. And that's aside from the "anti"-factions who would use the opportunity to add all sorts of other nonsense. Can't argue with LHvU's actions here, except that I might have tried semi first; but then, perhaps I am unusually optimistic. Rodhullandemu 22:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

When there is a bit more clarity in news accounts, we can lower the protection level. I'm sure there will be lots of eyes. Jonathunder (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think avoiding a potential B(L)P crisis before there's a little more information is the correct course of action. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

LA Times called it independent of TMZ, I'd say that's it. Soxwon (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the protections are absolutely in accordance with policy. The problem here is not with likely vandalism of the articles, but of almost certain revert wars and disputes over how exactly to describe his state of health and prolonged issues over whether an 'unconfirmed report' appearing in a normally reliable source is admissible etc etc. No-one is going to suffer if, by insisting on reliability, we are 'last with the news'. There are people who may suffer if unreliable information is stated as fact. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone protect Michael Jackson (writer) as well? It's getting damaged by misfires.—Kww(talk) 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's now been protected, and I had to protect Michael Jackson (disambiguation) for the same reasons. Acalamari 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If the consensus is that this particular article falls under IAR, I'm fine with that. But I will ask that full protection rules are followed - meaning absolutely no edits by admins without talk page discussion. --Elliskev 22:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a bad precedent if it's going to apply more widely to other reported deaths and emerging news generally. But if you guys think it's best and do it under IAR, fine. Wikipedia follows the sources, it doesn't need to be ahead of them. Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree with that. Things like this are not helpful. – iridescent 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I fully support and endorse the actions taken to fully protect the article (and semi-protect the talk page). Michael Jackson is a huge public figure, and news like this is sure to attract all sorts of vandalism. Especially given the problems with WP:BLP recently, this is a very, very good idea. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with preemptive full protection in this case. Wait until it's confirmed in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. — Becksguy (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

LA times?[6] Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Already got that, NBC has as well. Soxwon (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree - a *lot* of people are going to be coming here looking for information - do we want people's first view to be "lol! he's dead!". Protection at this time is in the best interests of the project. We aren't a news source, slow and steady confirmation of sources is the way to go. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (multiple e/cs) Declined unprotection on the Michael Jackson article and fully protected 2009 for six hours. All proposed changes should be discussed on the talk page until this settles down. Enigma^msg 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the block, even if it is a technical violation of PREEMPT, this would be a clear case where IAR applies... also, I wonder if this might be reason why I am having trouble with my Wikipedia account. keep getting timed out, too many people looking at MJ? ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather amusing you fully protect it to stop WP:BLP problems yet you have admins using blogs as sources for his death.--Otterathome (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's been fixed; no need to hold a grudge. wadester16 01:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed dead. I still support leaving the article protected per Cameron Scott's arguments above. – iridescent 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Michael Jackson

Death of Michael Jackson - Please protect. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That page should be salted. Unitanode 22:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Salted for 24 hours. By then it should be clearer what exactly has happened. Until then, Michael Jackson is possibly going to be the single most viewed page on the entire internet and we need to be careful exactly what it does and doesn't say. – iridescent 22:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) salted it indef.[7] Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, did it at the same moment as Iridescent. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be salted indefinitely. There's absolutely no need for a new page to discuss his death Corpx (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess all the other 'Death of' articles should be deleted too. It's the biggest death since Princess Diana (which has its own article), and probably bigger than some of ther other 'Death of' stories. 82.31.164.37 (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it as "confirmed", as we still have information second hand with no-one speaking formally and on the record about it. But it's sound more and more likely: The LA Times and the Associated Press are both running stories to that effect, and NBC News has joined in as well. Tabercil (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC is as well, and they're the most cautious of them all. I think we can call it confirmed. – iridescent 22:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC's live reporter in LA just said they rely on reputable sources such as AP so it's no more confirmed because they say so. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont get why this article is fully protected. I can understand semi-protection since IPs and new accounts would probably vandalize this, but I dont agree with locking it down so that only admins can edit it. If established registered users vandalize the article, then warn/block accordingly, instead of preemptively locking down the article so that only a select few can edit it. I dont foresee a large attack by established/registered users, so I dont see a need for full protection Corpx (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Welcome to Wikipedia. Anyone can edit, unless the admins want to edit it first.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Protecting this page is setting an incredibly bad precedent. --Susan118 ^talk 01:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Very very stupid. It was deleted out-of-process. Given that he is dead, there are no BLP concerns, and this should be done properly. What possible justification was there to delete and protect the article when the admins concerned knew that he was already dead?82.31.164.37 (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Our actions are being noted

See here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Real good article, but it says that the article was protected for six hours, yet we just learned about all of this about two hours ago.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume it meant 2009, which has been protected for six hours: that's how I interpreted it anyway. I see the article also picked up on the technical issues that interfered with editing earlier and at the moment. Acalamari 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Michael Jackson article was fully protected for one hour and 17 minutes (77 minutes); talk page different. Now it's semi-protected. — Becksguy (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But unfortunately there was a big template at the top of the page telling administrators not to edit it for quite a while longer than 77 minutes, which could have misled some people. Dekimasuよ! 07:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all that bad

Some sites are having the biggest flame war ever about it. PXK ^T /_C 23:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin edits

OK. This is crap. Why is there a flurry of undiscussed admin edits to a fully protected article? WP:PROTECT says, "Changes to a protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and carried out if they are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them." There is no discussion. Admins are not super-editors. There aren't two classes of editors on Wikipedia. This is totally inappropriate. --Elliskev 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I posted pretty much the same thing below. But TerriersFan has unprotected. Mike R (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. — Aitias // discussion 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree also. Preemptively moving the article to full protection was a bad decision. Corpx (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• While I understand the thought behind the protection, I completely agree here. Either the admins need to start discussing edits to be made at the talkpage, or the protection level should be changed from full to semi. Unitanode 23:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's at semi now, but it's no doubt true that admins should not have made significant changes without discussing, but I think we should just move on at this point. Not a huge deal. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your fellow admins abusing their positions IS a big deal. How is it not? Auntie E (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Actually it is a huge deal. It shows that a helluva lot of admins don't have a clue about the nature of full protection, or of the nature of their status as admins. This isn't the first time I've seen this recently. The same thing happened with the David Carradine article when he died. Preemptive full protection, admins editing without discussion... However, I'm not really up to pursuing it now. I'm just a little disappointed. --Elliskev 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You really should not be disappointed. Going through an RfA these days involves not just an appreciation of policy, but also of article creation within those policies. I would be unhappy about Admins editing content through protection, particularly those they have applied themselves, and I have done that myself, in the best interests of this encyclopedia; but only to revert vandalism, or apply core policies. Sorry, I don't make any apology for that, since at the back of my mind, I retain some consideration for our readers (remember them?). We owe it to our readers, rather than ourselves, to present unbiased and reliably-sourced facts. That is what an encyclopedia IS. If that means preventing people from adding half-assed nonsense, then I, for one, am perfectly happy with that. We're an encylopedia, not a free-for-all. Please rememeber that. Rodhullandemu 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is that supposed to mean? What the hell are you talking about? That sounds very....creepy. I did it for the common good. God grant the common folk the wisdom to accept what they do not understand.??? --Elliskev 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How refreshingly naive. What's wrong with the "common good"? Is it not what we are ALL here for? And if Admins fuck up, they lose the bit. Meanwhile, we work silently behind the scenes, minimising the damage, with little kudos but much responsibility. If you've a problem with that, change it. As for my Admin decisions, from protections to blocks, I'm fully prepared to defend them all, and to the hilt. That's how seriously I take my role here. Would that others would do the same. Rodhullandemu 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Amen brutha'. wadester16 02:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And if Admins fuck up, they lose the bit - uh, no, not really. not saying it's a bad thing, but admins fuck up regularly and get to keep the bit. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) I still don't know what you're on about. Do you have no problem with admins making major content edits to a fully-protected article without discussion on the talk page? --Elliskev 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is actually a violation of WP:PROT for an admin to edit through a full protection, but in some circumstances, per IAR, what the rules say and what common sense says vary. I basically agree with Rodhullandemu. Orderinchaos 07:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR. In this case it appears fully protecting the article for a short period of time was best for the encyclopedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR because some admins are too lazy to ask for consensus on the talk page? I don't think so. Auntie E (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Resp to Juliancolton. That is a separate issue. I accept that full protection of the article was best for the encyclopedia. My concern is with the editing done by admins while the article was fully-protected.

Editing Wikipedia is a privilege for all of us—including admins. Admins are by necessity granted additional privileges. That's fine. However, super-editor status has never been one of those additional privileges. There are times when circumstances necessitate an article being "shut down" to editing. Privileges are withheld for the good of the encyclopedia. There should be absolutely no changes made other than what is absolutely necessary for the good of the encyclopedia—things like spelling corrections, grammar corrections, vandalism removal. Any content edits and style edits should be discussed, since they aren't really vital.

That's not what was happening. The article was protected from editing by non-admins. Admins continued adding content, removing content, making stylistic changes. All as if the article wasn't protected.

Anyway, I think this horse I've been beating is beginning to rot. --Elliskev 12:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Full protection for article is probably fine. Semi-protection fo talk page is weird UNTIL there's a bunch of IP vandals to that page, and edit conflicts would have prevented many of those anyway. It's NOT ACCEPTABLE to have a fully protected page with a semi-protected talk page combined with admins editing the article without discussion. They're not discussing, and some editors are unable to dicuss the edits any way, and most editors are unable to revert possibly really bad edits. Lucky this is a BDP not BLP, but still. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

List

• Removal of a reference by an admin while fully protected - no discussion
• Addition of content about record ticket sales by an admin while fully protected - no discussion
• Addition of an inuse tag to a fully-protected article. Are you kidding me?
• Unnecessary and probably not the best edit by an admin while fully protected - no discussion

I really feel like I'm wasting my time, so I'll stop. I am very disgusted at the way this is being handled. The article is closing in on 30 edits since the latest full protection with little discussion. Why do admins think that it's okay to make any edits to a fully-protected page without any discussion whatsoever? --Elliskev 01:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Some admins really think they're better editors than non-admins and to lock down a page permanently due to two vandal edits is disgusting Corpx (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What's even worse is the group of admins who think it's "no big deal." Auntie E (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a big issues that says allot about admins attitudes, I am thinking on initiating an RFAR into the conduct of the administrators in question but more importantly whether or not it is right for an administrator to edit a fully protected article for non administrative reasons.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am an administrator who has not participated in the MJ article in any way. I reviewed the list of changes presented above and found that none of them were edits that required any discussion, with or without protection. Removal of an EOnline reference when a Reuters one was already cited seems routine. The other two edits were simple copyediting. (The In Use" tag is hard to judge as I do not know the activity level at the time the tag was placed). None of what I reviewed required discussion or consensus as they were all non-controversial changes. If you can provide links to other edits I will gladly review them. Manning (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As a fellow non participating admin I endorse Manning's comments, after reviewing the edit history myself. Orderinchaos 07:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As another non-participating admin, agree that these were non-controversial edits and hence allowable, with the caveat that it's courtesy to report such edits on the talk page. That was evidently done in at least one case, and in a couple of cases admins erroneously thought it was semi rather than full protection, and apologised for that misunderstanding shortly after the initial report above was made. Admins should be aware of the need to make such reports, even though these were clearly difficult circumstances due to the sheer pressure of a breaking news situation and edit conflicts on the talk page. Care also needs to be taken in making accusations without carefully checking the talk page archives. . dave souza, talk 10:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Manning, what about this edit, which was done after locking the article saying "Edit warring / Content dispute: need time to update the death facts. will lower protection when done" and was later justified as a necessary evil. I'm absolutely disagree with the usage of admin powers to protect articles to push your edit through. As for the non controversial edits made by admins when it was locked, it was exactly what was done by regular users prior to the locking. There was no real edit warring and very little vandalism and there was no justification to lock it in the first place. Other reasons to lock it range from blaming a good faith edit that accidentally broke a table to the "higher server load" to non existent BLP issues. Locking it down and then proceeding to make "uncontroversial" edits just screams elitism and conveys the notion that admins are better editors than regular users Corpx (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Sounds like the consensus is that admins can edit a fully-protected article whenever they want, as long as they can justify it. Of course, everything is justifiable with IAR.

Why don't we just go ahead and change the term "full protection" to "reserved to editing by admins". Or should I bring that up at WP:PROTECT? --Elliskev 12:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully an event of this magnitude only occurs once in a blue moon. Our policies are good and generally work, but they are designed to work for 99% of circumstances - this is the 1%, a VERY high visibility page which is being watched microscopically by non-Wikipedians who visit our site. It's almost a designed case for IAR, but one should call upon it thoughtfully and carefully. Orderinchaos 16:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected again

[8] Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we ago again. I like how the admin proceeds to edit the article right after fully protecting it. As mentioned before, admins are NOT super editors! I also fail to see any "content dispute" There were no real edit warring prior to this lock down Corpx (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

23:36, 25 June 2009 Wadester16 (talk | contribs | block) m (120,713 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Michael Jackson": Edit warring / Content dispute: need time to update the death facts. will lower protection when done ([edit=sysop] (expires 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinit) ... Sorry, but what? — Aitias // discussion 23:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It needed to be correct. There were many easily cited, verifiable, reliable sources that needed to be included. The state of that section before wasn't great and it needed cleanup. wadester16 01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's back to semi. — Satori Son 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Today's Featured Article, vandal fighters are going to be busy. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Huggle Brigade™ should be able to handle the vandalism; admins should keep an eye on AIV if not on vandal-patrol already. —Animum (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected once more

I'm tired of this roller coaster ride. This time, by User:Cenarium, for excessive vandalism, even though I see just two instances of vandalism in the first page of the edit log. On top of that, these vandals were not warned for their edits, because I guess its easier to just lock down the whole page? Corpx (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Three vandalism in the latest seven minutes. I didn't warn them because I was too occupied to refresh the history to rollback new vandalism or fix infobox screw ups. It got circa 1 million hits per hour in the latest hours. Cenarium (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There were two vandal edits in the whole first page of the edit log, which is really not that hard to revert. On top of that, I'm baffled at your reversion of this edit and further classifying it as "vandalism". High visibility does not mean that you should preemptively lock it down. Corpx (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that there have been 8 edits by admins since the latest full protection went info effect. I dont think they get the concept that admins are not super editors Corpx (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That was obviously not preemptive, and I could have waited a couple of new vandalisms or BLP violations to make my protection even more justified, but I excluded this due to the extremely high visibility, and also due to server difficulties due to the extremely high traffic making quick reversions difficult. Fo this edit, super BLP violation if you prefer. And that protection was due to vandalism, not content dispute, so they can edit with caution. Cenarium (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly where is the BLP violation in the edit? To me, it seems that everything stated is referenced from the associated citation. The edit was made in good faith and is definitely not vandalism. Not counting that edit, you're justifying your decision to apply full protection based on two vandal edits over a period of 7 mts? Corpx (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't properly sourced, the reference was to the primary source, it was giving an entire paragraph and was obviously WP:UNDUE, and it was negative, thus it's a WP:BLPVIO. My protection was not justified only by those two vandalisms and this BLPvio, but all the previous ones in the history and the multiple infobox breaks; but also by the traffic and the ensuing server instability making editing and reversing more difficult. Cenarium (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What part was not sourced properly? What is wrong with referencing primary sources, as long as it not used to cite "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims" ? "it was negative, thus it's a WP:BLPVIO". I dont think you understand WP:BP if you think that anything negative is a BLP violation. Criticism can be added to articles as long as it is cited from a reliable source, as it was in this case. I dont think server instability should be a factor in locking an article. What proof do you have anyway that just semi protection was causing server instability? Corpx (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything was sourced to the organization's press release, go read Wikipedia:BLP#Sources. I didn't say "it was negative, thus it's a WP:BLPVIO", I said "That wasn't properly sourced, the reference was to the primary source, it was giving an entire paragraph and was obviously WP:UNDUE, and it was negative, thus it's a WP:BLPVIO.", which is not the same (my conclusion came from the combination of all previous statements, not just the last one). The server instability was caused by the extreme traffic, and that instability slowed down the acceptance of edits, and thus reversions, considerably decreasing our ability to deal with vandalism and BLP violations, and other infobox screw ups, and so showing the reader a correct article. Cenarium (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't for you alone to decide what is a BLP violation and what is not. Remember to Revert and discuss, not revert to the version that you prefer and then protect your version, which is exactly what you did. Your actions are very questionable to say the least and although I truely want to believe that your heart was in the right place, your reversion of a good faith edit and immediate protection of the article does not look good.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I had already reverted two vandalism edits, attempted to fix the infobox that was repeatedly broken, and this one came up. I had to act quickly with the high traffic, and it really looked like a BLP violation, and BLP applies to persons dead just now, so I rvt'd that one and protected, this is the default action per Wikipedia:Blp#Semi-protection_and_protection. Propose to reinstate the edit on the talk page if you think it should be. Cenarium (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about the edit. What is important here is that you reverted a good faith edit, then protected the page so that your version would stick. A poor series of edits that many other have noticed as well. Perhaps you should have reverted and then gotten consensus to protect. Admins are suppose to help and work with other editors, not make the decisions for them.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything sourced to the press release was stated as such. Press releases from organizations can be used as reliable sources to cite content from. I'm still wondering which parts of the edits violate BLP. First sentence is "n early 1996, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued a press release charging Jackson with antisemitism regarding lyrics in the song "They Don't Care About Us", the fourth single from HIStory.". I dont see any violations here since the claim is directly attributed to the press release and states as such. Next is "The song had originally been recorded with lyrics that included the phrase "Jew me, sue me", and "Kick me, kike me". This is a fact and is also said so in the link. Next is "The ADL complained and Jackson responded by saying he would re-record the lyrics before the album went into production." Again, this is a fact that can be attributed directly to the link. Next is "But the ADL's press release charged that Jackson had performed the song live and included the lyrics in question during the live performance" I fail to see anything wrong here either. It just states a complaint that ADL had and is said so in the document.

As for the negative part, you clearly implied that the content being negative constituted to a BLP violation. Why else would you throw the "and it was negative" part?

As for the server load issue, there is absolutely no policy here that justifies protection for an article because of the impact edits would cause on the physical server. You reverted two blatant vandal edits, a number that will not even get you semi-protection for an article at WP:RFPP. I guarantee you that those edits would have been reverted quickly in an article like that. As for the breaking the tables, they were caused as a result of a good faith edit, and not vandalism. Mistakes in good faith edits should not be used as an excuse to lock up a page. Corpx (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To Jojhutton: as you put it here, spam is spam, even when in good faith; likewise, blp violations are blp violations, even when in good faith. I had to act quickly due to the server troubles and extreme traffic, proposing a full protection on the talk page or at ANI then waiting for the decision would have been too long. The cache couldn't follow the traffic and users were seeing outdated revisions [9], I experienced this, even when purging the page, it was not updated. This explains why so many users complained about the broken infobox and vandalism while it had already been fixed (sometimes a dozen of minutes before). And additionally to that, there were database errors when editing and reverting. I hadn't realized the full consequences of this at the time, and now I feel even more justified in my protection. That was an extraordinary situation, and my protection was certainly done in the spirit of WP:IAR. For the two vandalism edits, they were not reverted that quickly, especially in light of the traffic, a dozen of seconds for the first one, a few seconds for the second one (so a thousand of readers saw those based on the traffic per hour, probably more due to the server issues), estimation based on the intermediary edits on the site, and that only because I refreshed the history non-stop. With the server issues at the top of that, it's clear we couldn't cope up with vandalism and other disruptions, and many, many of our readers were seeing bad content. I didn't block the most egregious vandal immediately because I was too occupied to check the history and in my experience, those edits are not repeated, or not immediately at least. When I moved to block, the user was already indef'd. The second one didn't deserve a block. For the disputed edit, BLP is not just about facts, but also balance, and 'worthiness of bing mentioned'. That's a self-published source, a press release, so obviously not enough to support an entire paragraph of negative information. Now it's been lowered down to semi and I fully support that, there's no extreme traffic any more (although still very very high) and the devs are working on the server issues (they applied some patches to improve performance and redistributed resources, some wmf sites of lower priority are down, eg the techblog), so most of the vandalism and disruption by autoconfirmed users can now be contained, and is not so frequent as it's too late for drive-by vandalism. Cenarium (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The server issues are even in the New York Times: With Jackson Entry, Wikipedia May Have Set a Record. Cenarium (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

IP request to unprotect talk page

Please resolve. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've obliged. If needed, revert me. —Animum (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For reference: 00:47, 26 June 2009 Animum (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "Talk:Michael Jackson" [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Preemptive protection only goes so far. Until we have an idea of the degree to which this page may be vandalized, IPs should be allowed to comment; revert me immediately if necessary. BLP-violating IPs can be blocked.) —Animum (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick note relating to Michael Jackson

(ec X infinity) Since I edit-conflicted non-stop in the main thread, I'm posting this in a new section; apparently the news is being spread to completely unrelated pages as well; see this edit to WP:PERM/R by Texas Ty (talk · contribs). → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 22:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Pls Unprotect Michael Jackson

It would be one thing if the article were fully protected and the only edits being made were after extensive discussion on the talk page, but what's happening is that admins are editing away willy-nilly, while everyone else is locked out. That creates a divide between admins and non-admins that has heretofore not existed. Admins are chosen to be janitors, not elite editors. Mike R (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

TerriersFan has unprotected. Mike R (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There's work to be done

It's not particularly productive to indulge in discussion right now over whether Wikipedia administrators did a good or a bad thing in protecting a high profile biographical article, and whether specific edits under protection were within the letter of policy. People, there's far more pressing work to be done right now. Discussion can wait a few hours, or a day. Remember that this is the incidents noticeboard, and we have an incident here.

As you can see from the news, the news about this event has caused a noticable spike in traffic for several WWW sites. The WWW site for The O2 Arena (London) is currently unresponsive. And there are other side-effects. I strongly urge a lot of BLP-knowledgeable eyes to keep watch for BLP vandalism related to Jeff Goldblum and Harrison Ford, for example. I also strongly urge administrators to remember that many of the novice editors and editors without accounts are here to help and will help if you let them.

Work to protect the encyclopaedia now; blame-throwing and squabbling (if you really must) later. Please? Uncle G (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR and Time is of the essence sound like sound concepts here. We can tar and feather people later. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I will echo Uncle G resoundingly. Sure I have seen a handful of things I do not necessarily agree with occur, but I have not seen a single action taken that was not entirely in good faith, and done with a view to preserving the encyclopaedia. Let's move on and get the job done. Manning (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good comment. Dekimasuよ! 06:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

the problem arises when Admins use their capability in an inappropriate, pre-emptive or preferential manner, thereby denying others the opportunity to edit in "good faith". Is an Admin's "good faith" in some way preferable to any other editor? I think not. leaky_caldron (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

corrupted edit history

Don't know if this is the right place to put this but it is obviously michael jackson related. At the time this was happening I was editing George Tryon. Today i look at the edit history and see it says '23:18, 25 June 2009 (hist) (diff) George Tryon ‎ (moved to royal albert) (top) (Michael Jackson vandalism)' [10]. The 'moved to royal albert' bit is what I wrote and has nothng to do with page moves but rather what I was writing about. I don't understand why the edit history has acquired a note saying 'michael Jackson vandalism'? Has it been vandalised somehow? Sandpiper (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the result of a hit from an abuse filter (#195). It's already been noted that there were some false positives and the filter has been adjusted to prevent recurrence. It isn't anything to worry about. Dekimasuよ! 06:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre-emptive blocking (protection)?

While I'm here I am a bit puzzled about what has been going on. Admins seem to have blocked this page pre-emptively with the result that it could not be updated at a reasonable rate for breaking news. From the argument above it seems people did not agree about this, and also were editing through the blocks to try to insert something. Why exactly was it necessary to interfere with what seems to have been basically accurate updating of a page? Obviously no essentially false informaton had been posted! Sandpiper (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, Wikipedia is not a news webiste, it is an encyclopedia As such we do not need to (and more than likely should not) have information up the moment it breaks. Accuracy is important, not reporting the news. Wikinews on the other hand is a news webiste. Matty (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely all those people trying to make edits don't agree? You are proposing that wiki should by choice be inaccurate just at the moment an article is getting a vast amount of attention. Um. Sandpiper (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There were not many vandal edits, or BLP violations, or content disputes. Some admins felt that it would be for the "good of wikipedia" to restrict access to only admins, due to high visibility and "server load issues" so that only they could make edits to the article in its locked state. There was certainly abuse of admin powers, albeit in good faith. What made is worse was the back and forth switching from full protection to semi, without any prior discussion by anyone. Corpx (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the protection was fine, personally. While we shouldn't protect pre-emptively, we also shouldn't refuse to pre-emptively protect when we know that there is a high-profile situation with a great deal of confusion abound. This was one of the times when reports of his death could've been an exaggeration, and a trigger-finger addition by a good faith editor could land us in potentially hot water. This is why I feel it was necessary to protect the article, to ensure that we didn't get wrapped up with the mass-confusion on the world's seventh biggest website, but instead took it slow and ensured that we were certain before calling it ourselves (like the BBC did). Sceptre ^(talk) 19:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This Michael Jackson situation is a bit of a thriller--The Legendary Sky Attacker 10:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you channelling Baseball Bugs this morning, or competing? I bet you can't win by a nose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Michael Jackson (stub)

I just created a stub so we can have a separate Death of Michael Jackson page, which we're obviously going to need for the future. Just before saving, I noticed the title had been protected. Can someone unprotect, please, or is there a reason we don't want a separate page? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done (autoconfirmed users only). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No objections. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ

Despite the dismissal of TMZ as a supposedly unreliable source, seems to me like they had this story right on the money. They were among the first, maybe the first, to break the story, and everyone picked up on it, and it turned out to be true. Was this a case of the blind squirrel finding the occasional acorn? Or should they be re-evaluated as to their worthiness as a source? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A singular event is not something that can earn a site approval as a reliable source. The question here is whether TMZ is viewed to be accurate and reliable. Sure, they got this one right, however if they report many rumours that turn out to be false, then they would have to be considered unreliable for our purposes. Resolute 04:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ seems pretty reliable to me. When they report rumors they generally make it pretty clear that it's just a rumor. For example when they supposedly saw 2Pac in a club the article about it said something along the lines of "we believe we saw 2Pac". They also pretty much always have pictures to support their claims. Even with the 2Pac thing they had pictures of a man that did look very similar to 2Pac. You make it sound as if this is the first time they've had reliable information. A few somewhat recent things I can think of that they reported correctly include the ShamWow guy beating up a hooker and Chris Brown beating up Rihanna.  Anonymous  ^{Talk  Contribs} 06:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course they get things right, and not infrequently. There could be circumstances in which we could use them as a source. But in general they are a gossip site and TV show, and are not committed to high-quality journalism, rather to sensational scoops that may or may not have been fact checked. Unfortunately there are a lot of newspapers and television networks which are not committed to high-quality journalism either, but that's another topic. In general I do not think TMZ should be considered a reliable source, certainly for something as critical as the supposed death of a living person. I was not at all surprised that they knew what was going on with MJ before everyone else and I figured they were probably right in what they were reporting, but I would never source a claim of someone's death to them. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care about TMZ one way or another, but it would be interesting to see if someone has done any study to see how accurate their reporting is compared with the "reliable" sources. Being a gossip site does not mean they're getting it wrong. It doesn't mean they're getting it right, either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. Even if they have a reputation for accuracy in juicy celebrity gossip, WP:SOURCE tells us that "Questionable sources . . . include websites and publications expressing views . . . which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." When push comes to shove, I think it's far better to use a reliable news source instead; in the case of Michael Jackson's death, for instance, many editors were of the opinion that the announcement by CNN was the moment of reliable verification. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)If a source is proven to be reliable when reporting facts, and assuming they make it clear when something is a fact vs. a rumor, they are by definition a "reliable" source. It would be interesting to see if TMZ just happened to get this one right, or if they have a good track record where facts are concerned. As the MJ story started to make the rounds, TMZ was the first thing that came up on Google. Then a number of standard reliable sources started parroting the TMZ story, with the caveat "reportedly". When the exaggerated rumors about Cronkite were circulating last weekend (and I have no idea what TMZ had to say about that) I was reminded ironically of the careful way he covered the JFK assassination. There were all kinds of bits and pieces and rumors and facts coming in, and he hedged on all of them - until he got the "apparently official" word - when it became real, and only then did he almost lose it on the air. As a seasoned reporter, he knew how to separate fact from rumor. Presumably, rumors connected with up-to-the-moment news stories belong more in wikinews (which, ironically, still said "reportedly" for awhile even after it was confirmed here) and wikipedia articles should be more restrictive, to confirmed or official facts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• To outline it from a more pragmatic point of view:

• If something notable and encyclopedic is covered by TMZ, chances are it will also be covered by several other news outlets which are superior to TMZ both in the quality of authorship and in the lack of lurid sensationalism and ethically-murky-at-best disregard for the privacy of human beings in a madcap drive to tickle the fantasy of the most wretched and lowest of the wretched lowest common denominator.
• If something is only covered by TMZ - with no alternate sourcing options - the overwhelming odds are that it is either completely non-notable (List of restaurants Celle McBrity ate at in March 2008), or embarrassingly tangential to the scope of a notable individual's career (Michael Jordan's favorite flavor of tea and his weekly NFL picks).
• In the extremely far-fetched hypothetical scenario where TMZ is truly the only outlet for a notable concept or useful addition (i.e., imagine it's the only site which listed Model Von Modelstein's height, weight, and true birthdate), Ignore All Rules remains a possibility.
• Disallowing TMZ is not only a good choice from both a journalistic and a journalistic ethics perspective, but also had the side-benefit of discouraging the addition of the sort of minutae that would only be cited by TMZ - it's a lot more elegant a process to remove User:Gnarly Newbie's tea-flavor edit on grounds that TMZ is not a Reliable Source™ than it is to bicker with Mr. Gnarly Newbie about why favorite flavors of tea have no place in an encyclopedia article about a basketball player. It also provides a gentle point in the right direction for all editors - rather than lecturing about what is and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia until we're blue in the User:, newbies can potentially figure out, individually and introspectively, what is and is not encyclopedic on the basis of what is and what is not sourcable. In general, "why"s are much better learned on one's own than directly taught by another - as I'm sure anybody who's spent time in the sometimes-infuriating company of a two-year-old can surely understand!

• Ergo, we are a lot better off - for multiple reasons - considering TMZ "guilty until Ignore All Rules proves innocent (that is to say, 'necessary')", and invoking IAR in whatever isolated situations where it is needed; than we are opening the floodgates to Wikipedia's Celebrity BLPs becoming WiGossipedia, the Free Tabloid that Anybody Can Edit, and wasting countless man-hours trying to explain when TMZ-sourced information is and is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. In short - the tl;dr version of the above: The TMZ business is ethically bankrupt, the quality of journalism sucks, and 99.9% of TMZ-sourced and only-TMZ-sourceable information is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Easier to have the 99.9% fall under a "default ____" blanket, and spend our time evaluating the remaining 0.1%, than it is to deal with the alternative. Badger Drink (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me that using the claim that TMZ is not reliable, as a way of weeding out minutia (hey, maybe I want to know where Celle McBrity has lunch, even though I don't know who Celle McBrity is), is rather dishonest. Practical, I understand. But not very honest or ethical - more like the "lazy way" of handling the fact that redlinks and IP's and even regular users might think something trivial is something important. What color pajamas MJ is wearing qualifies as trivial. But a story that he's been rushed to a hospital following cardiac arrest is most assuredly not trivial. Ah, but what if he's revived and goes home and everything's fine? Does the story go back to being trivial? I'm not sure. What say you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I quite like Badger Drink's reasoning (and their username, incidentally). I think that inherent in the consideration of whether a source is reliable is whether it's encyclopedic. Juicy celebrity gossip sites by their very nature aren't encyclopedic. Also by their very nature juicy celebrity gossip sites rely on rumours and personal opinion. A good test is to ask oneself: would this source be considered appropriate for a paper submitted for credit in a university course or in an article in a scholarly journal? TMZ as a source about itself probably would. But as a source about the death of a public figure? A known, reliable news source like CNN, the New York Times, the BBC or similar would be much more appropriate. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would respond to your broader claim, Baseball, that honesty is very much worth striving for, but inflexibly clinging on to any single given principle is never the solution, no matter how noble the intent. As for the specific hypothetical - as I said, if Celebrity X is rushed to the hospital, it will be a news item in more reputable outlets. The encyclopedia is hardly damaged by waiting, at most, a day for such information to be included. This is Wikipedia, not WikiNews. Badger Drink (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So-called "reliable sources" are also filled with stuff that's non-encyclopedic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

...like the weather reports and horoscopes. But that's not their primary stock in trade. Celebrity gossip is by its nature unencyclopedic; it just happened that the gossip TMZ was reporting yesterday was notable, because it regarded the sudden death of a very famous person. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What are saying? That horoscopes are not reliable? Next thing, you'll be telling me there's no such thing as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and a smart Blonde. (How's that for an oldie?) However, you've hit upon the inherent flaw in the concept of the so-called "reliable source" - basically attacking the nature of the source rather than the specific fact. Maybe that's just not practical. Maybe the next time they come out with so-and-so rushed to the hospital and apparently at death's door, it will turn out to be only a severe hangnail. It seems like the lazy way - but I recognize that it could be a practical necessity, or there would be an even greater amount of time spent debating reliability of specific facts. I don't inherently agree with that approach, but I understand it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[somehow this post, which I made several hours ago, was deleted. I'm restoring it now Exploding Boy (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)] Far be it from me to crush anyone's fondly cherished delusions :) Anyway, that's the nature of scholarly writing: sources are evaluated partly on what they are. Even now online sources in general are widely considered a little unscholarly, and manuscripts that rely on them too heavily may be criticized. It's still considered better to get the information from an academic work. An online academic journal will probably be considered appropriate, more so if it's peer reviewed, and the online edition of a respected newspaper or news source will probably be considered appropriate too. An academic journal (say, the Journal of Developmental Psychology) will always trump a lay magazine like Psychology Today. Information about celebrities is by its nature less likely to be found in scholarly sources, but truly notable facts about them can be found in slightly more journalistically respectable places than celebrity gossip sites. Despite the unencyclopedic minutia some users insist on inserting into every article, Wikipedia is supposed to be a scholarly endeavour. Exploding Boy (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

it could be a practical necessity, or there would be an even greater amount of time spent debating reliability of specific facts - exactly. As far as TMZ v. NYT - I'd offer that a stopped clock may be right twice a day, but that doesn't mean we should switch to a static timeserver. Badger Drink (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

changes needed

In regards to the Michael Jackson article, I see a huge discrepancy in policy and performance. WP policy dictates that a page may not be protected to prevent disruptive changes. Personally, I believe this needs to be changed, because it has not been followed. In any case, the page was protected, and sources reported his death. many of the first reports were from unusable sources, then possible verifiable sources, administrators did not wait for a consensus before editing the article, resulting in the current report of a death that has not been confirmed by official sources. Changes are needed. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all over TV news, well-confirmed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we need to make a mountain out of a mole hill on this, but I agree that it was bad form to fully protect the page, yet continue to edit the article as an admin. There is no policy nor precident to use preemptive protection. Although I do agree that the admins heart was in the right place. I haven't seen any abuse since the protection level was lowered, but its still too early.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, it was not confirmed, it was a bunch of news that was taken from other sources, look over the talk page, TMZ reported death, state and local news reported the TMZ piece, AP reported, CNN reported the reports of death, and yet we have experienced editors soliciting admins to make changes to the article! As for the article's current state, the death section is not written correctly, and is still fully protected. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As outlined clearly in policy here, "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia. Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article." No autoconfirmed account, or IP has vandalized the page. This is unnecessary and is "against the nature of Wikipedia." I would somewhat go as far as to say that it is an abuse of administrative power. A semi-protect, per policy, would be helpful. If the problem escalates, as everyone fears, then we can do something. Otherwise, you're only fearing a problem that doesn't exist. --Blurpeace (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It was confirmed at least an hour and a half ago, and the known facts are already in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That gives reason for why it goes against policy? I think not. Things can be edited and expanded upon. What I'm really trying to get across is that it was wrong to fully protect on first sight from the news. Sorry if I come on a bit agitated. I'm never known to edit while annoyed or agitated. --Blurpeace (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't wrong. And it's moot anyway, as it's no longer fully protected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it probably was wrong to fully protect the article so quickly, but BB is correct that the issue is now moot. We should move on. — Satori Son 00:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't wrong until admins decided they could edit as they pleased without consensus on the talk page. Auntie E (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

AuntiE, let's not make drama. The problem has been resolved; discussion is no longer needed. --Blurpeace (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In what way has this been even remotely resolved, or is this unecessary drama? IMO this was unacceptable. I have never, to the best of my recollection, edited a fully protected article without an {{editprotected}} request with full consensus on the talk page. I believe I have made three such edits; one to Intelligent design, and two to Sarah Palin (I hope you'll forgive me if my memory is playing me false.) I had no idea any admin considered any other approach acceptable, and am quite troubled by recent events. Note that I am speaking only of intentional edits to fully-protected pages; the admins who were under the erroneous assumption the protection was semi- are certainly entitled to our understanding. Those who are arguing that their edits were "uncontested" are making specious arguments unless the edits were spelling or odd characters; they didn't give anyone a chance to object, as they didn't discuss prior to editing! What happened to The world will not end tomorrow? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There's enough ambiguity in Wikipedia:Protection policy#Full protection "Once consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page." for some admins to apparently have assumed in good faith that minor uncontroversial edits were ok, but the preceding sentence "Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum)" should be enough to ensure that care is taken to at least provide prior notification of intent, and doing it properly by using the template is the right thing to have done. Is some rewording needed, or some other way of ensuring that all admins take more care in future? These were particularly difficult circumstances for edit conflicts, but all the more important to do things right. . . dave souza, talk 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have always been of the understanding that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive; what needs to be determined here is, has consensus changed regarding editing protecting pages? If so, we need to argue this out and clarify where and why; if not, then those admins merrily editing away on a fully protected page have committed a grave error in judgment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To KillerChihuahua: Thank you, thank you, thank you. --Elliskev 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome, Elliskev - coming from such a long standing user, this is much appreciated. But why? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

See my diatribes above, in the Admin edits subsection of the Michael Jackson cardiac arrest / reported death section. I was starting to get the idea that all admins were of the opinion that editing a fully-protected article is perfectly fine - no problem. So, thank you for supporting the idea that this is, at least, something that needs to be discussed. --Elliskev 19:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(to KC) I whole-heartedly agree that the administrators editing the page had made a grievous error by not discussing the changes first on the talk page, but I believe they made the edits under the sanction of IAR. At this point in time, the article had overloaded Wikipedia's servers, and millions of people were loading up the page, per hour. Thus, edits had to be made quickly to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia to the public (thus the protection policy was overlooked). In all truth, the changes were mostly uncontroversial, and with edit conflicts from IP addresses and the page slowing down to a crawl, it is an understandable desire to update the page as fast as possible. Though I don't believe this was the best course of action to take by the offending administrators, you have to see that even CNET had wrote about the bickering on protection (and addition of unverified information), here. My opinion is to let it go, under these special circumstances, but there may be other differing views from my own. –blurpeace ^(talk) 18:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's actually quite a complimentary article on CNRT, admins did the right thing in stabilising the situation until there was proper verification, and though there appear to have been server problems, even "The [LA] Times' Web server was overloaded and could only be reached intermittently". So, well done everyone, it's appreciated that these were extreme circumstances. The reminder stands to ensure that there is a talk page template before edits, or at least put notification on the talk page of uncontroversial but essential changes. .. dave souza, talk 21:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Resolved

 – User blocked 24h for edit warring - Fritzpoll (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone get ahold of the edit war on the talk page there? My watchlist is making me dizzy. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried… It seems to have put a stop to the editwar if nothing else. Since I count six reverts by Shiggity of the paragraph in question, with no effort to add any sources for the theory he's trying to promote, there's only one way this is going to end if it doesn't stop. – iridescent 21:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair though, the user has only been active for about 2 weeks and has made less than 200 edits. I think the block suits, but the admins could have used WP:BITE a little better.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? He's been active since 2006. – iridescent 21:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! I saw June 12 and assumed 2009. My mistake. But he has still made under 200 edits, he is hardly what you would call an experienced editor. I agree that the block was needed though.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I page contribs on 500 per page - he has between 500 and 1000 according to my page. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I get 181 here + 1 deleted edit technical error?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's Fritzpoll being suitably inept as usual Biggest Critic of Fritzpoll (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Michael Jackson part 2

A contributor created the article Death of Michael Jackson, under the basis that they're expecting future information about a current event. In the talk page, I've already explained about the WP:NOTCRYSTAL policy, as well as using other high-profile deaths as examples of precedence. We're recommending that the content is merged with the main Michael Jackson article, rather than building this article up, and then end up merging later on if the death was indeed natural with no foul play involved. groink 02:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See Death of Michael Jackson (stub) above. This isn't really an admin issue, but one of content, and should be worked out on the talk page. --auburnpilot talk 02:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Death of Michael Jackson was deleted and salted. Now it's an article, especially after being used as a fork example in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson? Was there a discussion to un-salt? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm getting at here. The admin who unsalted the namespace is sympathetic of the MJ situation. But the reason I think this is an admin-related issue is that, whenever Wikipedia policy is bypassed under an assumed special circumstance like this, it should've been discussed somehow. Especially when another admin is the one who is circumventing the policy. Groink (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the delete. [11] Groink (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There appears to have been no discussion other than that tiny bit above. Guess that passes for consensus these days, multiple deletion discussions aside. There's a vigorous merge discussion on the talk page of the unsalted and recreated article; see how that goes, I guess. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There does not even appear to be a Death of Elvis Presley article, and that story was certainly a media sensation - for awhile, at least. I doubt very much there's enough info on the death of MJ to fill an article, even if it turns out he was taking 100 different pills and had 100 different illnesses and that the FBI and CIA and Oliver Stone were somehow involved. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Try to use examples that occurred during Wikipedia's lifetime. –xeno^talk 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't dispute your hint that wikipedia suffers from recentism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Most sources do. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's not recant-ism, it's probably ok. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who cant, do. Those who can't, recant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How about Death of David Carradine? That was totally out of the blue. The death of MJ shouldn't have been such a surprise. Meanwhile, there is nothing officially known about MJ's death yet beyond the fact that it occurred. Maybe Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson would be more appropriate, since it's everyone's reaction that makes it special - as with Elvis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Being a modest 32k, David Carradine's article can accomodate for this. Michael's was ~95k pre-death. –xeno^talk 15:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides, it's the coroner's job to split Carradine :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno. Also, MJ is a FA. There is likely to be reisistance to putting as much in the article about the death as some people will want. I think that having a Death article is a good safety valve.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

/me runs off to create Death of Farrah Fawcett and Death of Ed McMahon - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We have Death of John Lennon (but I suppose that was an interesting and unusual death, as assassinations usually are). Dendodge _T\^C 15:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And it was obviously also out of the blue. Curiously, the article fails to mention the dotted line connecting that assassination to the attempt on Reagan. Supposedly the guy who shot Reagan was devastated by Lennon's death, and that helped to put him over the edge. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh, and people wondered what my motivation in locking down the MJ article when the first unconfirmed reports started coming in about a heart attack was - 29 years later and there are still people trying to portray Lennon's murder as "assissination". LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Would Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan be comparable (death by natural causes, major figure, relatively recent w/in WP's lifetime?) Based on that, this would mean that there would need to be a lot of coverage of his funeral and memorial services, since the actual cause was not significantly noteworthy (assassination is one thing ala JKF or Lennon). As this stuff is yet unknown, and in the case of Reagan given the fellow being a President and all that, it's CRYSTAL to assume there's enough for an article at this point. The only thing that I've seen noteworth on his death includes: false scarcity of his music, the Internet being hit hard when news broke, and people jumping on fake death sites to try to complete the death trifecta (see Jeff Goldblum), and only one of these really deserves a mention. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As Wehwalt suggests, the presence of that article, which is really a violation of wikipedia guidelines, serves a practical purpose, and after the furor dies down it can be trimmed back and re-merged. It wouldn't be the first time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Which guidelines? The only one anybody has mentioned, is NOT#NEWS, which they are quite literally interpreting as 'Wikipedia does not create articles based on events in the news, period', which is beyond ridiculous. I cannot fathom, when we we so much non-notable dross and crap created on the pedia every day which can never simply be deleted at Afd under NOT#NEWS due to the 'reliable sources - notable' defence, that this global event is the one thing people choose to wake up and enforce a brittannica type standard on. Wikipedia has really screwed up this whole episode, from locking the article, from making his bio unreadable due to its woefull lede and 'NPOV' but unreadable chronological format of his article, and now, by inisting on being second best to all credible and non-credible information sources for properly covering the notable events relating to his death. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. This is where the pie-in-sky ideal of "anyone can edit" starts to break down. The fact of so much hemming and hawing over protection levels, while funny to observe, really makes wikipedia look stupid. Above all else, we should try not to make wikipedia look stupid. It only further undermines wikipedia's credibility. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We might as well archive this section. It's obvious that the consensus has been decided on by the folks who are editing the new article, so further discussion is probably moot. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish I understood why this was not allowed to go through the AfD process. A lot of people want to see the "death of" article merged or deleted. --Susan118 ^talk 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The contributor who was behind un-salting the namespace is an administrator. User:Gwen Gale is a fan of Michael Jackson, and took it upon herself, with no AfD or any other discussion. I see it as a total conflict of interest, and abuse of her admin privileges. I didn't want to state this out in my opening statement, but I'm left with no other choice. We can't undo the damage and delete the article now. I would highly recommend that a higher authority look into this issue, and explore to see if the right procedures were followed. In the end, all I want to see is a warning sent to the people involved Groink (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You may get more traction if you appeared to know what you are talking about; there was a request by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) further up on this page to unsalt the title, and Gwen Gale was the admin who responded. The article was salted at the time of the MJ announcement so editors could not circumvent the protection of the main article to prevent the use of unreliable sources, and had no content - therefore there was no need for discussion to unsalt; reliable sources are now available. If you wish to warn SlimVirgin, you go to it (but it may help if you could give the appearance of knowing what it is you are talking about.) An apology to Gwen Gale may also help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page#Link_on_Jackson.27s_death

Resolved

 – Thanks. Pyrrhus16 08:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin see to this please? Pyrrhus16 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to split

This entire section has more subsections than ANI does now. It's time to split off this section into it's own sub-page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

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

---

I'm not a mysterious IP, and this thread does not require admin attention (nor could it). Allegations of admin misconduct need to be brought to an RFC/U or, failing that, to ArbCom. A dispute like that needs a drama thread on AN/I like a fish needs a library card. — Coren ^(talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

{{unresolved}} Actually some mysterious anon 71.67.120.31 (talk · contribs) archived the thread, see this[12] --Caspian blue 02:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Unarchieved by anther editor again.--Caspian blue 12:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he's drunk again, but William Connelly is back at it. See [13]. This follows his recent drunken (self-admitted) actions unilaterally blocking against consensus. I hope we can stage an intervention to help this troubled individual. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's called humor, try looking it up. Until then, is there anything here that requires an admin or are you just blowing off more steam (not to mention the personal attack) and misusing ANI? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, sorry for my another redacting the title, but I could not help it since it is too provocative and BLP user violation. CoM, you really need to follow WP:DR, file a RFC/U on WMC if you really must resolve the issue with WMC. Why are you ruining yourself? -_-;; --Caspian blue 23:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader. His edit summary "this is a f*ck*ng wiki. it allows links. which work best if you spell things properly" showed up on my watchlist. I'm sure he would have blocked me for similar, but so it goes. If others determined he was joking, I'll take their word for it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Be glad you were blocked for the continued abuse of ANI (this is your second "blowing off steam" post in 24 hours) and personal attacks. You need to take Caspian's advice and take a short Wikibreak before you get yourself in more trouble. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, do not poke on him and please de-escalate the situation. You also have to reminded of the yesterday warning that you received from admins.--Caspian blue 23:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, I assume you mean "weren't" blocked. My reports have been appropriate and accurate. I don't think it's appropraite to use that kind of language and description in an edit summary, even if he was joking, which I haven't investigated. I think action should be taken. I also think the ongoing harassment and stalking of me by you and others should be put to a stop.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

CoM, I can't help you. You are spiraling and you don't know it. People are trying to help you, me for one, and you aren't taking our advice. Please consider a wikibreak. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@ChildofMidnight: What exact “action” do you expect us to take? — Aitias // discussion 23:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That edit summary is ostensibly WMC responding to a user coming top his talk page for help. I would definitely say at the very least an Rfc is in order, if WMC has no explanation for it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, not really an appropriate edit summary. I also think that CoM should remove William's talk page from his watchlist, considering the bad blood between them. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the humour in the edit summary, perhaps Neutralhomer would care to explain for a bear of little brain. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@MMN: Yes. Someone came to me for help with a possible sock. I linked to the account, investigated, and have indef'd the sock. This was exactly the help required. Meanwhile... how exactly are *you* helping wiki? [ps: I hate ANI, you can't post a thing without e/c] William M. Connolley (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is one of those comments you make to yourself. Like you forget to type something in, and it seems he did, you say "it helps to type in words" or whatever. I take it as self-deprecating humor. Now, I have been asked by Caspian and WMC to not comment on this thread to not POKE CoM anymore, so if you have anymore questions, please direct them to my talk page and I will be glad to answer. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was his own comment that WMC edited then I'd agree, but it wasn't. Nev1 (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Two separate issues:

1. Inappropriate edit summary from WMC that, in light of recent events, should be taken more seriously than as a blip in an otherwise normal record. This does need admin attention, as no non-admin user would be able to get away with that sort of thing.
2. CoM needs to get over it, and walk away from the dusty remains of what was once a fine, fine horse. CoM, I agree with Allstarecho: you should remove William's tpage from your watchlist and avoid interaction with him; you are doing yourself no favours and slowly starting to cross into hounding territory. Your current trajectory looks like it's going to end in an indef block by some admin who gets fed up, and/or a community ban by the members of the community who are fed up. Only one person has the ability to prevent that from happening. It would be best for you to do so, or find a hobby that causes you less stress. //roux   23:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but an inebriated admin unilaterally blocked me against consensus. If someone wants to have that block oversighted and Connelly apologizes, then we're all good. But as this seems to be a pattern of inappropriate and possibly drunken behavior by this admin it was completely appropriate for me to bring the latest issue to the attention of the community. This has, as usual, provided an opportunity for Neutralhomer and Allstarecho to stalk, harass, and cast aspersions at me, but I don't want any editors to be affected by Connelly's abuse the way I was, so I won't be intimidated into ingnoring the problem. I trust the community will resolve the situation appropriately, it doesn't have much to do with me other than my also being at the receiving end of his abuse, so please stop attacking me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again another cheapshop at me for something I've had no involvement in. At least you're consistent. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 00:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer has acknowledged the idea for a short wikibreak.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged and put up a banner too :) If anyone has any questions, please see my talk page and the banner at the top. It has a link to the email template there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, I think that neither editor's conduct is really all that far from where it needs to be. WMC, I think you realised when you typed asterisks that part of your comment was inappropriate. The next step is to edit out the swear word altogether. CoM, it's good that you brought matters here that concerned you, and it is also good that you did so with the attitude that you're willing to accept if your opinion might not be 100% correct. As it happens, that seems to be the case where WMC is concerned, and I join those urging you to remove his page from your watchlist, if only for the benefit of your stress levels. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As this is under the title of WMC could I ask an admin to please review this block of an IP for edit warring which I feel is unfair. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:79.97.98.207_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_24h.29 (Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Possibly inappropiate edit summary of Off2riorob considering the recent "drunk" accusations. "sorry I forget the link i've had a couple of drinks"--The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• ChildofMidnight, the next time you make a reference to WMC being "inebriated", I will block you myself. Remove WMC's talk page from your watchlist, and stop interacting with him. If you bring another complaint against him to AN/I, I think that the whole community ban might make another appearance. You are way out of line here. Horologium (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

After all this nonsense I'd be surprised if he doesn't start drinking. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, if he drinks, I want to know what brand, so, per Lincoln, I can send a barrel or two to some admins who don't do as good a job as he does. But if I see CoM refer to him as "drunk" again, I'll do a block.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Recommendation by uninvolved admin

I recommend that this little feud not be brought back to ANI again. If it continues, the right place for it is unfortunately ArbComm. This noticeboard is not structured to resolve complex disputes like this. Arbcomm is. Toddst1 (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a feud with anyone, I don't stalk anyone, and I try to avoid my many harassers in so far as is possible. I brought a report about Connely's refactoring another user's comment with the edit summary "this is a f*ck*ng wiki. it allows links, which work best if you spell things properly" (which follows his abusive block of me a short time ago). His behaviors don't seem appropriate to me, and apparently others agree. I wouldn't have posted further in this discussion except that the usual stalkers and attackers showed up trying to smear me. If it's not appropriate to discuss an admin's abusive behavior in relation to a possible alcohol abuse problem, I won't do so. But I think the threats against me are wholly inappropriate and outrageous. I obviously can't control the actions of others, but I'm not going to apologize for bringing this issue to the community's attention in light of this admin's pattern of abusive and disruptive behavior. If other admins want to defend these behaviors and attack me for bringing them to light, then that's their choice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved member of the third party myself, I would like to point out that Arbcomm probably won't do well for conflict as severe as this.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I disaprove of my edit being reverted but never mind I will replace the comment as it is still relevent here under the WMC title and I am requesting an admin to review this block of an IP by WMC that I consider to be unfair. I have brought it to WMC on his talk and he stated that he was ok with a review. here is the link ..Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:79.97.98.207_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_24h.29 the other user in the revert war is now saying she is happy to have the block lifted..(Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm fairly sure that Off2riorob spelt "dissaprove" wrong.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

C of M you're perhaps not the best person to be putting this forward (really for your own sake), but there is a longstanding pattern (at least in my view) of problematic admin behavior by WMC. A user conduct RFC would not necessarily be a bad idea at this point. I do think that little or nothing will be solved here on ANI—this calls for actual dispute resolution if things cannot be worked out.

One thing that needs to stop is the constant reference to alcohol use. WMC made one remark about needing to edit while sober which was quite possibly a joke. Regardless, it is unbelievably inappropriate to make reference, as ChildofMidnight does above, to "a possible alcohol abuse problem" with respect to another editor. Horologium is right in his comment above where he says continued remarks along those lines are worthy of a block. C of M and others bringing that up need to knock it off, and focus on the edits you see as problematic. As I said, consider opening a user conduct RFC. It would give us a sense as to whether the community views Connelly's admin work as problematic or not. That's all he should be judged on here, not whether he had a few pints, or just joked about doing so. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll drink to that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've already agreed not to mention it again. In my experience covering up that kind of thing can serve to enable the behavior. I brought it up as I think it's a legitimate concern related to erratic and totally unacceptable behavior. Again, I will not mention it in future per the request made by you and others.

I would also request that you ask Allstarecho to stop stalking and hounding me at ANI and elsewhere. He has no need to interact with me and has a history of seeking out conflict with me. His behavior is especially troubling as it comes after his copyvio, COI, vicious attacks on numerous editors (including putting up a large middle finger to Wikipedia on his talk page), as well as other problem behaviors. I'd like to have as little to do with him as possible, and I don't see any reason why he needs to involve himself in my affairs other than to harass me. Surely you don't think that behavior is acceptable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, if you believe that WMC has a longstanding pattern of problematic admin behavior, the best thing to do is get that admin desysoped.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the correct time?

In terms of the correct time, it really depends on where you are. There are probably other parts of the internet where this is being discussed thoroughly—and in different time zones.

To Sky Attacker, unfortunately we don't have an easy way to do that, which I think is a serious problem. I'm suggesting a request for comment as a reasonable first step, since there have been a number of concerns about WMC on the noticeboards the past few weeks (though probably not all are legitimate). I'm not really inclined to set up an RFC myself or put a lot of work into it—it's just not a major concern of mine right now—but I would consider signing on to it in some way, or at the least commenting there. The other possibility is going straight to ArbCom (which is where a desysopping could happen), but I don't think that's appropriate at this point. A lot of people have complained about WMC over the last year or so, and an RFC can be a good way to gauge community sentiment. I believe one was attempted over a year ago but was not certified, and I'm not sure if anything has happened since. In any case while I have concerns, I'm not going to be leading the charge here. Honestly, if WMC was just more responsive to, and respectful of, criticism of his admin actions I think most of the issues would go away. But in the past I have not found that to be the case. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think if WMC would do less of the thankless job of handling WP:AN3 complaints quickly and correctly, there would be fewer whiners here... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to desysop him.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 02:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What it appears to be is a bit of wikistalking by CoM of Connolley, honestly. Connolley blocked CoM, he thiks it was unfair, and now runs to AN/I every time there's a perceived misstep by him? Jesus CoM, the "fucking wiki" comment wasn't even directed at you, so why are you running here to tattle-tale? This eDrama can be alleviated simply by separating these two parties.

Full disclosure; I've had a few drinks tonight too. Please don't bring me to AN/I too! Tarc (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, you should know that drinking-related comments are the last thing that is needed in this discussion. As members of a third party we must try to work together to resolve this problem.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 02:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, given your multiple appearances only CoM related threads (your buddies have made many ANI files for many things in the meantime), you love CoM so much? You're officially admonished for your incivility by the ArbCom, so be reminded of your conduct. Your snide comments and attacks against CoM do not make yourself holier, but rather paint your image very badly so far. How come you have the idea of CoM's witness on WMC's uncivil edit as "wikistalking"? The admin blocked CoM the day before yesterday without consensus and which was so controversial since he said he was not sober when blocking CoM, so CoM naturally visited WMC to protest the block today (just few hours before the reporting) and automatically happened to watch the inappropriate conduct of WMC. I saw the edit summary too because I visited the admin's page. Perhaps, you're the one having been wikistaking CoM for your and his unsolved past feuds on Obama cases. Since you said you're drinking alcohol, please enjoy it for Friday night and not make personal attacks like above. If you're continuing so, well, anyone who thinks your improper behavior necessary for some sanction, he/she could request for an amendment to the ArbCom case to ban you from contacting him any more.--Caspian blue 02:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Caspian Blue, how many different lies can you pack into a single post? That was rather impressive. As I just posted over on the Clarification page, there has never been any real level of acrimony or contention between myself and ChildofMidnight, certainly not to the level of of him vs. Scjessey and him vs. Wikidemon (hrm, what/who is the intersection of those two relationships, I wonder?). We've certainly argued different positions in the political subject areas, but other than that, there's really nothing. You are here making a grandstanding, disingenuous call to disengage, but in reality there isn't anything to disengage from. Hell, the only reason I saw this thread at all last night was because I have AN/I on the watchlist from editing here before, and one of CoM's responses here happened to be the most recent. An editor feels he was blocked unjustly...the oldest song in the Wikipedia...and I commented on it.

So please, chill, step back, and take a breath. You are hardly in a position to threaten anyone with bans and sanctions. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Wow, how many different lies", Tarc, such false allegation is really harmful. Right above your false allegations of wikistaking and threatening, and mocking are all noted. From my observation, you're making personal attacks to CoM at ANI and other places and "enjoy them". This is not a first appearance of you to CoM related threads just making noises. Your bad taste comments are written well above. I have no interest in US politic drama feast and you so I do not want to waste my time talking with you. Please behave yourself.--Caspian blue 12:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your "personal observations" are flawed, without merit, and rather biased given your obvious friendship with CoM. You are not exactly a neutral party here. As long as ChildofMidnight continues to act like the wronged martyr, then the drama will continue. There has never been a single personal attack that I have leveled at this or any other user in these proceedings. If you claim otherwise, back it up, bud. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that your view is seriously flawed with no merit. Your personal attacks are shown in the thread. Think again about yourself, truly. No more response necessary since we could agree that we could not agree with each other's view.--Caspian blue 13:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Warsaw (1920)

This edit has been made on User talk:YellowMonkey, User talk:Piotrus and User talk:Witekjl by Witekjl (talk · contribs) who claims to be (and most likely is) Witold J. Ławrynowicz, the author of one of the sources used on Battle of Warsaw (1920). He has a grievance about comments made at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Warsaw (1920). The editor has not made legal threats at this stage but is demanding an apology and withdrawal. Yellow Monkey's sole comments on the FAR were to open the FARC and then to close it and remove FA status. Others with more understanding of these matters may wish to follow this up. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth, it appears Witold J. Ławrynowicz misunderstood the discussion linked above. The comment regarding plagiarism, posted by Novickas (talk · contribs), seems to question whether text was lifted from Ławrynowicz's article and inserted into Wikipedia's article (thus plagiarism on our part). At least that's how I'm reading it. --auburnpilot talk 04:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP editors copying from both Ławrynowicz's website and electronic.ca website was the issue. Should I clarify this at the FA review page? (It's archived). Mr. L also perceives my assessment of his FA-source-worthiness as slanderous. No idea whether, how, or where to address that. Advice welcome. Novickas (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

­

User:Bullocker The Blue Bull

Resolved

 – 2 unblocks declined, reblocked with talk-page access blocked by Netsnipe. This fellow isn't going anywhere. ~ mazca ^talk 13:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bullocker The Blue Bull, a SPA created only today, first edit today, is constantly screwing up the WP:SANDBOX so that no one is able to use it, and it is pissing me off. Could something be done about this? The only edits this user has done is on the page WP:SANDBOX, and today there has been hundreds of edits on that page by this user, see Special:Contributions/Bullocker_The_Blue_Bull. ₪—  李博杰  (Talk·contribs·email·guestbook·complaints) 14:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Also note that he appears to be a bot, making 5 edits per minute on WP:SANDBOX. ₪—  李博杰  (Talk·contribs·email·guestbook·complaints) 14:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as an unauthorised bot. Clearly running it for nefarious purposes, too. ~ mazca ^talk 08:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also could you please think about changing your signature a little Benlisquare? It makes it impossible to read the line above it, thanks :) Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 08:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Signature remains too long. 76.199.155.12 (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me now, plenty of people on here with worse than that current version.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know ...I read this part of WP:SIG to be preventing links to guestbooks: "Do not place any disruptive internal links, such as SIGN HERE!!!, which refers to an autograph page." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It was 418 characters, well in excess of the 255-character informal maximum on which the community has settled (that number, it is my understanding, followed from technical restrictions, but a consensus exists for its being roughly a useful limit). The current version remains suboptimally long, but it is manageable, and I don't expect that anyone will complain about it. 76.199.155.12 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

He's requested unblock, claiming not to be a bot. I need to disappear for a few hours; if anyone feels the block should be overturned or adjusted then they should feel free to do so. ~ mazca ^talk 08:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Longterm abuser User:Nangparbat

Resolved

A long term Islamist banned abuser, called Nangparbat (see User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat) uses dynamic ip addresses to evade his block, and has been vandalizing numerous South Asia-related articles with Indophobic and anti-Semitic bias. Several articles have been sprotected because of his actions (for background, consult User:Thegreyanomaly). His recent attack has consisted of egregigious holocaust denial and pro-Nazi POV in Dalit Voice (see contribs, and [14], and [15]). Simply blocking the ip does not help, as he merely switches over to another dynamic ip in a matter of minutes. I appeal to editors to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia and prevent this abuse to continue.Todaymiddle (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

While you are likely a sock of Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the opposing banned editor in conflict with the above individual. Blocks all round, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. A "ban" means nothing anyways. However, Nangparbat has a large gang of sympathizers among the far-left and Islamist edit gangs on wikipedia, particularly abusive are pro-nangparbat admins like User:Nishkid64. If the antisemitic version of Dalit Voice is enforced by technical means due to the intervention of the pro-nangparbat camp, I will proceed to notify editors who are more intimately familiar with the dynamics of such things as antisemitism. This time, the bastards have bitten off more than they can chew. Besides, blocking will not help, as all users concerned have dynamic ip addresses. The only solution is indefinite semi-protection of targeted articles. Todaymiddle (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Nangparbat accuses me of being pro-Hkelkar and Hkelkar accuses me of being pro-Nangparbat. Oh, how will I ever obtain the approval of two banned nationalist edit warriors? WP:RBI. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid64: Prejudiced Against All Races! ~ mazca ^talk 20:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Go play yur dramuz someplace else, please.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are all equally worthless :) MuZemike 01:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

PZJTF sockuppeteering, evading block, being just as abusive

Resolved

 – User blocked, CU confirmed sock. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:SmitBenMoshe made his impressive appearance today, with, as I am writing this, two edits, of which one is a gross insult aimed my way: see here. This, from style to page in question (John Hunyadi) matches to a tee the behavior of User:PZJTF, who was blocked just a couple of days back for doing exactly this (see here, here and here). Dahn (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed SmitBenMoshe=PZJTF. Sock already blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović

Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a BLP, is yet again being repeatedly vandalised by a series of anonymous IP editors - this article has been discussed several times before on AN/I and the BLP noticeboard [16]. The IPs repeatedly post angry rants [17], blank the article [18] and replace the article with a canned resumé / curriculum vitae [19]. The individual responsible is almost certainly the subject himself, Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked for periods of up to two weeks, has edited from IP addresses and socks, and has been warned numerous times for posting copyright violations, soapboxing, disruption etc. The article has been semi-protected several times but IP vandalism and disruption has resumed as soon as protection has lapsed. This situation has been going on for at least 18 months. Some kind of resolution is long overdue, frankly.

In the light of this continued disruption, I suggest that the discretionary sanctions in force on Balkans-related articles should be invoked. Specifically, I suggest:

• an extended block of Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) for up to the year mandated by the discretionary sanctions;
• an indefinite topic ban of Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) editing BLPs;
• indefinite semi-protection of Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to prevent the ongoing disruption by IP sockpuppets.

I should add that I would not object at all to Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) being given an indefinite block. He is plainly not interested in contributing productively and has done almost no editing apart from disrupting "his" biography. Given the very lengthy catalogue of disruption that he has caused over a long period of time, I can't see him becoming a useful editor any time soon (or ever, for that matter). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see some edits by him of "himself", but they are a week old. Is there evidence the IPs are this guy, such as a checkuser? I dislike community bans on gut feeling.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been peripherally involved, in that I have blocked some socks and also suggested that the editor/subject contact the Office regarding allegations about the editing of "their" article (which either they have not done, or it was not sustained), and would back ChrisO's call for some resolution. I would, however, hesitate in locking up the article and throwing away the key - I have seen some serious allegations linked to sources that do not necessarily support the comments regarding the subject. I support linking the article to the ARBMAC provisions to ensure that the neutrality (derived from reliable sources, properly ascribed) is not compromised by any party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's not a community ban - it's a request for the enforcement of discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. The IPs all trace to the same ISP, Serbia Broadband in Belgrade, where Trifunovic is based [20] [21] [22] [23] [24], and they all do the same sort of thing - replacing the article with Trifunovic's CV and posting rants in broken English. As I said, this has been going on for a long time - 18 months at least. In response to LessHeard's comments, semi-protection is needed to ensure that the article can be edited without being continually vandalised. It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that semi-protection would be "locking up the article and throwing away the key" - it would just mean that the endless vandalism from IPs would cease, which can only be a good thing. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(3x e/c) In response to ChrisO's prompting on my talk page, here are my thoughts:

• The Darko Trifunovic article is in an inefinite state right now. Various editors trimmed and RS'ed the article into a state just above stub, but only into a state where it is verifiable, not IMO to where it is notable.
• Darko (presumably) is mildly disruptive, but nothing that the multiple eyeballs already watching can't handle (as I just did). However the mild disruption does not violate BLP, in that it does not inject negative information. Thus I would be opposed to semi-protection or indefblocking of the Darko user themself.
• User:Bosniak could possibly use a topic ban, since their contributions are rarely productive. Also, Darko's presumed lawyer and the supporting academic possibly located in NY State have been unhelpful.
• The answer here, to me, is to finish the job and construct a proper article that deals properly with the subject. As it is, we have a single event where the subject is not necessarily a prime mover. Maybe so, but also maybe not. No matter how vile the viewpoints expressed, we need to obey BLP. We should either fix the article up properly (and I can't help much since I don't have access to EE sources) - or we should delete it. Franamax (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the incomplete task of rewriting the article needs to be finished - it seems to have stalled. With regard to the disruptive editor, WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions specifically provided for the sanctioning of editors who "fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process." I think it would be hard to argue that Trifunovic has adhered to any of those things. He has contributed absolutely nothing of value to Wikipedia and his continued involvement is not helping to improve the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that some evidence that the IPs are this guy are needed. Yes, I know, quack quack, but there are several peopele in Belgrade, at least ten or twelve, and no doubt a few of them write broken English.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, on the Purpose clause, the purpose is NPOV, which is not necessarily being satisfied here; the Decorum clause doesn't really apply, since Darko and all the sock/meat-puppets are quite polite; and Editorial process - well, when it's your own name, you find an injustice, nobody listens - wouldn't you walk around to every internet cafe in the city too? I'm not saying it's right, just that it's a reminder that we need to fix the article.

Even if you get an SPI that nails down a connection between DT and the IP editors, we generally block the puppets, not the master. I'd think that a final warning to the Darko user entity not to edit their named article page under any guise would suffice, with a reminder to raise specific concerns on the talk page of the article. If the resume is anonymously posted after the warning, sprot would be indicated, with around one month duration (it's not a high-traffic article). Same goes for the user and user-talk page.

Note that Trifunovic is not noticeably pushing the POV of "they raped and tortured people so it's OK that we raped and tortured people" here on the en:wiki. The issue from what I can see is to just clear up the BLP article. Franamax (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, Franamax, though I'd be cautious about the final warning thing. Perhaps more along the lines of "Please work with us on the article talk page. If this is you, please cut it out, you aren't helping matters any."--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm surprised to see this individual still treated with this much mildness by some people here. As someone who has followed the issue from a distance for some time, I have to agree completely with ChrisO: the amount of long-term disruption the article has seen is mind-boggling. This guy is not here to correct BLP problems about his own article; his presence has been disruption-only for months. He should have been indef-banned long ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's called assuming good faith, not mildness, and demanding evidence before banning an editor. I still haven't seen any evidence these IPs are this editor except for being allegedly in the same city and language troubles. I suggest this thread be closed, this isn't going anywhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real doubt that the IPs are the editor. I'll request a checkuser run on the IPs - in the meantime please keep the thread open so that I can update it as necessary. In the meantime, can we at least semi-protect the article so that the current run of disruption can be stopped? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the identity is plain obvious. Just compare the following edits:

• posting CV instead of bio article
  • logged-in: [25]; logged-in sock: [26], IP [27]
• copy-pasting non-wikified article text from earlier versions:
  • logged-in: [28], IP [29]
• posting complaint rants in article space:
  • logged-in: [30]; IP: [31]

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Block plz

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 31 hours by NawlinWiki. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

74.60.91.2's edits on Criticism of Bill O'Reilly are nothing but disruption. Soxwon (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you made a report on AIV? -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 00:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• faceplam* sorry. Soxwon (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

socks

We have an editor who does virtually nothing except add strange refs to physics articles, sometimes valid but usually bogus. The editor has operated as Uruk2008 (talk · contribs), Gil987 (talk · contribs), Three887 (talk · contribs), and most recently Casimir9999 (talk · contribs), all doing exactly the same stuff, and blanking talk-page warnings without response. An RFC was started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uruk2008, but hasn't accomplished anything. I will notify the editor in question (in his newest guise). Looie496 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed most of the bogus third party links added recently, will stick to valid first party material and sources from reputable journals in the future. Casimir9999 —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

Given the unresponsiveness until an ANI thread was created, the editing pattern that does not contribute to building an encyclopedia, and the unjustified usage of multiple accounts, I hope that this thread will at least result in the delivery of a very serious warning by an admin. I don't insist on a block at this point, but the tolerance for further abuse should be very low. Looie496 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Article spamming Generation Jones wikilinks

There are a couple of apparent SPAs article spamming wikilinks to the above article, using either very poor sourcing (opinion pieces, mainly), or no sourcing at all. I first noticed this at Michael Jackson, when they tried to force it into there. I then checked this page, and found that the same SPAs had been inserting the wikilink into other articles with similarly poor -- or non-existent -- sourcing. I began culling through the articles, pruning the non-supported wikilinks. One of the SPAs is now mass-reverting my work, and isn't (per Talk:Michael Jackson) willing to discuss it. Would someone with a bit more oomph than me discuss it with him/her? Or, if I'm out of line here, just let me know. I'm not going to edit war about it (I may remove them one more time, if that's deemed acceptable here), but I thought it might be important enough for administrator attention. Unitanode 02:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what you are saying here, Unitanode, but I'm genuinely confused. What do you mean this is "article spamming"? On what possible basis can you say these are poor sources? Generation Jones is a term and concept which has received significant mainstream acceptance, and is discussed in many major media outlets (Newsweek, NBC, Wshington Post, New York Times, etc., etc.). It certainly should be included in relevant articles in Wikipedia, like other bona fide generations. There are many, many unequivocally reliable sources in various articles referencing Generation Jones. Article spamming?! I urge you to please do some research on this topic. A good starting point may be this page which has an overview of recent stuff: http://generationjones.com/2009latest.html. You can find tons more on Google. And if an administrator wants to discuss this, I'm certainly more than happy to.TreadingWater (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's a reason I haven't AFDed the article. However, the fact that the neologism has achieved a modicum of notability doesn't mean it needs to be spammed into every article it could even tangentially be related to. You have been mass reverting the removals I made, without even attempting to discuss, and made it clear you weren't interested in discussing it at the MJ talkpage. That's why I brought it here: to find out if my take on this is correct, and -- if so -- what my next step should be. Unitanode 02:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec 2) You might have informed the SPA (at the moment, I only see one). If you see others, please add them, and it might be worth checking whether they've conspired to violate 3RR. I agree that he spams Generation Jones, but there is some justification for his spamming them accross articles on generations, if the term really is actually used. I quite agree that Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett should not have generation names.

I don't see any administrative action required. Yet.

I'll reply to TreadingWater later. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• This user is pretty new, and was one of the ones trying to add it to the Jackson article. Unitanode 02:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I spotted this as well, and think that we can WP:AGF on this one. I had never heard the term myself before, but upon reviewing the Generation Jones article, it seems legit. However, if the name of the generation seems relevent, in most cases one should probably substitute Baby Boom Generation in place of it; since that term is much more widely used; and it would not be inaccurate to use that name instead. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• In short, the people who are trying to shoehorn it in won't allow "Baby Boomers", instead demanding that it be included as a separate generation, of the same standing as the Boomers, Gen-Xers, et al. Unitanode 03:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that THAT level of acceptance is unreasonable, as the term is clearly not in common English usage, and at Wikipedia we have a long-standing policy of using the most common terms when feasible. I will concede that the term has gained a small level of acceptance among certain academics, but to claim that that sort of acceptance is enough to claim the term should be used on equal footing with, say, Generation X or Baby Boomers is unreasonable. It is patently clear that the world does not hold it on equal footing, and Wikipedia should not as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• I just reviewed the last AfD, and there were several "new users" and Anon IPs that mysteriously showed up to recommend keeping that article. In many cases, the edit to the AfD was wither their only edit, or one of only a few that they have made. It seems very suspicious to me. Unitanode 03:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that AFD was a bit sketchy. If we throw out the obvious SPAs, there does not actually seem to be as wide-spread support as the article creator wants everyone to believe. Still, I am not complaining about the existance of the article, but there are some serious WP:COI problems with it and with the way it is being used around Wikipedia... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I opened a discussion at Talk:Generation Jones, and as long as I have administrative approval, I'm going to prune a lot of the nonsense where it's treated as being on the same scholarly plane as the Boomers, Gen-Xers, etc. Unitanode 03:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• This is out of control. He won't discuss it at Talk:Generation Jones, and keeps reverting. I'm done trying to clean up these articles until I get some clear administrative direction here. Unitanode 03:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• This is just one example at Generation Y. He insists on elevatinng a pop culture neologism to the level of scholarly, accepted Generational splits. I'm on the edge of 3RR now, so without direct admin intervention, I'm done here. I have to say, this is my first full-on run in with an SPA, and it does take the fun out of editing this wiki, that's for sure. Unitanode 03:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• I've got to take a break from this, as it's starting to really beat me down. I'd also encourage an admin and a checkuser to take a look at the AfD on Generation Jones, as looking at the contribs of many of those voting "keep" are iffy to say the least. Unitanode 04:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, considering the block and edit histories of the user and other related users, either block away or consider an RFC/U against all of them. Such warring without discussion is unacceptable here, and I would personally support the former. MuZemike 07:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA?

Resolved

I bet you'd like to know (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I do not see this as permitted under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Moreover, the last thing we need is more of these advocates for absolute free speech, especially ones that aren't even willing to do it under their main account. I almost blocked indefinitely myself, but I thought I'd solicit more views. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the user seems to be American, they don't have the excuse that they're contributing from some politically sensitive region of the world and need additional protection. So far the "illegal" thing they've posted using this account is the name of a juvenile offender. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is in fact illegal to publish in Canada (the location of the crime), just so we're clear. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. We on about this again? When will people understand that just because we can (legally) publish something it doesn't mean we should (morally and ethically)? And more to the point, when will Americans learn to understand how their free speech guarantee actually works? Ugh. → ROUX ₪ 03:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional free speech and press largely has to do with the right to criticize the government. Unfortunately, some think free speech and press mean "no limitations". That ain't it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What I'm taking from the above is that my first instinct to indef block was the correct one. I shall make it so momentarily. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse that block you are about to make. Good call; this is clearly a multiple account situation, and this is also clearly NOT a legit use of a secondary account. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A checkuser would also be a good idea. Results don't need to be made public, but the user who is hiding their tracks needs a severe talking-to about why it's unacceptable. Frankly, I'd be happy if we changed the sock policy to "No socks, ever." Would make situations like this much more easy to deal with. → ROUX ₪ 04:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The likely response of a checkuser request here would be "checkuser is not for fishing". I'd like to see it happen, but I'd be surprised if anybody would do it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Which speaks to an enormous misunderstanding of what Checkuser is good for, alas. Not to mention is found nowhere in WMF policy. It should absolutely be used for fishing; the long delay between identifying socks and getting rid of them is silly. Pre-emptively finding them would only be a benefit to the project. → ROUX ₪ 04:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You won't find it anywhere in WMF policy because it's a English Wikipedia-specific policy. "Fishing" requests, as they're called here, are permitted elsewhere. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I know; it's a silly policy. → ROUX ₪ 05:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Is it because there's a shortage of checkusers? Seems like when even an accepted SPI is posted, it can take days for them to get back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Endorse check being run. Enigma^msg 04:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal info revealed?

Resolved

Not sure what to do about this, but there appears to be personal information (email addresses, etc.) showing in Bank Menatep that was probably added misguidedly, but in good faith. Could an administrator have a quick look at this? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, deleted those revisions - they weren't encyclopedic anyway - and semi'd the article for a short time. Black Kite 03:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you for the prompt resolution. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User reinserting copyvio at Strikeforce

I've told Sea888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) multiple times on his talkpage that his copy-pasting of material from press-releases and other website to the Strikeforce article is not OK.

The current text in the article:

The agreement reunites Showtime and Strikeforce following their successful "Shamrock vs. Baroni" telecast in 2007. In the main event, Frank Shamrock submitted Phil Baroni in the second round giving Shamrock the Strikeforce Middleweight championship title. The event was followed live on Showtime by one of the sport’s most anticipated fights, Strikeforce: Shamrock vs. Le featured Frank Shamrock versus the undefeated world kickboxing champion Cung Le on March 29, 2008. In a fight that has since been proclaimed “Fight Of The Year” by industry experts and the like, Le won the Strikeforce middleweight championship title by putting on a relentless offensive and fending off Shamrock’s counter attacks before breaking the defending champion’s arm with a hard roundhouse kick late in the third round. The kick forced Shamrock to retire from the fight in between rounds three and four

... and the text in Strikeforce's press release:

The agreement reunites SHOWTIME and Strikeforce following their successful “Shamrock vs. Baroni” event, presented by SHOWTIME PPV® in 2007. In the main event, former UFC middleweight champion and MMA legend, Frank Shamrock, submitted knockout artist, Phil “The New York Badass” Baroni, in the second round of action whereby Shamrock became the first-ever Strikeforce World Middleweight Champion.

The historic event was followed up with a live SHOWTIME telecast of one of the sport’s most anticipated showdowns of all-time—Shamrock versus undefeated world kickboxing champion Cung Le—on March 29, 2008. In a battle that has since been proclaimed “Fight Of The Year” by industry experts and critics, Le seized the Strikeforce middleweight crown by pouring on a relentless offensive and fending off Shamrock’s counter attacks before breaking the defending champion’s arm with a hard roundhouse kick and forcing Shamrock to retire from the bout between rounds three and four.

Diffs: him adding itrestoring itand again. He has also introduced other copyvios, such as this and this.

I'm obviosly not getting through here, so some assistance would be appreciated. --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This example is completely exaggerated and taken out of proportion. Please read the current content on the page to the alledged copyrighted material. The example above was corrected to remove WK:PEACOCK words and is no longer in question. Please see the current article. Cheers.Sea888 (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The edits since I pasted the above is: "industry experts and the like" -> "MMA critic", "relentless offensive" -> "relentless arsenal of kicks", "fending off" -> "avoiding", "he defending champion’s" -> "Shamrocks'" and "retire" -> "quit". --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you add it to the article at all? ⟳ausa کui ^× 04:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The material is to highlight the history of the company. Here is the current version in its entirety.

Strikeforce partnered with Showtime to televise an all new series of MMA events that will air live on Showtime.[12] The agreement is to have a three- year broadcast deal in which will see mixed martial arts return to the premium pay channel. The much-coveted deal, which has been quietly negotiated since December of 2008, proposes up to 16 live events per year.

The agreement reunites Showtime and Strikeforce following their successful "Shamrock vs. Baroni" telecast in 2007. In the main event, Frank Shamrock submitted Phil Baroni in the second round giving Shamrock the Strikeforce Middleweight championship title.[13] The event was followed live on Showtime by one of the sport’s most anticipated fights, Strikeforce: Shamrock vs. Le featured Frank Shamrock versus the undefeated world kickboxing champion Cung Le on March 29, 2008. In a fight that has since been proclaimed “Fight Of The Year”[14][15] On June 6th 2009 with the purchase of ProElite assets finalized, “Ruthless” Robbie Lawler collided with fellow superstar Jake Shields in a 182 lb. catch weight battle at the Scottrade Center in St. Louis, Missouri that aired live on Showtime.

Where is the violation? Is this fine? Please look at the timeline of my edits, clearly I am still in the process of editing. See my discussion with Aktsu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sea888 (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Be On The Lookout

Resolved

 – Indef'd by an admin

Admins might want to watch out for this user, User:WlKlPEDlAADMlN68, the user is obviously trying (poorly) to pass themselves off as an admin. Some of the newer users might fall for it. They have already vandalized the Nine Inch Nails article, so they it doesn't look like they are here for encyclopedic reasons. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In an obvious case like this, you can get quick results by turning them in to WP:AIV, which I did, except they had already indef'd that character. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A more appropriate place is WP:UAA as their username obviously violated WP:U. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Michelangelo24

May I suggest a banning of one week? Please see: [32]. Created many pages (some multiple times) over a period of several months that get constantly deleted. I am no music expert so I wont comment on his edits to already created articles, but I do note a COI in his edits (i.e. adding his own music/creation in places like 2009 in music etc.). Cheers.Calaka (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In theory, he warned to stop back in February, for what that's work. Alternative could be to just blacklist his website or really someone should just talk to him first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to notice a pattern (since working over at the new articles created page for the past few days) that if these users talk after writing them a message on their talk page (e.g. please add refs), they talk/do as you requested straight away. However, others no matter how much you litter their wall with speedys or warnings, they seem to be completely non responsive and just continue doing what they were doing (basically ignoring the talk page/not bothering to read the messages). I agree that communication is key to solving a lot of these problems, but I am unable to suggest a way of better improving this barrier between the regular wikipedians and the newbies. Some sort of chat feature might need to be implemented/enabled (unless there is already such a thing somehwhere)??!? I know there is IRC chat but are newbies given notice of that being available? Furthermore IRC is not something everyone uses (since you need to download a client to get onto it first) etc. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Open WP:Wikihounding by User:Viriditas

I apologize in advance for the long posting, but understand that it's actually a tiny fraction of what's been going on, making it virtually impossible to edit on Wikipedia. I and other editors need admin help regarding some openly brazen WP:Wikihounding that literally takes up now several hours a day over numerous articles and boards. In fact, it has just caused one excellent editor (Wildhartlivie) to declare that he is "Done" attempting to edit an article, wondering "I keep wondering why an administrator hasn't intervened with what is being said and the attacks upon me and the two of you." This Wikihounding campaign intensified after Viriditas was blocked from editing for 48 hours six days ago for WP:Edit Warring on Human rights in the United States, including falsely accusing at least two editors of "NPOV" and "plagarism", the Wikihounding, which had existed before, was increased.

Spread to Jonestown and Noticeboards - After his/her block time ran out, Viriditas then began a series of tagging and openly combative Talk page sections at the Jonestown article, which I had previously edited mostly a year or more ago and Viriditas had never before edited, with three editors. When another editor raised his suspicions that this was part of Viriditas' continuing attempted dispute with me, Viriditas actually admitted "yes, my attention was drawn to this article due to the actions of another user who has been active here, referring to me. Viriditas' most sizable campaign there involved the inclusion of a POV tag over the entire article because the article did not do more than discuss for one sentence and link to the article Jonestown conspiracy theory, a fringe CIA conspiracy theory first espoused by cult leader Jim Jones himself to hs followers. Unfortunately, it has now spread even further, to a baseless Neutral Point of View complaint lodged by Viriditas on the same conspiracy theory, wherein it was again explained to this user -- over more combative commentary -- by a yet another univolved editor "I see no real NPOV issue here" along with the same statements by the other three editors.

Talk Page Comment Deletions of multiple editors - The WP:Wikihounding includes repeatedly deleting my comments on Article Talk pages -- along with those of other editors -- in gross violation of WP:TPO, so much so that Viriditas was seperately made to stop such Talk Page comment deletions by an administrator at ANI-3RR here in a separate instance.

Combative, Uncivil Accusations and Charges to nearly every editor - Unfortunately, in the Jonestown article, which has now suffered from this new part of the WP:Wikihounding campaign, the Talk page alone has ballooned in size by over 1,100% in three days -- from 10K to over 115K -- by the now highly combative many-hours/day Talk page campaign that Viriditas is waging with me and other editors. Just one click on the page reveals the now nightmare state is has become. This includes violating WP:Assume Good Faith and further WP:Disruptive editing on that page and other talk pages:

• to editor Wildhartlivie - I see you are still chewing on sour grapes from the shortened footnotes discussion. My neutrality here has never been in question.
• to editor radek - "you have shown that you are intellectually dishonest"
• edit comment re me and Yachtsman1 - "crud posted by disruptive crudités attempting to distract and change the subject. Your crud is not needed"
• to me - Because of your documented history of poor editing involving cherry picking of primary and secondary sources, undue weight, NPOV violations, and plagiarism
• to editor Wildhartlivie: Sorry, but none of what you say makes any sense.
• to editor Yachtsman1 - You are a tag teaming meatuppet for Mosedchurtre, the editor who refuses to allow a discussion of the classified sources and conspiracy theories in the article, and you are not neutral. You have the same documented NPOV issues as Mosedchurtre.
• to editor Wildhartlive - You're not following the discussion. To refresh your memory,
• to editor Yachtsman1 - "you aren't the first civil POV pusher/wikilawer to try it, nor the last"
• to editor Yachtsman1: You aren't paying attention.

Understand that this is just a TINY SAMPLE of the combative bloat that the Talk:Jonestown has assumed since Viriditas brought the Wikihounding campaign there three days ago.

Disruptive Editing and Baiting - The WP:Wikihounding also involves WP:Disruptive editing that was open outright WP:Harrassment, including several false accsations repeated, ignoring all statements made, just to attempt to bait some aggressive responsve, such as the following (just one of many examples) regarding the potential citation of an article by Dr. Rebcca Moore, which I never opposed:

Viriditas - "Why isn't this source allowed to be used in the article? . . . What is your objection to using this particular source?"

Me -"No editor, including me, has disallowed this (Rebecca Moore) article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown"

Viriditas - "Why will you not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore, to be used in this article"

Me - *Please stop making false statements such as "Why will you not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore " , each continued falsity is a further indication of WP:Disruptive editing. The brazen falseness of this charge is especially telling for future ANI action where I directly stated above, ""No editor, including me, has disallowed this article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown."

Viriditas - "Please explain why you will not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore, to be used in this article"

Me - Third time now, please stop making false statements such as "Please explain why you will not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore, to be used in this article "

Viriditas - "What is it that you find objectionable about citing this academic paper"

Me - Fourth time now, please stop making false statements, each continued falsity is a further indication of WP:Disruptive editing. The brazen falseness of this charge is especially telling for future ANI action where I directly stated above, ""No editor, including me, has disallowed this article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown." . There is ZERO issue with citing this article.

Again, this is merely one example of combative disruptive editing and baiting via false statements that occurs throughout the Talk page.

Threats - The campaign also includes numerous threats, such as "Please stop ignoring my questions per talk page guidelines. Failure to answer them but continuing to make the same points will get you in trouble."

HUSH practices - The campaign also involves engaging in WP:HUSH, leaving numerous warnings on both my talk page, as well as user:Yachtsman1 here, here, and here

False Plagarism Assertions/Forum Shopping - The campaign further includes makinge false "plagarism" accusations, at times as an attempted pretext to delete text, including at WP:Content_noticeboard, where he/she was told "If it's paraphrased sufficiently, it isn't plagiarism. It is paraphrased sufficiently." For the record, as Viriditas was told by others, it is plainly obvious that it was not plagarism, yet Viriditas repeatedly deleted the text based on this false basis, such as here, here, here, here and here. Note, he/she continued the false accusations of "plagarism", here, with [As for your continued plagiarism of content, that is a fact that is not in dispute. In fact, she did so an another board not just about one editor, but about two here: Both the content noticeboard and the copyright cleanup board agreed that you (another editor) and Mosedchurte are engaging in plagiarism.

Openly admits to POV in editing - Viriditas also overtly admits POV in editing, such as with regard to the tendency to include violations over advances in Human rights in the United States, where he/she admitted "Mosedschurte, do you understand that the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents?"

Attempts to Resolve before coming to ANI - Please understand, and I cannot stress this enough, that I have hestitated to bring this to the attention of ANI for days, fearing that it will just draw even more aggressive WP:Wikihounding from this editor. Two days ago, I placed the following "Sincere Request" on this user's Talk page stating "Honestly, this is not some attempt at snarky sarcasm by me, but a sincere request. just a consideration that we not let any dispute (between us, content or otherwise) spill over into other articles? . . . I truly believe -- all B.S. aside, and no blame on either party in this particular statement -- that we would both be happier and more productive both on and off of Wikipedia without spending time and energy continuing disputes across multiple articles." This was ignored. I then yesterday again renewed my request with "Please, I wanted to renew the original request, a consideration that we not let any dispute (between us, content or otherwise) in Human rights in the United States spill over into other articles. We would both be happier and more productive both on and off of Wikipedia without spending time and energy continuing disputes across multiple articles." This was again ignored.

I simply have no other avenue in which to turn other than this board. I can no longer edit on Wikipedia without facing literally many hours a day of WP:Wikihounding including overtly combative talk page comments and reverts, much less do so enjoyably. In fact, I didn't even go into the rest of them, simply scan the now massively bloated Talk:Jonestown for many more examples, because I felt that this complaint was already too long. I am not sure what the proper remedy for such harrassment is -- whether it be an outright block, or just an order to not particiapte in articles in which I (and perhaps Yachtsman1) edit, or something of the like. Honestly, whatever remedy will make it go away is preferrable. Mosedschurte (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

When the complaint is this long, perhaps it should have involved an WP:RFC/U instead? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I could have shorted it to just the talk page deletions/abusive commentary/etc., but I thought that an administrator would want more info to work with. Again, this is just a tiny fraction of the problematic WP:Wikihounding. We really have no where else to turn at this point.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson...DEAD?

Is he really? Has this been confirmed? If not should we really put this on his page? This could all be a made-up story and Michael Jackson could be sipping a cup of hot tea and listening to Thriller right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen Padmé Amidala (talk • contribs) 11:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has been confirmed. It's in many reliable sources. We've also had preliminary post mortem ("autopsy")results. Lots and lots of sources. Yes, there are conspiracy stories, but then again, there always are. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 11:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry about that then. User:Queen Padmé Amidala

Just out of curiosity how did you manage to get on the internet and not see any confirmation of this? It's been all over the news and pretty much every site on the internet seems to have some kind of tribute to him. And even if you manage to not see it on the internet don't you own a TV? This has been plastered everywhere for a couple days now. I'm amazed that anyone could still be unsure about whether or not he's actually dead.  Anonymous  ^{Talk  Contribs} 11:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)