Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HRCC (talk | contribs) at 18:34, 17 August 2008 (→‎September 11, 2001 attacks -- community advice sought: and given). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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. (archivessearch)


    User continually editing against consensus

    Hello all. User:Sarumio is an editor who frequents association football articles on a regular basis. He's gone through phases of highly useful edits (such as updating league tables for new seasons) but on a number of occasions he has made mass edits (such as removing FC from infoboxes, capitalising "reserves" against good grammar) which go against community consensus. A lot of the edits are relatively trivial but, nonetheless, he continues to ignore the community. Most recently the edits have been performed subversively, by making other edits to take the scrutiny away from what he's trying to do. His edits have been discussed numerous times by WP:FOOTBALL, he has been warned by a host of different regular editors such as User:Dudesleeper, User:Number 57, User:Richard Rundle to no avail.

    The various discussions have taken place as follows... A mass removal of F.C. from football club infoboxes raised initial concerns and was followed by an attempt at consensus. This was then followed by an infobox discussion whose outcome was studiously ignored by Sarumio (even as recently as today) and I blocked him temporarily. Funnily enough when he makes useful edits, it's fantastic and I've even gone so far as to congratulate him for doing so, but yet a drive for making trivial but controversial edits has ended up with me needing to discuss a way forward with you guys here. If anyone has any questions they'd like me to answer, fire away, here or at me personally. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a tricky one, because normally a topic ban would be a good way of dealing with a useful but perenially disruptive user, but Sarumio only edits on one topic: football. I think I'm right in saying that all his disruptive edits have been in football club articles, so we could consider banning him from those. Sadly, his pattern of behaviour leads me to suspect that he'd simply disrupt in a new way, say in infoboxes of biog articles. In all, I strongly suspect this one will end up as a community ban, but I think he should be given a chance, both for fair play and because he is capable of really good editing.
    Therefore, my proposal is: six months ban from editing football club articles, with the clear understanding that further disruption will inevitably lead to proposal of a site ban. --Dweller (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect he'd return to previous form immediately after the ban expired, as he did with his recent block, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comments) I oppose mass editing against consensus, because that isn't how Wikipedia's supposed to work. The diffs supplied by User:The Rambling Man above show how much editorial time, effort, and rational common sense gets disrupted by such behaviour. They also show that attempts were made to establish a standard for the specific initial problem, whether or not to use F.C. in a particular parameter of football club infoboxes, and that unfortunately no definitive agreement was reached. Since that time Sarumio has used his (male gender used for convenience only, don't know which would be correct) considerable industry and capacity for research to make a lot of useful edits, also as mentioned above. However, he will not confine himself to useful editing. This diff took removal of F.C. to a rather silly extreme; and the West Midlands Regional League edits section of his talk page demonstrate a lack of respect for other editors and for the encyclopedia as a whole.
    If Sarumio received a lengthy ban, his good edits would be missed. But if that's the only way to help him decide whether he cares enough about improving the encyclopedia to abandon his disruptive edits, I would support it. Though maybe six months is too long; perhaps half that time, with the proviso that if he attempted to circumvent the ban by disruptive editing anonymously or under a different username, or if he continued disruption on his return, I'd have no problem with more stringent sanctions. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So would people be happy be a three-month topic ban, the topic being football articles? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's misconstruing the main issue here. It's not so much revert warring (although it is that too) it's more mass, anti consensual edits across large numbers of articles, despite a plethora of discussion, advice and warnings. A revert limitation would be addressing a minor aspect of the problematic behaviour. Sarumio has consistently displayed a total disdain for process or discussion; I'm not sure what an RfC would add, other than a delay. --Dweller (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. The community have spent a great deal of time already discussing this as shown by the diffs I've provided. Sarumio continues to edit against every consensus and an RFC will just be ignored. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs you've provided so far are limited, and your presumption that "an RFC will just be ignored" is not helpful in actually resolving the dispute. But, I don't doubt that there are some problems outside of what I have suggested. The RFC is a more ideal venue to bring up these sorts of concerns that aren't quite as clear-cut to outsiders, to provide ample evidence, to have outside users comment and to formally give the 'last chance' before community sanctions. I see no compelling reason (or any reason outside of the ordinary) as to why the dispute resolution process should not be pursued properly (note also that ArbCom are likely to reject any request for arbitration in the absence of an RFC on user conduct). If the RFC does turn out to be ineffective and the problems continue to the extent that has been suggested here, I will support a measure to prevent it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Insults again

    Hi.
    I've reported this user Kirker (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki) before, because of his bad behaviour.
    This is my first report [1], 14:40, 4 Aug 2008 (he called me "snide arsehole).
    This is my second report [2] (14:47, 6 August 2008) and [3] (09:16, 7 August 2008 ) (inflammatory messages, inciting, perpetuation of discussion on multiple pages).
    Despite admin's reactions, he hasn't improved.
    14:25, 12 August 2008 he sent me this message on my talkpage [4] "Kubura, have you lost your tongue as well as your nerve? A cruel fate for a gossip-monger.".
    I've explicitly asked him [5] not to annoy me and again explained him my reactions, again I've reminded him that Wikipedia is not a forum.
    Still, he perpetuates discussion infinitely, continues annoying me, and he has continued with insults (he said "you're too spineless"), despite being previously warned by admins [6], with his next message [7] (16:19, 13 August 2008 ).
    Such users do not improve Wikipedia. I haven't become the contributor on Wikipedia so that some troll can annoy me and insult me. Kubura (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The first report regarding him was in December 2007 (where everyone else got warned), the second was just a few days ago, and he was warned. Three days later, you came back about the same remarks (seems no consensus for admin action yet). I've asked Kirker to respond here and may wait on him. Editing about the Balkans is usually a mess, but I'm for some response. If nothing, he's been warned enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks Ricky81682 for drawing my attention to all this hot air being expended on my account. Kubura did not have the courtesy to do that, although as a user who is familiar with this website he/she will be aware that he/she was supposed to raise the complaint with me before running off to the administrators.

    There are a few points to be made here.

    First I never know who is an admin and who is not. I appreciate that admins are not there to be punchbags but if some user who may or may not be an admin annoys me (and being patronised annoys me), there is always the possibility that I might retaliate.

    Second Ricky has dredged up an earlier complaint about me, which again I had not seen till now. Perhaps he needs to read it more carefully. It seems to me that one contributor to that discussion considered my behaviour was not worth the complaint; all the others wanted the complainant banned (which he eventually was, when his sockpuppet status was established). If Ricky is right that, along with others, I was given a warning, perhaps he would tell me when and where.

    Third the recent comments of mine that are now at issue arise from a snide insinuation (the adjective is fair) by Kubura on Rjecina's talk page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rjecina#Checkuser) I suggest people read it before taking views in this discussion. Kubura was urging Rjecina to complain about me, no doubt thinking that if Rjecina obliged, I need never discover Kubura's hand in the matter. Rjecina, who doesn't usually need any encouragement to chase potential socks, must have thought Kubura's tittle-tattle was just too gratuitous to pursue. He/she decided that to do so might damage his/her own credibility and that it was safer just to "fully support" Kubura. A minor detail: one of my many typos slipped through when I tried to say "arsehole," so apologies for that. The term itself was used metaphorically and, in the circumstances, quite reasonably.

    Fourth, Kubura said that people like me don't contribute anything to Wikipedia, or make it any better, or something to that effect. The best way to judge that is to look at my editing of articles - for instance a substantial re-write of the Stepinac article a few months ago. Or look at the Miroslav Filipovic article which until last week, when I ditched it and started afresh (adding about 20 references ti the original two), had been the subject of endless petty editing, wittering on the talk page, etc. A good example of how crappy Wikipedia can be, and how it really should be. (Someone awarded my new version a "barnstar" whatever that is.)

    Fifth, I did not say Kubura was "too spineless." I merely suggested that possibility as an explanation in the event that Kubura neither withdraws the original insinuation nor sees it through by generating a checkuser process in his /her own name. So for now the jury is still out on the question of Kubura's spine. Kirker (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How about you stop insulting other people this instant and you don't get blocked for incivility? That's enough of those kinds of comments. Kubura made the decision not to engage you and I would highly suggest you do the same. If you want to talk to Rjecina, talk with Rjecina. If there is an issue with them talking, bring it up here (a new subsection would be fine). Otherwise, stop with the insults and go do something else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How about you (Ricky81682) remember that I came into this discussion only because you "highly" suggested that I should? How about you try answering the two simple questions I've raised with you: 1) DID I get a warning in December 2007, and if so where is it? 2) WAS I ever told to "stay away" from anyone, as you state on my user page, and where on Wikipedia are such edicts announced?

    If it's easier to ban me, then do that by all means. What's the big deal? Rather than create more work for Rjecina, who does a good job removing banned-user contributions, I'll even create a sockpuppet to delete my own edits. Kirker (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Because I am called many times in this discussion with comments about my action it is time for me :)
    After reading Kubura thinking on my talk page I have informed all editors in dispute about article Miroslav Filipović (which is edited by me, Kubura, Kirker and 2 or 3 other editors) and added comment that in my thinking Kubura is having good arguments, but I will not start action because of my problem with banned User:PaxEquilibrium [8]
    Few hours after that on Kirker talk page I have explained my reasons for this sort of comment.[9]
    Can somebody please tell me if my actions has been wrong ?
    After looking again Kirker actions (not insults but his edits) my new comment is that he is SPA account which edit only WWII Croatian articles (ulmost 100 % of his edits). Problem with this is that we are having 3-4 banned users which are editing only this sort of articles and because of that somebody can think that Kirker is puppet, but in my thinking it is hard to connect his editorial style with editorial style of known banned users. About my revert of banned users (answer to Kirker) tell me how we can trust users which has edited against wiki rules that they will write honest NPOV articles ?
    In the end I will like to call all administrators which are reading this for comment about use of quotations in article Miroslav Filipović.--Rjecina (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any admins around who ever look at any of this crap? If so, I hope one of them will sort it out. The situation is ridiculous. Kubura and Rjecina both start a rumour that I am someone else, yet neither has the guts to use a procedure that is apparently available for having the matter checked. Is this something I can do myself? How? Will it produce an unequivocal answer? I am happy to be banned - I think at least one user (Ricky) would rather ask for that than answer my questions - but I am hoping to have the question of my credibility/integrity resolved before some admin obliges him.
    Rjecina says he has explained himself on my talk page, but all I saw there was a semi-coherent ramble about some user called Pax, whereas Kubura was associating me with justin-something-or-other. (Rjecina's use of English is arguably not good enough for the English-language version of Wikipedia and I offered to help him with that. But he told me, quite proudly it seemed, that he is not concerned about his inability to express himself clearly and is just as casual with his use of Croatian.)
    Rjecina says I have edited the same stuff as him, which may be true, but I am sure that on some of those occasions it was in support of his edits. Rjecina also says I edit "only WW2 Croatian" articles which is patently untrue - a neat illustration of just how blinkered some Balkans-based users can be. My interest is in anything connected with WW2 Yugoslavia, particularly BiH under the Ustaše regime. I am actively researching that subject and learning the language for that purpose. I get involved because Wikipedia is often the first website returned in Google searches. I thus find myself reading crap written by people pushing their own agendas. Sometimes they are people like Rjecina who rarely contribute anything, but delete or revert whatever they find disagreeable. It sounds as if I would have more credibility if I broadened my scope and started wading into subject areas about which I know nothing? Would that counter the "SPA account" accusation, whatever that is all about?
    On the point about Rjecina deleting banned-user contributions, I was not on this occasion complaining about that, though I have said elsewhere that he sometimes "throws out the baby with the bathwater" in his obsessive pursuit of sockpuppets while contributing very little in the way of sourced material etc.
    On the point about use of quotations, I really cannot see what Rjecina is driving at. He has argued this ad nauseum with DIREKTOR on the Filipovic discussion page and seems to think that quotes are disallowed. Far from that, Wikipedia actually provides editing tools for the insertion of quotes. But by all means, if any admins ever do look at this stuff, let's have a decision too on the quotes in my rewrite of the Filipović article.Kirker (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kirker, seriously, my advice is to cool down. I certainly do not think you're a sock, but this is not the place to discuss that. If someone seriously believes it, they're free to file a report. Although being called a sock may be quite annoying (believe me, I know!) if its simply not true there's no need to lose your temper, and no need to, um... discuss the personality of those accusing you.
    As for the Miroslav Filipović article, its of far better quality after Kirker's work than it was before. I really do not think there's anything to discuss there, but if you have a problem Rjecina, take it to the talkpage. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    personal attacks

    Resolved
     – IP blocked 24 hours for personal attacks

    --VS talk 11:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ara_Abrahamian&diff=prev&oldid=231955764

    WHAT'S THE PROBLEM - WHAT ARE YOU, STUPID??? IT'S NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT TO NOTE THAT IN WIKIPEDIA - DON'T YOU KNOW THAT???!!!! HAVEN'T YOU BEEN AROUND WIKIPEDIA LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT IT HAS LOST ITS EDGE AND NOW JUST GIVES "DUMBED-DOWN" ARTICLES ON PEOPLE AND EVENTS??? YOU CAN'T FIND ANYTHING OF NOTE ON HERE ANY MORE - WIKIPEDIA IS NOW THE DOMAIN OF BUSYBODIES. NOTHING CONTROVERSIAL CAN BE NOTED HERE. AND CERTAINLY NOTHING NEGATIVE CAN BE PUT IN ANY ARTICLE. NOW GO BUZZ OFF!!!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.143.159.186

    Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Have blocked IP for 24 hours so as to give time for the area that he is editing on to cool down somewhat. This level of personal attacking is not suitable on Wiki and I have noted that he has been warned. --VS talk 11:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of Template talk:Nobel icon may not have been appropriate

    I was going to start a deletion review on this, but I think a post here might be more appropriate.

    Template:Nobel icon and Template talk:Nobel icon were deleted after a TfD closure. I believe the talk page should not have been deleted because:

    • The CSD criterion that was cited is only applicable for talk pages of deleted articles.
    • I believe this also serves as an the exception mentioned in the CSD, because there is a lot of discussion at that page relating to its use that is not logged elsewhere. It shows even more consensus that is not at the TfD.
    • Extensive debates on talk pages of even deleted articles often remain undeleted, when there is constructive discussion at that page
    • There is a discussion at WT:MOS, regarding the use of Nobel icons. It would be helpful if the page was viewable to non-admins during a discussion, so they could see examples of the arguments presented.

    Thoughts would be appreciated. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 21:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Restored after request on my talk page. Garion96 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly pressing, but participants may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Clarification on G8 and namespaces. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification :) « Diligent Terrier [talk] 22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of edit history required

    Namely at the article on the German actor Walter Sedlmayr. He had been murdered back in 1990, and the two perpetrators, that were sentenced in 1993, have been released by now on probation. THEY EVOKED A COURT DECISION THAT THEIR NAMES ARE NOT TO BE MENTIONED in the coverage of the murder. (see: [10], found linked at [11], both in German) I still found an German Nwepsaper article that gives their first names [12], so I only removed their last names. We probably need to see if some further edits are required, but the previous two revisions that give their full names need to be deleted, definitely. Zara1709 (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That raises an interesting legal question, i.e. can a German court order Wikipedia to remove information? I suggest no one other than Mike Godwin etc. try to answer that. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not it can does not really matter. No German court has ordered Wikipedia to do anything. The Regional Court decision that Sara cites was apparently issued against a German newspaper and has no binding force with respect to anyone else. It might conceivably set a precedent if the issue were to be raised in another German court or against someone else. But even that is not too likely, since the decision was issued by a Landgericht, a regional court of first instance. Decisions of lower courts are not generally precedential. Ringelblume (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't find too much in the way of public sources that reveal the perps' last names; as such, I've deleted the history of the article as a purely precautionary measure while we sort this out. east718 // talk // email // 22:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever tactic we do, it is going to be similar in nature of what we did with the article on the German hacker "Tron." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully request the undeletion of the deleted revisions. There is no legal or policy reason to omit these names. Wikipedia is not censored, and particularly not for the benefit of criminals. The full real names of the perpetrators remain available in numerous German online sources; see this Google search. Two reliable German mainstream media articles were cited for these names in the now-deleted version of the article, so WP:BLP is not an issue. Also, even if a German court has decided that the perpetrators have a right not to be named under German law, that verdict does not bind Wikipedia, whose operations are covered by US law. Ringelblume (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is a policy reason. These are living individuals of marginal to zero notability. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see: the last names aren't banned as far as we know; and we have not received orders to remove them. So what's the debate about? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V? Corvus cornixtalk 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability concerns the suitability of a topic for an article of its own, not the content of articles. But the two perpetrators would probably be notable for an article of their own, due to the substantial publicity given to their trial and now to their efforts to have their names removed from online archives. Ringelblume (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    First, the article does not assert that the two were wrongly convicted. While that may be the case, the article does not argue this, and considering the sources are in German, I am unable to verify such a claim. Second, by making a decision to omit who the convicted murderers were, we are effectively, as you said, making a moral decision. This is quite dangerous, and begins to stray from adherence to NPOV and verifiability. When reading the WP:NPOV page, the first three bulleted points are: Verifiability, NPOV, and No Original Research. If the source is verifiable, if it is relevant, and if it is notable, I posit that we are bound to cover the fact in the interest of an unbiased encyclopedia. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you Lazulilasher. Well put. --mboverload@ 02:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be worth noting that de:Walter Sedlmayr (from which our article was translated) specifically excludes the names, and has for several months. One source linked in the deleted revision identifies them by first name and last initial only; the other does not appear to include their names at all. The Google search provided by Ringelblume does not appear to find the names in high results, except on Wikipedia and its mirrors. Obviously I cannot perform an exhaustive search of German media, but currently these last names do not appear to be reliably sourced. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm...That is worth noting. I checked as well and, aside from mirrors, the sources didn't seem to have last names. There are other hits, however my German is at a lower level, thus I cannot determine. However, if there is not a reliable source I would imagine we should keep it removed until if/when a reliable source is found. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time of my translation of the article, the two cited online versions of the articles did contain the full names of the perpetrators. They seem to have been removed by now, presumably in response to legal action in Germany. But the names remain verifiable, because the names cannot be removed from the print versions of the two newspaper articles that are cited. As citations to these print versions, the references fulfil the requirements of WP:V and WP:BLP. Ringelblume (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Speaking only as an editor and as already noted above, the content easily meets WP:RS and WP:BLP. I would tend not to see any reason to omit these names unless word came that the foundation said it had to be done. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be cultural difference between Germany and the English-speaking world, in a way. Being accustomed to how the press handles things here in Germany, I feel myself intuitievely agreeing that we don't really need those names – they are, essentially, non-notable people. But then, I'll acknowledge standards here are different. About the legal issue of whether the German court rulings have any effect on us, I can't say (my guess would be probably not). But the initial issue brought up here, that we ought to not only remove the names from the text but also purge the article history, seems like an over-reaction to me. I mean, it's not as if those names are actually secret or anything. The old newspaper reports from the time of the trial, where they were published quite legally, remain in existence; anybody can go to a library to look them up, just like anybody can click on our edit history. The intention of the ruling is just that they shouldn't be unnecessarily trumpeted out. Fut.Perf. 08:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not subject to German law, and invoking some moral concern is a serious violation NPOV when we have the names in reliable sources. If not for the German court order we wouldn't even thinking about this issue; the standard is to give the names of relevant individuals. There's no BLP concern since the matter is reported in multiple reliable sources. We should both undelete the revisions and put the last names back in. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, I agree 100%--see my arguments above. However, the question has now become: can we reliably source the convicted men's last name? I looked in the sources provided and in the Google Search. The last names are only in Wikipedia mirrors as far as I can tell (sources are in German and my German is not great). Lazulilasher (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My German isn't very good either but from all descriptions people agree that the paper versions contain the names. That meets RS/V. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to the deleted sources, however if they are reliable and do cite the full name, then I agree with you. As a note, this news page seems to use the names: [13]. It appears reliable, but I am unable to tell. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    No. Simply put, an NPOV article about an individual would name who killed the individual. There's no way to get around that. You can make an argument that they are not notable enough for articles of their own and this is true. But that's not the issue here. This is easily obtainable, reliably sourced info. So it goes in. Frankly, to do anything else is to let our own personal POV about effect things just as much as if we took out pictures of Muhammad. We don't censor. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These two convicted murderers don't want their names published? I expect that ALMOST NO convicted murderers want their names published! If their names were published in printed newspapers, then WP:V is certainly satisfied. If a murder is notable enough for an article in Wikipedia, then the names of those convicted for it are certainly to be included in the article, unless a court with competent jurisdiction has ordered the English Wikipedia to remove the names. Determining that is a job for Mike Godwin and no one else. Edison (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In reply to Zara, I understand your concern. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, hence we do not make value judgments. By definition, our articles concern notable subjects, are written with verifiable information, and utlize reliable sources. It is not our charge to make judgements on the content, merely to succinctly compile the facts. In the absence of a consensus to do so, removing the names of those convicted for the murders would effectively mean Wikipedia making a value judgement, which is an action an encylopedia cannot do. If a legal question is raised, there exists a foundation team to handle that query. Lazulilasher (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    We appear to have a clear consensus that WP:NPOV requires that the article about Walter Sedlmayr include the names of Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber, who were convicted of murdering Sedlmayr. I have therefore reintroduced the names into the article, and have added this additional source – a regional newspaper who does not yet appear to have gotten around to removing the full names from its online archives. I ask Zara to abide by that consensus.
    In reply to Zara, I am aware of the reasons why a German court (a lower court only, it must be said) has ordered the names to be removed from online archives. They are reasons peculiar to German law, though, and are not compatible with the guiding principles of this international project, which is to produce a neutral, uncensored encyclopedia. The English Wikipedia in particular is inspired by Anglo-American notions of freedom of speech, for which I am thankful, and which mean we do not yield easily with attempts at censorship on the part of the German authorities.
    As a matter of law and morals, I certainly agree that convicted criminals have rights, including a right to privacy, but I strongly disagree with the German court's appreciation of the interests at issue. The court has held that the convicted murderers' right to privacy outweighs the right of the public to information, and the right of individuals to disseminate that information. These two men who are now free on probation were convicted of brutally murdering Sedlmayr, their close business associate, for profit. I, for one, think that any future business associates of theirs should have the chance to look up what happened to their previous business associate before deciding whether or not to enter into a business relationship with them. The interests of the public to be informed clearly outweigh the two men's right to privacy. That would be my opinion even if I were to agree with the notion – which I do not – that in a free society a court should be able to order, Stalin-like, the entire archives of newspapers to be censored for any reason.
    Finally, it should be noted that the names as such are common in Germany. If searched for individually, they yield hundreds of Google hits about unrelated men, and nothing about the Sedlmayr murder. Only if the two names are searched together or in conjunction with "Sedlymayr" do we get any search results about the murder. This should limit any exposure to their past that the two men may face in their life on probation. Ringelblume (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we don't have a clear consensus here. We neither have a NPOV issue, since there aren't divergent POVs here on the question whether those two persons have full names. Furthermore, thanks to your mentioning of their full names on this talk page here in the unlikely but possible case that a German court would enforce that their names are to be removed from the English WP, too, ALL INTERMEDIATE REVISIONS OF THIS TALK PAGE WOULD HAVE TO BE DELETED. This is not about a Stalin-type editing of archives. The newspaper archives in Germany are to be left unchanged, as the court specifically pointed out, but WP is an online encyclopaedia and instantly accessible from Germany. You are also confusing Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored with wp:tabloid. Their full names are not of any relevance for an encyclopaedia, but those persons have a right of privacy, too. That two people who were convicted to have murdered their business associate are to be listed on WP to give their possible future business associates the option to check their criminal conviction is you personal sense of justice. There is no consensus on this here. Zara1709 (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Censorship is censorship. We have reliably sourced information and you are removing it because of a POV, the POV that criminals have a right to privacy after having been released (it is a POV I strongly agree with but it is a POV). No one calls it censorship when they are in favor of it. Moreover, your use of all-caps is uncivil and unproductive (and incidentally it is highly unlikely that a German court would ever make such a ruling about the English Wikipedia and moreover we don't need to worry about unlikely legal issues. That's the job of the Foundation). And Ringelblume's comment makes perfect sense; this encyclopedia exists to serve the public if you forgot so if we are going to take into account peoples desires then the the interest of the public to know is just the same. We have no policy of removing the names of criminals when they have committed notable acts, and there is no consensus for this removal. We wouldn't even be discussing this if the murder had occurred in the United States. It is only due to the high levels of censorship that German culture allows that we are even discussing this. (To everyone involved- I don't think comparisons to Stalin are really that helpful so it might be good for everyone to calm down). JoshuaZ (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "List of Family Guy episodes" scandal?

    The "List of Family Guy episodes" article has lately been the target of relentless and unbiased claims that the episode "Love Blactually" will air as the premiere of season seven, set by unregistered users. Also, there has been a claim that there will be another Family Guy movie based on The Dukes of Hazard. Can someone please look into it? Immblueversion (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war/ POV-pushing at Law of Palestine

    Resolved
     – Returned to the talk page at Talk:Law of the Palestinian National Authority.

    An editor has inserted himself into editing this article, moving it to Law of the Palestinian National Authority, gaming the system, removing textbook cites and then inserting {{fact}} tags before removing them, cutting out whole sections that are essential to the understanding of the topic, without establishing consensus on any of this. The article is clearly still under construction, and the scope of the article should be as wide as possible as the usage in the literature allows. I am an interested sysop, and at an Internet cafe, so I shouldn't and can't take any administrative action. Can an uninterested sysop take a look at the history of this article and the talk page? I was asked to start this article, generously volunteered to do so, and have had to deal with someone who is engaged in a systematic effort to limit the scope of this article, push his/her own POV, and destroy a perfectly good article under construction. Can someone else please take a look and intervene? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I admit that I have to get the citation for the information of Albert Einstein's proposal for a Palestinian privy council. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The user in question has a history of POV-pushing; see User:6SJ7/Arb. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For further evidence of his obsession, see User:6SJ7/My Work in Progress. I have no ax to grind. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My main response is below, but I think these last two brief comments are particularly out of line. Because I have been involved in a few disputes (though never blocked or otherwise sanctioned, by the way) and have chosen to have sort of an index to some of them in my user space, that is an "obsession"? I am interested in having accurate, balanced articles that don't become POV forks of other articles. That is all I am doing here. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Bearian has seriously jumped the gun by bringing this to AN/I, not to mention making personal attacks on me and assuming bad faith. I do indeed having serious issues with the article in question, including the scope of the article, including issues of a potential POV fork, and I raised these issues on the talk page. Many of my questions have not been answered. I also question how long an "under construction" template can legitimately be used to ward off major edits to an article; this particular article is three weeks old. (And just as a factual matter, I don't think I ever added any "fact" tags to the article.)
    If this is really an "edit war", it is probably the slowest-motion edit war in history. I would welcome any truly neutral administrator looking at the entire edit history of the article and the entire talk page (neither of which are very long; I have made exactly four edits to the article, in addition to moving it, once), taking particular note of the timing of the various edits by me and Bearian. I really don't think I have done anything wrong here. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, admittedly, this must be "the slowest-motion edit war" in the history of English Wikipedia. Thanks for the levity. I do not argue with major edits: the "Under construction" tag specifically welcomes help constructing the article - but not cutting out whole sections. The sources for this topic are not easy to find; it's a very narrow academic discipline, yet potentially involves a large scope. I've been working on it during finals and vacation, and the third editor working on it is also very busy. I'd like to take a breather and add more before any other moves or cutting out of substantive content. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize now that a Bot made the "fact" tags; for that I apologize. What I'd like to do is to call a truce, make any major suggestions on the talk page, and wait for a day or two before making more changes. I suspect this construction may take another week. We may also consider taking the "move issue" to WP:PM. But I would still like a neutral set of eyes. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, obviously I have no problem with taking this back to the article's talk page, which is where I tried to address the issues in the first place. I would like to see your answers to the questions I posted several days ago, as well as the comments I have made today. I do think there are some edits that should be made fairly quickly, but I will address those on the article's talk page, probably tomorrow. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at the article, its history, and the talkpage, and I'm not seeing major issues here. I agree (and disagree) with both parties on different aspects, but mainly, I think that both are jumping the gun in different ways:
    • 6SJ7 skipped some steps, and should not have moved the article without discussion, especially since he had not been previously involved with it. Better would have been to suggest the move at the talkpage, and/or file a request at WP:RM. So, the article should be moved back to its prior title.
    • Bearian skipped some steps, too. ANI is not the first recourse for these kinds of disputes. ANI should only be used when other simpler methods have failed, such as, you know, talking. I saw one message from Bearian to 6SJ7's talkpage, complaining about the move on August 11,[14] and then the next comment was notification of this ANI thread.
    • I'm also not thrilled with the way that Bearian is bouncing around accounts, editing and posting as both Bearian (talk · contribs) and Bearian'sBooties (talk · contribs), which tends to just confuse things. Bearian, please just pick one account per article? You can use multiple accounts if you want, but don't cross the streams.
    • Lastly, Bearian should not ask 6SJ7 to "stay off" the article. Once something is in article-space, it's fair game for editing. If Bearian wants some private time to work on the article, move it into userspace, where you can work on it in peace. Then once you've got it the way you want it, it can be moved back into mainspace.
    Bottom line, move the article back to its original title, or to userspace, close this ANI thread, and then continue from there. Sound good? --Elonka 16:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good enough for me. As for my move of the page, I have seen a number of cases where a page was moved unilaterally, especially with a fairly new article (like this one) and it was my observation that the real problem was not with the initial move, but more with the move being followed by a move back to the original name, followed by another move, and so on. I only moved the page once, and it was my intention that if it were moved back to the original title, I was not going to move it back. That remains my intention; if it is moved now, I will probably initiate a "move process", though probably not immediately. There remains a big issue (now joined on the article's talk page by at least one other editor in addition to me) about the proper scope of the article. I have explained on the talk page why I made the move, but at this point... I get the point. As for where the article should go now, I think that of the two options suggested by Elonka, userfication (?) is the better one in this situation. With an article in a controversial area, with a serious issue regarding its scope, and (incidentally) with the article-creator traveling and having only intermittent Internet access, I think that leaving the article in "live" space is asking for trouble. (For proof, see this thread and the talk page; when I made suggestions on the talk page and there was no response for three days, I went ahead and made the changes.) When this issue first started to develop, I considered suggesting userfication, but I figured the response would be, "No, that's what the "Under construction" template is for." But now, with Elonka having made the suggestion, I will now second it. Under these circumstances, an extended "Under construction" period for an article in "live" space is not a good idea. I will also make this point on the article's talk page, and I agree that any further discussion should take place there. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K. for me. I'll agree to close this discussion thread, go back to the article, with its talk page to discuss further changes. However, my strong suggestion is to move the article back to its simpler name, whatever the scope and content. See you all back at the talk page. Thanks Elonka for the constructive criticism. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of generic and genericized trademarks

    This user (and admin) deletes entries because they don't have references. As a first step, he should put a fact tag to give time to the writer to find references. Some articles, such as List of generic and genericized trademarks, he deleted all the text written by user ComputerGeezer without tags. Read this discussion for more details.ŦħęGɛя㎥ 01:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Which user are you complaining about and what exactly do you want done about it?--Atlan (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AlistairMcMillan was clearly wrong by removing ComputerGeezer's work and did not show good example, as an admin should do. What I really ask is that AlistairMcMillan revert the article and gives excuses to ComputerGeezer, or resigns his adminship. --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 02:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AlistairMcMillan is correct, the list requires sources. It's not the job of the reader to check each article to see if they are sourced. The sources must be in the list. For an example of how it it should look see List of ministers of the Universal Life Church. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unreferenced entries have been a problem in that article for ever. I used to prune it regularly of things that were just trademarks with absolutely no source to say they had become genericised. Regular pruning is essential on that article, and sourcing is of course not optional on any Wikipedia article. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but before ComputerGeezer even got involved in the article, I had previously gone through and pruned everything that didn't have sources. Guy is right, this article has been a problem for a long time, and a number of people have gone in periodically to prune out unreferenced entries. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In general it's only courtesy to give well-intentioned newbies fair warning and kind guidance before deleting their unsourced additions, to review the contributions and add sources where necessary rather than reverting, etc. However, unruly list articles are a bit of a special case - you have to put your foot down or else they can get very messy. It's common for article editors to decide on inclusion criteria, such as that every item on the list must be notable in its own right and a reliable source cited (which isn't a policy requirement otherwise) that shows the item meets the list criteria. You can add a Template:dynamic list and some comments in the article text about list inclusion criteria. Or you can do what I just did - I just added a hidden comment (SORRY ABOUT THE UPPERCASE SHOUTING) asking people to source any addition.[15] Hopefully that will keep people from adding inappropriate material, or at least help them understand that it's not unfair if their unsourced additions are deleted. Wikidemo (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuously changing spelling variation

    The Wikipedia user, "Samuel_Webster", has decided to change the spelling of the word "centre" to "center", without taking into consideration that the spelling "centre" is preferred in the articles that this person has edited.

    He/she does not care about the spelling variations used in the articles, regarding the Olympics, and has also been told by other users not to change the spelling to the American variation. Here are more reasons of why it should be kept in British spelling.

    This user has been notified against his/her actions already. However, he/she continues to change the spelling in more pages, quote, "virtually all names spelled with "Centre" are incorrect". Now the spelling of all "centre" has been changed to "center" that has anything to do with the Olympics.

    This person has made the changes repeatedly to many pages that can be seen on his contribution page.

    The attitude shown by the user is even made clearer reflected by the sarcasm on the personal page. He/she further threatens other users, if the spelling gets reverted back to "center", the account of that user will be banned, and blames other users for modifying the changes others make for "vandalism". Bleedingshoes (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving this from Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism to a more suitable venue. I'd discourage a move war in either direction without some more attempt at discussion. Looks like Samuel is claiming these are proper names for the buildings in question; has anyone attempted to address that claim? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User, regardless of their merits in editing, has a very troubling and spiky attitude to people who disagree with him. --mboverload@ 02:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubling diff: Rv spelling vandalism by Bleedingshoes. --mboverload@ 02:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    THIS COMMENT COPIED FROM Template talk:2008 Summer Olympics venues

    "Don't feed the trolls," as they say. Sorry if I'm violating that dictum. However, I'm not violating WP policy by using correct spellings. The spellings are PROPER NAMES, and virtually all of these spellings use "Center." You need to prove 1) that IOC always uses UK English (they didn't when they were in Atlanta); 2) that this has relevance for WP spellings (I don't see that it does), and, far more importantly, 3) that this means you can use a different spelling for PROPER NAMES. If my last name is "Gray," and there's a page about me, are you going to change it to "Grey"? I'm trying to assume good faith, but you seem like a trouble-maker. Note, trouble-makers eventually get banned from WP. --Samuel Webster (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

    THIS COMMENT COPIED FROM Template talk:2008 Summer Olympics venues --mboverload@ 02:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From nbcolympics.com, search using "center", and search using "centre". Center looks like the correct spelling. LegoKontribsTalkM 02:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the official website for the Beijing Olympics uses the "center" spelling. - auburnpilot talk 03:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Folks, it's highly likely that the website for the olymics is properly localized and translated such that folks in centre locales see "centre" and folks in center locales see "center". The world is flat. Toddst1 (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    (ec x 2) I came across this at WP:AIV a few hours ago and investigated a bit. It seems Samuel Webster has a extensive history of battling over American vs. British English. I reverted him once on {{2008 Summer Olympics venues}} because WP:ENGVAR states the variation of English should be left as the original author wrote it, in this case, 'centre'. These page moves and changes seem to be Samuel Webster's latest battlefield, and he's the one who keeps firing the first shots. The Olympics templates and articles are highly visible at present and this centre vs. center stuff is silly.
    Plus, for what it's worth, the beijing2008.cn site seems to use American English throughout, which leads me to think it was translated by an American. I'm not sure if it has an 'official' English spelling. Or I could be wrong. KrakatoaKatie 03:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi KrakatoaKatie! I was pissed off at orthographic anti-Americans for a while, to be sure! (I'm not American, but I'm a student of Noah Webster, and of Samuel Johnson!) But not once did I violate WP policy (well, there might have been a couple accidents). I spent a lot of time correcting the efforts of British teenagers who seemed to be spending their afternoons violating WP:ENGVAR. Nothing wrong with that. Indeed, people who enforce WP policy should be thanked.
    What's relevant here isn't my past behavior, however, it's WP policy. These are PROPER NAMES. They are all (with one exception: Qingdao International Sailing Centre) spelled with the International/American spelling "Center". End of story! I can't believe this is even being discussed. (The Web pages aren't localized, by the way: Use a UK proxy; still comes up Center.) Samuel Webster (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I find it bizarre that you think I'm firing the first shot. I'm trying to improve WP by correcting errors. I guess that's a "shot", in some sense, and, perhaps, first fired. Seems a stretch, however. Samuel Webster (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you reading this from the US? If so, you may be reading a localized version that differs from the british version. Toddst1 (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence that the website alternates spellings depending on your location. Even so, I used a British proxy to find the Olympic site through Google.co.uk and there wasn't a bit of difference. - auburnpilot talk 04:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see WP:ENGVAR for guidance on when to use U.S. versus British spelling. Does the article have a strong national tie to one country or the other? If not, then who got there first to establish a national preference is the deciding factor. See Maize and Press up . For something really amusing, see Talk:Color/Archive 2#Page move (not done) for a historical and linguistic analysis of "color" versus "colour," rife with ad hominen attacks on "upstarts from a nation less than 300 years old" and "small island nation" inhabitants. The Spanish Wiki had an equally inane argument over whether "papas" or "patatas" was the correct word for "potatoes," pitting country against country. Edison (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How does the MoS apply at all here? It is the name of a building, clearly there is an official name for it. BJTalk 04:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bjweeks: stop being intelligent! Not allowed! :) Samuel Webster (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:ENGVAR: "Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling and grammar. For example, center and centre are not to be used in the same article. The exceptions are: ... titles (the original spelling is used, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force)."
    I take that to mean, if the official title (name) of the building includes "Center", then the article should use "Center" in the name of the building, regardless of which English variation is otherwise used in the article. See Capital Centre for an example of this, where a US venue used the British spelling in its name. The article, written in US English about a US venue, nonetheless uses the proper official name of the venue, which happens to include "Centre" in the British spelling. --Clubjuggle T/C 09:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempted Summary. We have two issues: 1) the spelling of proper names; 2) the spelling of the text in these articles about the 2008 Summer Olympics. Any reasonable person should regard the first issue as a no-brainer: the spellings I've changed to the "Center" spelling are correct as they are, with the "Center" spelling. (Use a non-US proxy to look at the official sites to verify.)

    The second issue is more complicated. WP:ENG cites a tie to a place, institution, etc. IOC is internationl, not UK-based. Yet their preferred spelling is UK-spelling. But these Web pages are not, of course, about the IOC. They're about the 2008 Summmer Olympics, which are not taking place in the UK, they are taking place in China. When the Olympics are taking place in the U.S. (or Japan, Mexico, Israel, etc.), the official Web sites would very likely be nearly exclusively in some variant of American English. WP pages about the games would be in some variant of American English. In 2008, the Summer Olympics are in China. The official Web sites use International/American English. This is not surprising, since this is the variant preferred by most Chinese (they have their own English: logical puntuation, as in Europe, with American spelling: "International American"). Since WP prefers logical punctuation, and since the 2008 Summer Olympics are taking place in China, whose citizens (increasingly, even in Hong Kong) prefer American spelling, I think there's a strong case for using International/American English (American spelling and logical puntuation) in these articles. It also just seems unprofessional to have the title be in one dialect, and the article body be in another, esp. since there's no strong case for it (as there is with the Australian Labor Party, for ex.). Samuel Webster (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting to note, of course, that I'm in Canada, and http://en.beijing2008.cn/venues/ does indeed use American spelling for "Center". When I switch to French http://fr.beijing2008.cn/venues/ the word "Center" changes to "Centre". This says that these are not actually proper names for venues as they would never change. As well, their proper name would be in Chinese, and likely does not actually contain the word "Centre". The versions on other language pages would be localized transliterations, not translations. BMW(drive) 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the proper name for the current venue is the Chinese one - the problem here is which translation is appropriate. I suggest that, as in other cases where a variant of English is not the local language, that it is the choice of the first (major) editor of the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tisk tisk tisk. Samuel Webster, if you would like to say it's a proper noun and that it's a name of the place, let's get official here. The officially official name for any venues containing the word "center/re" in Chinese is "中心 or 館“. Like Bwilkins said, the name is translated from Chinese, so that is why it appears to be "centre" in French. Interestingly enough, earlier mentioned, the site is being translated by American English-speaking people. So they did not get the translators to put it into UK English, the standards set by the International Olympic Committee. You can therefore not use this standard as the "golden rule" for the spelling on WP articles.

    And, didn't you say, "there's nothing called International English" in the Water Cube article edit? So why are you saying that it's "International/American English" now?

    Lastly, just to let you know, Hong Kong still uses British English for the majority as the Brits only left in 1997. Further more, the University of Hong Kong is a prime example of UK English usage. Check their site. Please don't assume things. And, speak to a Hongkonger. When they say "can't" they'll say it the British way.

    Bleedingshoes (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • After a lot of contemplation, I have to say this: If indeed, beijing2002.cn is the official site of the Olympic organizers, then that makes en.beijing.cn the official English version for the organizers. As sad as it is (and so contrary to logic) I would have to say that en.beijing2008.cn is canonical for the naming/translation standard into English. Of course, if they suddenly hire a bunch of local translaters, it will change quickly ;) Remember, the largest English TV market is probably the US. BMW(drive) 12:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Per my comment on Talk:Beijing National Aquatics Center and Bwilkins' comment just previous, I'm 90% convinced that the IOC's preference is not canonical for this building. The building doesn't belong to the IOC, any more than the 1996 Atlanta venues do. There may be arguments why the Web site is also not canonical (e.g., produced for a US audience, produced by a US vendor out of spec for the BOCOG). But in absence of any clear evidence that BOCOG or the owner of the building (the PRC government?) feels differently, the Web site is pretty strong prima facie evidence that Center is the official spelling used for these games. - PhilipR (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    BMW(drive): Why are you sad? And what is the logic that is contradicted here? Sorry if I'm missing something. And why would anything change if the translators were local? The Chinese generally prefer American English (though not as strongly as Japanese and Koreans). Actually, how do you even know the translators aren't local?
    Bleedingshoes: No, it has TWO (at least) proper names. You seem to think the Chinese are too incompetent to give something a proper name in a language other than their native language. A peculiar view. Linnaeus had two proper names. One was Linné, used in Sweden, the other, Linnaeus, was used in an international context. The Chinese chose names with "Center" as international names.
    Astonishing so much time has been spent on this.
    Ok? Are we done now? Samuel Webster (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User With Personal Attacks And Plenty of Socks

    Not sure what to do about this one, so I'm bringing it here for admins. Zombified24 is a new editor, but his first edit was to his userpage where he admitted to being several other users, including Harlot666, Wikihatingjew, Zombified22, and Haroldandkumar12. He also made some pretty agressive statements there about wikipedia and other editors [16]. In this incarnation, he's been warned several times about personal attacks, as seen here. [17] [18] [19] [20] He's been warned in all of his previous incarnations, and blocked in at least two of them.

    In this edit, [21] Zombified24 not only says he has plenty of accounts, but also makes a remark that could be anti-Semetic.

    I'm not sure how alternate accounts and blocks relate to sockpuppets, so I'm bringing it here. Dayewalker (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Not only has he done nothing of value to help build the encyclopedia, all he does is insult other people, brag about his sockpuppets, and make racist comments. Antandrus (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User has admitted to being a sockpuppet of Specialwolf (talk · contribs) [22]. Also, not all the accounts are indef blocked. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser  Confirmed and blocked. I also blocked Metallicafan1bryan (talk · contribs) but on further analysis, I believe he is a friend who made an edit from Zombified24's computer but normally edits from his own computer on a different network. Still, his contributions are mostly in the same vein. A second opinion on his block would be good to have. Thatcher 13:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help

    OK, don't help. I wasn't asking to block Veggy but just to have an admin tell him that the user requests you not contact her so please don't.Presumptive (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help stop User:VegitaU from harassing me. I have put a message on Veggy's user talk page asking to stop and avoiding any contact with me.

    An administrator can help stop the situation by writing on that user's user talk page to please not contact me and leave me alone. I will do the same. In fact, I will not edit at all for a while so that user can have free reign to edit any article. Presumptive (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you give us some examples? RxS (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume this is related to the discussion at Presumptive talk page (one needs to look at the history log since some entries have been erased from the talk page itsel) regarding an apparent attempt by Presumptive to ask another user for access to that other user's account. I see that Presumptive did the following edit at User:VegitaU's talk page [23], which reads in part "If you want to accuse others, tell Wikipedia about the burglary that you did earlier this year. Presumptive". This one certainly is a personal attack. Nsk92 (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did no such thing. Wikipedia prohibits unauthorized leaks of private e-mail. Just look at an ArbCom ruling. What I did do was write to someone trying to give them ideas on how to edit more. This is completely different. Presumptive (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding "leaks of private e-mail", what is prohibited is actual unauthorized release by others of personal identifying information about a particular user (such as their e-mail address, name, IP address, actual physical address or any other personal information that is not otherwise publicly available). By looking at the posts of User:Celestianpower[24] and User:AniMate[25], I don't see any personal information about you being released there. If the text of the e-mail provided by User:AniMate is correct (which it appears to be based on the earlier post of User:Celestianpower), then your e-mail request to User:Celestianpower was clearly inappropriate and User:Celestianpower told you so. It is inappropriate to ask another user to give you access to their account, especially if that other user is an admin. You should just admit that you made a mistake and move on. Regarding posts by User:VegitaU to your talk page, it is your talk page and you are perfectly within your rights to erase any posts the others make there. But this is a talk page on a Wikipedia account and you can't really ban other users of making posts there on Wikipedia-related matters (which is the stated reason for having a talk page in the first place). I think the last post by User:VegitaU to your talk page[26] was a bit off-color, but it certainly did not represent harassment since you were refusing to address legitimate concerns regarding your e-mail to User:Celestianpower. On the other hand, your post accusing User:VegitaU of burglary was definitely inappropriate and in direct violation of WP:NPA. Nsk92 (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this is pretty unnerving. This guy's accusing me of committing an act of burglary—all for asking for clarification as to what he was doing asking another user to use his account. An admin, by the looks of it. Just a question, and I get some wild accusation thrown back in my face. Can someone give me some input here? -- Veggy (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You could file a WP:WQA report. Nsk92 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, screw it. Let's just call this resolved. If Presumptive acts up again, we'll have this as history to fall back on. -- Veggy (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, whatever you did I suspect you'll find yourself in the thick of it if you keep accusing people of burglary. RxS (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually (and this is just as a random point) recent rulings have been quite clear that publishing emails is not allowed, this happened in the Durova debacle Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Removal_of_private_correspondence and also User:Peter Damian was blocked at one point I think for publishing correspondence, at least that was part of it and th correspondence he published was removed. In the Durova debacle I don't think any personal identity details were revealed, but it was still not allowed. Copyright, I believe, was used as a reason. Not that I personally object to this being published, I can see why it might need to be, I was just saying. As to asking to use someone's account, that obviously is a bit eccentric, but just asking is not against any rules, is it? Clearly Prezzie was unaware this was against the rules, or she wouldn't have asked an admin if she could do it. Sticky Parkin 16:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC) WP:PRIVATE and associated rulings may not have passed but you know what I mean- if it belonged to someone 'influential' and they didn't want it up, it would quickly go.:) Sticky Parkin 17:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Antilived (moved from AIV)

    The user has been adding in material from a clearly propagandistic video made by the CCP - aired in China as well as in hong kong based 'pheonix television' to the page Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China. The Falun Gong related pages have come under a lot of vandalism - where propaganda and dis-information from the CCP has been viciously pushed into the talk pages and from there on to the articles.

    In this particular case, despite being told repeatedly that the contents fail to satisfy WP:RS or WP:N , the user insists on pushing material from the chinese government scripted video into the article.

    The contents of the program are clearly propagandistic and further, they violate WP:Reliable_Sources and WP:NPOV, . I most humbly request the Administrators to kindly look into the matter and take appropriate action.

    I would also like to point out that the pages have been subject to a lot of vandalism, removal of sourced content and propaganda pushing form CCP 'sources'. Till a few weeks back a user "bobby fletcher" had been vandalising it - The Western Standard published an article noting that the very user, who had admitted on wikipedia that his real name is "charles liu", is most likely a person hired by the CCP with possible ties to high-level CCP officials. The same user had been spreading mis-information on talk pages related to Falun Gong and other issues pertinent to CCP's Human Rights Violations. With the olympics going on and the increased media attention to CCP's crimes, I believe it is no coincidence, that such things are being pushed on these pages pertinent to CCP's Human Rights violation issues.

    Kindly See:

    • "Sowing Confusion." This Western Standard article is about a user, who has been pushing CCP propaganda on wikipedia, especially Falun Gong related pages, and calls himself "bobby fletcher". The last paragraph of the article is particularly interesting.

    Regarding the nature of communist party propaganda: Kindly look into to RSF's 2005 report "Xinhua: The World’s Biggest Propaganda Agency" for an analysis on the extent to which the Chinese Communist Party is engaged in disinformation. David Kilgour and Matas point out that "what they[the CCP] are engaged in is propaganda and disinformation, rather than real debate." Amnesty and HRW have also reported in detail on CCP's media propaganda.

    In this particular case I bring to your attention,material from a Chinese propaganda video is being added repeatedly to the article by User:Antilived to the article- despite, repeated requests and warnings to refrain from doing so. Kindly see the edit [27].

    Kindly look into the issue.

    Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving this from WP:AIV to allow for more discussion. Feel free to continue here. Addendum: looks like there's some lengthy discussion at User talk:Antilived#So called "Pheonix TV" stuff completely fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and User talk:Dilip rajeev#August 2008, and possibly elsewhere. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to also add links to Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#Phoenix Television, a previous (but not so long ago) discussion I had with another long-term editor on these articles, User:Asdfg12345. We have came to a consensus that although in its current place, it's too prominent and repeats some points in the article the source does have its merits and deserve its inclusion (and eventually summarised by Asdfg12345 when he/she has the time to). User:Dilip rajeev seems to have completely ignored this discussion and instead continuously reposting the same things that he had prepared (the "Sowing confusion" link and related content had been posted on his talk page, the article's talk page and now here by him, completely oblivious of the points I had questioned on the article's talk page). Also please note that User:Dilip rajeev has twice tried to remove a good faith edit on the talk page by an IP ([28] and [29], ) giving notice on this potential new source simply on the basis of it being hosted on a Chinese operated website. --antilivedT | C | G 06:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the user Asdfg should be allowed to express his opinion. He had raised the very same concerns as I did on the source
    "Some thoughts. 1: it's a CCP propaganda website, that disqualifies anything from it already. 2: it's about Sujiatun, which isn't the central focus of this subject, and which is already covered in the article to a sufficient degree already" - Asdfg
    "I don't think it's worth getting into a fritz cause an anonymous ip posts a ccp video here. It's not going to go in the article, so who cares?" - Asdfg
    I had repeatedly pointed out that the source used itself is completely biased and unworthy of inclusion in the article - kindly read the user's response to my comments on the talk page. One the surface this may seem like just commntary added from a video, - but the video itself is a pure propaganda piece from the CCP - and that is why I felt the edit was a serious violation of wikipedia policies. The article and related article are on probation by the Arbitration Committe - and addition of such content, despite repeated requests to refrain I feel is clearly disruptive.
    Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I request you to kindly investigate the issue in depth.. please allow me to point out that the matter is not as simple as a commentary from a video being added to the article - where the video is sourced from, it being well documented that the very source is engaged in a massive dis-information propaganda campaign; despite repeatedly being pointed out that the source itself is not something that is even remotely worthy of inclusion to the article when judged as per wikipedia standards, the user's insistence that the commentary be added to the article, which I believe is on probation by the Arbitration Committee - that, is, in specific, what I considered was worthy of intervention from Administrators.
    Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Maybe you should quote from the end of the discussion when we had came to consensus? "The stuff not about Sujiatun, in response to Kilgour and Matas, which isn't already raised (such as, I think you are indicating, an interview with a surgeon) I think should go in the "Mixed response" section for the K/M report.", "There are other Sujiatun specific refutations in the source you provided, I think the key ones of which should be summarised alongside this refutation.". Also, I thought you were Indian? The video is in Chinese, so how can you tell if it's propaganda or not? --antilivedT | C | G 06:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That the source is engaged in propaganda is not my perspective, Amnesty, Kilgour-Matas, RSF, Ian Johnson, Danny Schechter, HRW have all reported in detail on it. Adsfg, if you go through his comments has throughout serious concerns on the source of the so called documentary - I believe you should let him speak for himself - than put certain comments of his out of context. The source itself, I believe the user had clearly stated, and any investigation would show, is completely propagandistic in nature and completely fails WP:RS
    Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any reports of propaganda THIS source? Any accusations? Yes it is your perspective, because you are wildly applying a blanket accusation (that CCP does propaganda) to ALL sources, effectively removing any source from the Chinese side from anything. Tell me, how is it propaganda, who calls this source propaganda, and what the heck are we doing on here since this has nothing to do with Admins that frequent here. --antilivedT | C | G 11:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the big fuss about this was necessary. The information has been summarised and put into the relevant sections in the article, with the nature of the source identified.--Asdfg12345 07:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that now you yourself have removed the content from the article, pointing out it is in violation of WP:RS. Since it is an article under probation and addition of such material is clearly disruptive in nature - and because the user repeatedly insisted on adding it to the article, I felt it was appropriate to bring the issue to the attention of Admins.
    Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes. Disruptive? I have been actively communicating with other editors, has added verifiable source (after all, the transcript was for verifiability) and I would hardly call 1 day "an extended period of time" (unlike you who had gone 3 days doing massive edits, ignore 2 warnings from me and ignore the consensus against the massive changes on the article). We actually had a consensus before you came and threw a huge tantrum just on the basis that the source is hosted on a Chinese website. I don't see there's any good being done by having a huge argument on here. This whole thing had been a huge waste of time. --antilivedT | C | G 11:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dilip rajeev is clearly a single purpose account bent on pushing Falun Gong propaganda and has absolutely no respect of wikipedia guidelines whatsoever. According to him, anyone who dares to insert anything critical of FLG's views is "vandalism", and posted attacks sites designs to make personal attacks and harassment against bobby fletcher. He has been blocked 4 times already for disruptive editing [30], has tried to get another user banned by making false allegations on checkuser [31], falsely accused me of engaging in vandalism over content disputes [32], amongst others, and his edits caused an article to be delisted from good article status [33].

    In counter to dilip's accusations:

    • Phoenix TV is a HK-based news source owned by the News Corporation that has little to do with the CCP
    • The Western Standard opinion column is by Kevin Steel, a right-wing blogger who ran into several confrontations with Charles Liu on the WS's blogs
    • The RSF claims are simply rhetorics, and the fact that the group is funded by the NED deserves further scrutiny.--PCPP (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me state my issue with Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China

    • The article is based on a claim made by the Epoch Times, a FLG funded newspaper known for its past stunts such as "sue Jiang Zemin for genocide" and "resign from the CCP"
    • Subsquent investigations of the "organ harvesting" claims by the US Department of State and Chinese dissident Harry Wu, hardly associates of the PRC government, found no credibility of the claims. Their sources were given a sentence each.
    • Kilgour and Matas, two Canadian politicians sponsored by Falun Gong, who never set foot in China and conducted investigations based only on circumstantial claims, were given an undue weight and has almost the entire article dedicated to them.
    • An entire box was dedicated to a supposed phonecall by Kilgour and Matas, when the claims isn't even the central part of their investigation.
    • The response by the Chinese government, which should be at the the top of the article, was shafted to the bottom, then added with responses by Kilgour and Matas in a way to dismiss them, as well as unrelated material from Amnesty which is about death row prisoners which China has admitted to.
    • An opinion column by the Christian Science Monitor, which slightly sided with the KM claims, was given A GIANT F***ING QUOTEBOX. THE SAME F***ING QUOTEBOX was given to opinions by Kilgour and Matas, to pretend their opinions as fact!


    What is this for? The article misleds the reader into thinking the the Chinese government actually harvests organs from FLG practitioners for a fact, when in fact it was never proven.

    These people wanted to remove the Phoenix TV claims because it does not fit in their anti-PRC agenda, yet has no problem adding the source from SKY NEWS (which ironically is owned by News corporation, the same owners of Phoenix TV) which is about executed death row prisoners.--PCPP (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Antilived, PCPP, & Dilip rajeev have all been blocked for edit warring. Tiptoety talk 16:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RL wikistalking issues

    Julie Dancer (talk · contribs), who has now been indef blocked, along with some puppets - and may actually be Pce3@ij.net (talk · contribs) - has apparently now taken a Real Life step to impact - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs based on Jamesontai's participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimal classification.


    Any advice and resources? Banjeboi 08:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: I filed a request on ArbCom as per advice from blocking admin. - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 09:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have misinterpreted my advice. I suggested you have the email forwarded to arbcom. There are no remedies available against an already indef blocked user, so the request for arbitration is most likely to be rejected. Kevin (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've retracted the request on ArbCom. I'll try to solve this myself. - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 10:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would contact the Foundation directly. That may not help, but it's worth a shot. IronDuke 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Curitiba hacked

    Resolved

    The Curitiba article appears hacked in some way. --Allstar86 (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you be more specific - in what way does it appear so to you? Banjeboi 09:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Like this --Allstar86 (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like a regular article now, so if you or anyone else fixed it, much thanks! --Allstar86 (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be the zodiac template vandal... I'm not sure which template he used- I checked the main ones and their page histories are clean. L'Aquatique[talk] 09:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Likely a template or image hack, whatever it was has been reverted. Banjeboi 09:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even i saw this. In four articles yesterday. How do we revert such things?. History tab can not be seen.--SkyWalker (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless some new method has been tapped it would seem the hacker corrupted a template on the affected articles so only the template page itself should show any modification. Perhaps compare the four articles to see if the shared template presented itself. Banjeboi 00:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look. Skywalker, what were the pages you saw it on? L'Aquatique[talk] 00:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a section to the Wikipedai Vandalism page about correcting template vandalism. there are tricks you can use to get at the page history, but ultimately you have to track down which template got vandalized and fix it there. unless it's a huge page you're looking at it's usually pretty obvious (few pages have more than a handful of templates). --Ludwigs2 00:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in this case it was probably Template:Climate chart -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the vandalism diff: [34]. It's been resolved, and that open proxy has been blocked for three years. I am going to delete the screen shot as it is not intended to be part of the encyclopedia, per WP:DENY and WP:BEANS. Jehochman Talk 00:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Barefoot guy

    Is BrvHeart (talk · contribs) related to these users from a little while back? --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly, or even likely. However, the majority of the edits are reasonable - with just the addition of [[bare feet]] (not the most salacious - fantastic word, not used nearly often enough - site on the 'pedia) being of any concern. Should this user be blocked, or just have that element of their edits reverted, or should nothing be done? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost certainly the same guy. I'd say revert his edits on sight, and block (since the sockpuppets were blocked earlier). I've done so. Nandesuka (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, nice one. He was being phenomenally disruptive and clearly had no intention of contributing constructively. Alun (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, he's back. I asked Alison to run a checkuser on the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I already did. No other accounts apparent. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stears81

    Stears81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now spamming a few articles with an image (image:tihanyi_1926_tv.png) they have uploaded which is up for deletion and adding poorly written information. I've hit my 3rd revert (I will not revert whether if I can continue under a policy). They have not responded to the warning messages on the talk page and feel they may need some help from someone with the know how. Bidgee (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a Block evasion of 89.223.128.52, 89.223.128.29, 89.223.192.162 and 89.223.193.76 (Address currently unblocked) Bidgee (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor has now moved on to 89.223.192.121. Clearly breaching WP:BIO on the Vladimir K. Zworykin‎ article ATM. Bidgee (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched IP's again 89.223.129.171. I wished everyone had a static IP! Bidgee (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've semi-protected Vladimir K. Zworykin for a week. At the moment Stears81 (talk · contribs) is blocked for 31 hours, which seems a bit short considering all this disruption. I'll extend the block to a week, if nobody objects. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's me; I gave my usual 'new user, could be good faith' block, but didn't review all of the ip contribs, and have no objection to a longer block from those who have looked into it more deeply. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. There has been a lengthy debate regarding the above page between an unknown IP and myself. Most of the arguing was centered on the little country tab, the use for which is defined as: if the unit is part of the armed forces of a sovereign state, the name of that state. The IP claims that the formation wasn’t subordinate to the Germans, while I insisted that it was. So, after much discussion it came down to the sources. I initially provide one, Віталій Масловський, З ким і проти кого воювали українські націоналісти в роки Другої світової війни (With whom and against whom did the Ukrainian nationalists fight in the years of the Second World War). — Moscow, 1999, p. 186 (in Ukrainian). The direct quote is:

    В березні 1945 року українські націоналісти і гітлерівці дійшли остаточної згоди про те, що під керівництвом вермахту і в його складі буде створена УНА під керівництвом генерала П. Шандрука. УНА повинна була сформуватись із різних "українських" підрозділів, які перебували в складі вермахту, військ СС та поліції.

    Translation:

    In March 1945, Ukrainian Nationalist and Germans came to the conclusion that, under the command of the Wehrmacht and within its structure UNA will be created; its commander would be general P. Shandruk. The UNA was to be formed from different “Ukrainian” formations, which where in the structure of the Wehrmacht, the SS, and the police.

    Later, the IP himself strangely pasted a link to a page written by Bulba Borovets ([35]). When unlike him, I read it, I pointed out this quote:

    Комітет проголосив свою програму та організацію нової української армії при німецьких збройних силах.

    Translation:

    The committee announced its program and the organization of a new Ukrainian army under the German Armed Forces.

    Seeing his error, the IP quickly resented this quote ([36]), and when I asked him to translate it for me ([37]), he left me comical notes like “translation will cost 1 euro the word. 20 words minimum” ([38]), and “please avoid using Ukrainian sources and learn Ukrainian” ([39]).

    In return, the IP provided his own two sources. The first, Melnyk, Michal James (2002). To Battle, The History and Formation of the 14th Waffen SS Grenadier Division, second updated edition 2007, Helion and Co, p268 is citing to was is apparently an oath, and does not talk about whether this formation was subordinate to the Wehrmacht. His second source, Abbott Peter, Pinak Eugene, (2004). Ukrainian Armies 1914 - 1955, p 41 is citing to a random page ([40]) and again, does not explain whether this formation was subordinate to the Wehrmacht, or not. When I pointed out that these sources are irrelevant, the IP stopped using the talk page.([41]) So I edited the article ([42]), only to be reverted with erroneous edit summaries (not talk page discussion) like “Give valid reason, not your opinion” ([43]) and “misue of sources and using a not objectiv source : all this documented on talk page”.([44])

    I do not want to break the 3RR, so what should be should be done? --Bogdan що? 15:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As this is a content dispute, I feel you should find a way of resolving it accordingly. I would suggest that there is very likely to be a Project which relates to the WWII Eastern war, so it may be a good idea to ask for a review of the sources from members of that project for their opinions and try to get a consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The dispute has been resolved, now the IP is just being disruptive (nothing on the talk page, only reverts). And I can't give him a warning, as his IP keeps changing. --Bogdan що? 07:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another user ([45]) has Intervened yet the IP continues to revert ([46][47][48]). Can the page be semi-protected for a week or so to force him to the talk page? --Bogdan що? 09:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Difficult situation

    A few months ago, it was found out that Steelerfan-94 was using sockpuppet accounts HornetFather19 (talk · contribs) and HornetUncle (talk · contribs) to iminate banned user Hornetman16, see here and here. Steelerfan-94 made his last edit here after Alison requested that he e-mailed her, but Steelerfan-94 said that "it never sends me that message or what ever". That was his last edit, and his account has since been inactive since the end of May, see his contributions. However, for the past few days, I have seen an anonymious IP message leave messages on several of his friends talkpage see [49][50][51], with messages asking the users to e-mail him at "zac1194@gmail.com", see [52][53]. I dunno why he is doing this, asking for users to e-mail him, but I just found it a bit strange. Having asked some of the users he has contacted what he wanted, it appears he thinks his account (Steelerfan-94) is indefinitely blocked, despite the fact it isn't blocked. I'm not quite sure why he's hiding behind an IP to leave comments on other people's pages. Any comments would be appreciated. D.M.N. (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You can leave a note at Steelerfan-94's talk page reminding him that he is not blocked and can edit from his account (maybe also leave messages at the IPs' talk pages). The IP contributions you mentioned do not appear to be disruptive, so I don't think that an admin action is required at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user's left a comment on his talkpage using his username after I reverted the IP twice. This can get tagged as resolved. D.M.N. (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted this below, unaware of this section: Back in May, this user created two sockpuppets: User:Hornetchild16 and User:HornetFather19, impersonating the banned User:ChristianMan16. When it was revealed through checkuser, User:Alison confirmed that it was Steelerfan abusing multiple accounts, impersonating the banned user. Recently, he has talked to Alison and claimed that Alison agreed not to block him. I highly disagree with that, as I believe that is a sockpuppeteer abuses multiple accounts once, there is no doubt they might do it again.

    Recently he returned using two different IP's and asked multiple users to e-mail him including User:SRX and User:Wrestlinglover. User:D.M.N. and myself realized the situation and contacted Alison, currently to no response. Steelerfan returned to his account and seems to be bragging that he is not being blocked. I think that per WP:SOCK, and indef block should be given to Steelerfan. -- iMatthew T.C. 18:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not something I have an opinion on but people should note that there was some discussion about this user above in the section "Difficult situation". JoshuaZ (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anybody know of a way to resolve this? -- iMatthew T.C. 17:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
     – Dynamic IP blocked 1 week. —Travistalk 17:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, it may just have been vandalism, but 207.69.139.144 put a legal threat on T. H. Matteson. I've reverted it and left a message on User talk:207.69.139.144 telling them where to go if they have a real dispute. But Wikipedia:No legal threats said to report legal threats here, so here I am. Jonathan Cardy(talk) 16:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's a dynamic IP, it should be blocked for a few days; if it's static IP, I think a block of one year should be sufficient. D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:DOLT, the threat looks like a copyright notice. Perhaps someone should double check the fair use claim for that painting. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is tagged as public domain because the copyright has expired. —Travistalk 18:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what is happening here but another IP made a similar edit on The Scarlet Letter about a similar painting. [54]. The individual named as owning the paintings by our IP is an actual collector [55]. If no one objects I'm going to shoot him an email asking if he is doing this and if so point him to a bit of copyright law. The fact that the other IP has productive contributions at the same time makes me think we may want to find out what is going on JoshuaZ (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't a similar painting it was the same one. After JoshuaZ deleted the copyright notice, he re-added it, so I re-deleted. I think e-mailing would be a good idea, since he's hopping IPs faster than a jackrabbit on a date. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already had an email exchange with him. It didn't go well. Mike Godwin is dealing with it now. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The undisputed truth (talk · contribs) appears to be a disruptive single-purpose account solely for pushing the WP:TRUTH on The Mascara Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sceptre (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Appears to be a content dispute. Moreover, I don't see any sourcing for either the version that user is pushing or the version you are reverting to. Perhaps the section as a whole should be removed? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at this earlier and also thought it was a content dispute, mostly owning to a thorough lack of sources throughout. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the disputed content. Presumably if either one finds a source then that version can go in. In any event, there seems to be no further need of ANI attention. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, the name looks really suspect. Sceptre (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)`[reply]

    User:Hordaland (deleting sourced information)

    Hi,

    This user probably isn't trying to vandalize the article so I decided to ask here for some help. Our meeting started at the sense of time article and since then, he has decided to "check up" on me so it seems. Anyway, I have provided 2 references so that I can add to the Norse colonization of the Americas article, yet he/she decided to indiscriminately remove the info I have put on. In my honest opinion, information such as this or this] should be left. I think he thinks that he should correct my grammar, but if you look here or here I don't think he's very qualified for neither the grammar nor the removal of information; he doesn't even know that the Norse sometimes called their settlements after themselves. Thanks for your time. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mavigogun (stalking)

    Hello,

    Plain and simple: the user keeps stakling me to correct my grammar or "help this troubled youth". Anyway, I'm sick of it so can you at least say something to him so he has a note of it. This is the 4th page hes followed me to: History of the telescope, Optical telescope, Abbas Ibn Firnas, and Norse colonization of the Americas. The latter got me here since he intends to correct my syntax and diction. I have done very well in grammar tests and an Admin agreed (Lifebaka) with me once. Msaybe the Facebook link on my User-page is to much?? Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I went looking for evidence of "stalking", and didn't find anything that could be considered bad faith reverting or a undue regard for your editing history. I did, however, find that the above editor had signed (along with several others) on an RfC in respect of you. I am uncertain that this is a good faith request, and is in relation to that RfC, and under the circumstances am inclined to decline to investigate this further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some background may be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Assistance requested

    Resolved

    Another contributor has persisted in re-adding an inaccurate statement to 2008 Summer Olympics. I have reverted three edits per the related talk page, but now it has happened again; and I do not want to violate WP:3RR. The fourth edit was made with the summary CMBJ, stop with American propaganda; and I don't see any discussion in talk page.   — C M B J   21:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see a content dispute. Please cite reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the meantime, Esimal has been blocked for 4RR. Blueboy96 21:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2 rvs in the last 24 hours, 2 more in the last 36 or so, they're the only edits the editor has made in the past month so it does seem a bit over the edge into straight edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression that the current four sources were acceptable. In any event, talk page consensus can surely resolve any such discrepancy. Thanks for the quick replies.   — C M B J   21:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on how the sources are worded. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    page defaced

    The page B-17_Flying_Fortress has been edited in such a way that it has become unusable, making the whole page black and scrolling impossible. Links have become obscured, the history link can't be clicked, so the history page can only be accessed by typing the link directly into the address bar. However, once there the last edit seems to be a valid one, the edit that defaced the page doesn't show up in the list. Also the message "This is the Zodiac speaking. I laugh at your attempts to stop me. Your feeble minds cannot get my message" and something in Russian have been written at the top of the page. I wouldn't know how to revert this, and this seemed serious enough to post here (didn't post on the vandalism page because you have to report a user there, and I don't know who did it). NathanoNL (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    sorry, saw that it had been fixed while I wrote this message. NathanoNL (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More template vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (almost) 3RR and incivility over adding a blog to an article

    on 00:39, 16 August 2008, http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/02/020402.php was added to the Tucker Max article - a blog. I reverted it because it is not a reliable source. [[56]]. the same user added it back immediately. [[57]] i reverted it again with a more clear explanation as to why blogs aren't reliable sources. the user added it again [[58]]. I reverted it one last time with an even more detailed explanation as to why this is not a reliable source [[59]] then another editor added it back [[60]] with the message "Look this is just retarded, blog critics is an invite only program and the source backs up something YOU had a problem with. Leave him alone". the problem here is borderline 3RR, incivility, and all over adding a clearly unreliable source. can someone step in and remove the source definitively? thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted with prejudice (um... I hit "rollback" when I meant "undo") and followed it up with a comment at the editors talkpage and a general invitation to discuss the matter on the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    hello. thanks for the quick response in removing the unreliable source from the article. would you mind watching over the article for a bit? your attempt to remove the unreliable source has already been reverted by McJeff [[61]], the same editor who has fought an RfC to have an anonymous blog removed, and ignored the overwhelming response from the outside editors and admins and still kept the anonymous blog in the article. very strange. he is also the same editor who wrote [[62]] this in a recent edit summary, but he has not received any written reprimand for this behavior. thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    i also wanted to show this [[63]] this editor, who just reverted your explanation as to why blogs aren't reliable sources, has a history of questionable reverting. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin Advice Requested

    Resolved
     – Allegations fully investigated and accounts blocked. Anthøny 03:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to take this to Checkuser, but I'm not sure if it fits there, at least not yet. There's been an edit war at Esther Hicks over portions of her BLP page. One user has already been blocked for 3RR, and the page is currently fully protected for talk page discussion.

    Ahnalira was the main force behind the removal of most of the information on the page (that was not corroborated by the subjects own website bio page). From his/her user page, they appear to have a clear conflict of interest (they run the website for this person's business). However, since the discussion has gotten heated, several other single purpose accounts have popped up to support the removal of any information not already on the subject's web site. These editors are Kmcgloin (talk · contribs), Melcapp (talk · contribs), MoriahBaron (talk · contribs), and Gacuster (talk · contribs), all of whom are recent accounts with no other edits except to this page (and similar subjects).

    I'm a late comer to this article, and I've tried to keep the peace on the talk page and encourage discussion. It does seem peculiar to me, though, that so many editors have the same viewpoint and don't seem to cross paths. I wanted to bring this here to seek the opinions of admins. Is this a matter for checkuser? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm investigating this matter, and will return results shortly. Anthøny 02:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC with Anthony)As for being resolved because the page is protected, I'm not sure that's the case. These accounts are still in play in the discussion, and to be honest, I'm not sure of their logic of removing sourced material. If there's puppetry of some sort going on, then we're trying to gain consensus when one side is still acting in bad faith (and discussion-stacking). Since the protection, two of the single-purpose accounts have chimed in on the issue at different times, then both said they had to go.
    I'm just wondering what to do here, if it's resolved with the full protection I'll just continue as scheduled. Thanks! I appreciate your attention to the matter, Anthony. Dayewalker (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine; I'm not an admin, so any suggestions I make can be overridden by someone who is. It is being looked over, though, so at least an eye is being kept on it. HalfShadow 02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked in to the matter and compiled a report with results here. Thanks for bringing this matter to light, Dayewalker. Regards, Anthøny 03:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nickthearmenian12 (talk · contribs) insists on adding a huge quote from People Magazine to Hampar Kelikian. I've removed it twice, and issued him two warnings about copyright violations. His latest edit was on my Talk page, saying, if wikipedia is not worried about it then you shouldn't be either. It is not your place in my opinion to tell me what I am doing wrong if that is the case then I will try to fix that but you are the only one that is giving me problems. FWIW, he self-identifies as a teenager. Corvus cornixtalk 02:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a note and will keep an eye on it. Continuous re-addition of copyrighted content is grounds for a block, but hopefully a little education will make sure it doesn't come to that. --jonny-mt 04:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Without that content, and a further stripping out of all the fluff and peacock vios, there's not much left to assert notability. I'll leave it to others to decide if it needs an AfD. ThuranX (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    More and more unfree images are being uploaded with bogus licenses

    Like I mentioned a day or two ago, a number of people editing the 2008 South Ossetia War are uploading images they have found on one Russian website or another. They are sticking bogus Creative Commons and other free licenses on them when the images all seem to have a commercial restriction on them. I've been here before about this. People are creating sockpuppets to upload as many files as they can for whatever reason. I got a few deleted the other day but many many more seem to be appearing. Once they're found out and warned, they abandon the account and move on to another one, resuming the uploads.

    There are probably others as well. Can someone please nip this in the bud now, delete the images that need to go and block? Otherwise we're gonna end up with a gargantuan mess of copyvio images. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking fish is on the Commons, which administrators of the English Wikipedia have no jurisdiction over. There is commons:COM:AN though.
    Also, these are just two accounts. Is it really a pressing matter?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, nevermind speaking fish then.
    A pressing matter? Only if you think it's a bad idea to let people upload unfree images to Wikipedia under free licenses. I was hoping someone with more time than I have and who isn't about to go to bed would take the time to investigate this more deeply, but if it's considered fine to do that, then by all means ignore me and let them continue. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know what Commons images that need my attention still on my talk page, I'll get round to it eventually. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, there's a Commons report here as a follow-up location if the problem continues. The English language article is semiprotected and the Commons account has gone inactive. A lot of new users are unclear about noncommercial licenses and make mistakes in good faith. Please post to Commons if uploads resume under a new account name. DurovaCharge! 09:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jman505 / 72.224.49.240

    I believe that Jman505 and 72.224.49.240 are the same person. The IP user just got blocked for, well, going completely nuts, and I'd like to get Jman505 blocked as well, as he's consistently altered chart statistics on Peter Gabriel Discography and related pages, and committed some bad vandalism of his own today. I believe they are one and the same because (1) the IP never completely reverts Jman505, but makes a small change to one of his false edits, probably to help the rest of Jman's edit slip through (example in #2) (2) they'll both disappear for a while, and then suddenly edit within a few minutes of each other: Jman edit IP edit (3) they both had very profane meltdowns today: Jman505 IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaGa (talkcontribs) (06:47, 17 August 2008)

    IP block adjusted so it's not anon-only. Gimmetrow 07:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Votestacking at AFD

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

    I notified in a neutral way two wikiprojects which dealt with related subject matter.[66][67] This happens routinely at AfD. Not all members of a wikiproject are 'pro' any of the subject matter of that wikiproject, they're just concerned with how to organize related articles. Plus this user has not discussed any problem he might have with this with me on my talk page before coming here. Sticky Parkin 13:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is neutral: "This AfD may be of interest to you." This, to WikiProject Black Metal is pandering:

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

    Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Constant Changing of WP:AN/I Protection Level

    Never in my time here have I seen the protection level for WP:AN/I changed so many times in one day. Choose a protection level and just fucking leave it! Who ever the prick is vandalising will bugger off after a while. --The High Commander (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh. Sure he will. HalfShadow 16:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    recipes?

    I can understand the a historic recipe might be included, and if there were some controversy over a recipe it might be included

    however one user seems to feel quite strongly about having recipes on numerous food related articles.

    when I made him aware that wikipedia was not the place for this he changed the section title from recipe into preparation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiyaki

    is this really OK for wikipedia?

    I would just remove the whole section, but some input from an admin who understands these things a little more than I do, would be nice.

    Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a wiki cookbook specifically for that --The High Commander (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many article writers don't know that recipes are not permitted at Wikipedia. Typically when contributors active in WPFOOD find this sort of thing, we do our best to preserve some content by working recipe sections into prose, to present the typical ingredients and manner of preparation of a dish, which should be in a dish article anyway. Badagnani (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Direct him to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook --The High Commander (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    -

    LOL Badagnani are you joking? you are the editor who changed the section title from recipe to preperation. You are well aware than reciples are not allowed in wikipedia, because I linked and quoted the section that specifically states recipes are not suitable for wikipedia. Merely changing the title to prep. does not change the fact that it is a recipe. Give the major ingredients, don't give instructions. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Looking into it. --mboverload@ 09:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since other users were involved, the article has been locked in order the discussion about the photo (yet again) to occur. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks of that. I don't really issue the issue of the image but if there was a concessus to have the image removed then fine but to remove/censor an image without an concessus is wrong but lets hope it doesn't happen again. Bidgee (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the first time, nor the last, a debate about the image used in the article. Not sure how long is going to last. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a drawn picture could be more suitable than a graphic photograph --The High Commander (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As with the old admonition to someone who doesn't understand something obvious: "Do I have to draw you a picture???" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it depends on how hot the picture is. Dayewalker (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok that was gross, LOL. Although, I concur. The image needs to be taken out(OPINION! Don't rush to attack, yesh.) I'm so positively sure you can find this image on the porno version of Wikipedia. Yes, there is an acual porno version of Wikipedia. I just can't remember the name. --eric (mailbox) 09:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It also appears the image was made by a user too. I cringe at that fact. I could handle commercial use but this is a private image. Yikes!(Now I'm curious to see if I upload my personal intimate pictures on my user page and find a article to use them in and see if they can actually stay there ;)) --eric (mailbox) 09:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not censored for content, be it the face of the prophet Muhammed, the F-bomb, or images used to illustrate anatomical and pornographic topics.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, I wonder how a hand-drawn image (especially of the caliber I've seen on wikipedia) would be any less "gross". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NFCC policy would require the use of amateur porn. A commercial "fair use" image wouldn't be permitted as it could easily be replaced by an equivalent free image.
    That said, a hand-drawn "cartoon porn" image might be preferable, not because it is somehow "less offensive" but because it would not "trigger 2257 record keeping requirements" (number refers to CPOEA laws, not the amount of paperwork). In a nutshell there are laws against publishing "anonymous porn" in the U.S. because you have to be able to prove that the people shown engaging in sexual acts (for hire or not) are age 18+. — CharlotteWebb 12:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A related article, cum shot, while the picture is there to illustrate the action. It seems virally sexual. A propsal to flag articles of adult content seems VERY plausible to me. --eric (mailbox) 10:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Plausible as in "it's never going to happen"? --mboverload@ 10:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This story was debated at great length here a month or two ago. What was the outcome (pardon the metaphor) of that debate? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even then the image on cum shot has been censored in the past (infact not to long ago) so I fail to see that a drawing will stopping the issue. Bidgee (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Forget images entirely. Take 'em all out. --eric (mailbox) 10:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? I see the images as appropriate to Illustrate the articles and if we remove images that some class as inappropriate (Such as Pregnancy, Ejaculation, Decapitation just not name a small few) then where do we draw the line of censorship? Bidgee (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eric, what sort of illustration for this article would not be "virally sexual"? (depending on what "virally" means in this context... I might not want to know) — CharlotteWebb 12:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Never say never MB. I was going to edit the article with this template:

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

    Think of the children, literally. --eric (mailbox) 11:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can just see it now. Wikipedia becoming a Child Care Centre. Bidgee (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is visited by hundreds of children(students) every day. Many of which of their school networks have filters, Wikipedia is considored to be a trusted site by mostly everyone and the access is unsurpassable to the ability to display adult content. It is inmoral. --eric (mailbox) 11:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because Wikipedia may be trusted (Some schools do block it as a source for other reasons) doesn't mean that pages get blocked or filters out key words. As I've said Wiki isn't a child minder. Bidgee (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    {{censor}} sucks badly (as it embodies the assumption that any removal of contentious content is Evil Censorship rather than good-faith editorial discretion) and in any case it absolutely does not belong in mainspage per WP:ASR so hopefully it was the talk page you were trying to add it to. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think I will hold off on the talk page since this related discussion is ongoing. I still support a filter of such, firmly. Perhaps templating all of these types of articles is appropriate, weither it be on the article itself or the talk page. What'cha think? --eric (mailbox) 10:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For heaven's sake, people. It's not as if we haven't all seen semen before. Wikipedia isn't censored, but nor does it exist for the sake of cheesy displays of sexual curiosity. I don't see anything remarkable or enlightening about an image of ejaculate on a woman's neck for illustrating the fact that it happens sometimes and some choose to make a word of it. It's not offensive, but neither is it censorship to decide it's a pointless and somewhat embarassing exercise for the encyclopedia to illustrate every slang term for where jism may end up. We make content decisions like this all the time. I really fail to see the problem either way. Incidentally, cartoons like the cum shot one are kind of cute but they only call more attention to the matter. Wikidemo (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How blunt. However, I do considor this image to be offensive and disturbing and frankly, kinda gross. --eric (mailbox) 11:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only that but the fact of how easily images like this are accessed by students in school, who, by the way, visit Wikipedia everyday, and little children. Who would ever suspect Wikipedia is in a stance for filtering by a child's parent. Last time I checked Wikipedia was a source of information and not a show and tell. This is beyond belief. --eric (mailbox) 11:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Must firewalls and filters at schools block anything in a list (Not just URLs but also words it picks up). Wikipedia isn't a babysitter nor should it be a parent for a child who's parents fail to watch what there child is doing. Bidgee (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm sure some exhibitionist nerd will make a picture eventually, which will be impossible to remove; remember that no matter how creepy, inappropriate, poor quality or unencyclopedic the image, if it's anything relating to penises or vajayjays, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED!!11!! AND YOU CANNOT REMOVE IT OR YOU ARE CENSORING US11!!!11!LOL PR0N. Neıl 11:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my comment above, is Wikipedia becoming a place to host your adult pictures now? I guess that gives users an unlimited storage space. I find this disappointing. :( --eric (mailbox) 11:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Too cramped up there) continued below: Wikipedia is a trusted site. I can almost guarentee that these images on the articles WILL BE DISPLAYED. Wikipedia should do more to help prevent access of these images, and what way than removing them altogether. Easy fix. --eric (mailbox) 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    If we lack an image, I can take one this afternoon and upload it under a free license - is there any guidelines I can read on the quality of image you require? --87.114.131.159 (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough. Wikipedia is not censored. This is a fundamental point. I find these images distasteful also but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we should have an image. They clearly add to the articles. Whether we remove them for copyright issues is a completely separate concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Copyrights and garbage licenses

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

    Looking more closely at this image, it's the only contribution (modulo talk pages) of the editor in question, the lighting in the photo is professional-quality (not tungsten, not flash, proper white balance), and the photo has no EXIF metadata. In short, if this is a self-made image and not something taken from the thumbnail gallery of a porn site, I am Marie of Roumania. I'm removing it from the article. Nandesuka (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Yes I agree that there needs to be caution with fake uploaded images but there are some legit images on Wiki and Commons but it also doesn't mean that legit images should be removed. Also as I've said to the other users that if they find the image poor in res, or anything that would be likely for it's deletion then nominate the image for deletion. Bidgee (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So if an image doesn't have EXIF metadata (Such as Image:Cyclone Helen 3943.jpg) then it's stolen? Well God Save Me if thats the case.Bidgee (talk)
    A guy walks into your place of business. He has a three-day growth of scruff and says "Hey, I really need to sell this patent-leather Gucci purse today, because I need bus fare. I'll give it to you for just $10." If you buy that purse, you're doing something wrong, because a reasonable person would recognize that it's probably stolen. Your argument is the equivalent of saying to me "Are you saying that all leather purses are stolen?"
    We evaluate images on a multitude of axes. In this case, we have a low-resolution image with professional-quality lighting, featuring the personally identifying facial features of a model (for whom we have no model release) engaging in an activity which most people, and indeed most models, won't let themselves be photographed engaging in, contributed by a user who has no track record of contributing good, properly licensed images, and that has no EXIF metadata backing up this user's claim of ownership. Given all of those factors, accepting the license for this image is self-deception on an incredible scale. Nandesuka (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're edit warring on a fully protected page, so please revert your edit. The image has been nominated for deletion twice on Commons, and both times consensus was to keep it, so your minority opinion that it is a copyvio is no justification to continue an edit war after page protection. The original image showing the model's face was Image:Sexuality pearl necklace.png which is 640x480 and I see no reason to believe that it is taken from a porn site nor doubt the uploader's statement here. Also, the image is not the user's only contribution to Wikimedia projects. Prolog (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Grawp attack on CHU

    Vandal Grawp has targeted WP:CHU. User:Jpgordon has brought to our notice that Grawp has been creating all requested user names on that page, thereby denying legitimate renames. This complicates the renaming procedure, not to mention is quite irritating. Any ideas how to tackle Grawp and this latest round of attack? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you not simply rename the stolen-names to "StolenName19930103" and so on, thus freeing up the desired username for the good-faith user requesting it? The page says, Account names requested here are regarded as being "reserved" until the request is accepted or rejected. If someone else registers the account while the request is here, it will be renamed if necessary to allow for the requested move. ╟─Treasury§Tagcontribs─╢ 10:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's probably the best course of action. Grawp probably attacked that page specifically for that purpose: if we make it clear to him it's not really a hindrance, he'll stop. That's the whole purpose of WP:RBI, anyway. Either rename them to something like "Stolenname" or just a string of gibberish: or, better yet, names he's likely to use anyway. Hersfold (t/a/c) 10:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Grawp's attacks won't dent us, we can always circumvent it by early renames or usurps, but as Grawp has shown in the past, he does not give up easily. I remember the number of pages I had to clear from my watchlist after those page moves of his. I'm sure he is using some kind of anonymous proxy to edit, and that makes it harder for us to catch him. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, we can do that. But notice that I've asked the affected users if they still want to use a name that has, unfortunately, been associated with the vandal Grawp. RlevseTalk 11:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like we need to advise those wanting a non-usurp name change to register the new name as a placeholder before making a visible request, so that the page effectively becomes "requests to usurp your own dummy account" (unless of course we want to add a Special:Renameself extension). — CharlotteWebb 11:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If they create it, we still have to blow it away to effect the rename. Mzmcbride has put in a bug six to prevent requested names from being created while the request is pending. This would be an excellent fix if the developers can do it. RlevseTalk 16:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the old-fashioned low-fi way (creating a new account and linking to the old one—if you feel like it) is safe against both types of attacks... — CharlotteWebb 15:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the first time this sort of thing has taken place. Although it would be a slight reduction in transparency, perhaps we need to set up a system where renames and usurps are requested by e-mail to a mailing list, rather than on-wiki? The fact of renaming could then be posted on an on-wiki page after, rather than before, the renaming take place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone please take a look at this editor's contributions? Although the account was started in June, the editor seems to have a much stronger handle on things Wikipedian than one would expect after that short period of time, raising the suspicion that the editor might possibly have had previous editing experience. Then the mix of edits: Hitler, mental retardation, the move of "Spiritual" to "Negro spiritual" because "that's what they are called", the change of "the U.S. and the U.S.S.R." in the Communism article to "the United States of America and the U.S.S.R."... they just seem a bit odiferous of a POV warrior. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and see also this from the talk page, which refers to this edit, and my question whether the mangling of the name "Jeffpw" to "Jewffps" was deliberate or not. Almost immediately after I pointed it out, the entire conversation was archived.

    This all could be quite innocent... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to be. He may have editing experience in the previous years of Wikipedia but he seems to be a good editor. :) --eric (mailbox) 10:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Omg I did not know I wrote that!!!!! The guy wasn't even a Jew though so why would I? --The High Commander (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "The guy wasn't even a Jew" Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at my keyboard and 'w' is right next to 'e' --The High Commander (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And as for "the U.S. and the U.S.S.R." and changing U.S. to United States of America, what on earth is the problem? U.S.A is the correct shortening, 'U.S' sounds more like slang in my opinion. And in changing it I chose to write the full United States of America simply because I thought it looked better. --The High Commander (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason it gets brought up is because by extending the abbreviation, you lend undue prominence to the United States (and by extension, all capitalist nations) in an article that works to treat both it and the USSR on equal terms. If you'd also extended "U.S.S.R." to "United Socialist Soviet Republic" it probably wouldn't have been noticed, and on its own it wouldn't have likely attracted much attention; however, in tandem with the other seemingly biased edits, it's questionable. If it is just an honest mistake, that's ok - if you would, read through our neutrality policy and just take a little more care with your edits from now on. We're not looking to block anyone here, just reviewing something that if it continues, could be a problem. Hersfold (t/a/c) 10:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Algebraist 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Hersfold. I will certainly remember that next time. Cheers for taking the time to explain that. --The High Commander (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have come across The High Commander's edits a few times and in all cases his edits indicated disruptive POV pushing or worse. The worst one was this diff[68] which really made my stomach turn. It had been a while since I have seen something so disgustingly racist and sexist on Wikipedia. I left a warning message[69] at the HC's talk page which was quickly erased. This was actually my second run-in with HC. The first one concerned his addition to a currently deleted article Joachim Andersson. Here is the diff for HC's original edit[70], for the admins here who can look at deleted contribs. The substance of the problem is explained in the message that I left at HC's talk page at that time:[71]. The infobox for the bio of that person had the names of his parents where the last names were different. HC edited the article to add "born to unmarried parents" with the edit summary "added info about illegitimacy". The edit was reversed, appropriately, as a BLP violation. Then there was HC's attempted removal, on censorship grounds, of an image from Pornography related to the making of a pornographic movie. HC first removed the image with the edit summary "rm immoral picture"[72]. When it was pointed out to him that censorship motives are not an appropriate reason for deleting WP content, he changed tack and removed the image again, this time alleging that the image was non-free (the image was from the Commons):[73]. When called on it, he essentially admitted on his talk page that he was acting on POV grounds [74]. More recently, I have seen the HC go on a spree of removing "Common Era" (more precisely, replacing "Christian/Common Era" with "Christian Era") from various articles on different centuries [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86] (there are more, see the contrib history). It was eventually pointed out to HC[87] why his edits were inappropriate (and as usual, he quickly removed the warning from his talk page). I have not looked at the other contributions of HC but the ones I have seen show the record of a POV pusher, not, as EricV89 put it, a "good editor". In fact, I cannot see anyone who did this edit[88] as a "good editor". Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And then there's this quickly self-reverted edit where the user added a picture of a chimp to Robert Mugabe with the caption "Mugabe's estranged father" and the edit summary of "lol". Why isn't this user indef blocked yet? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was self reverted, then there isn't a problem. Unless you want to say that the user is racist and should be blocked on that regard. Unfortunately, there are a lot of racists, depending on your perspective, and many of the hot topics (ethnic conflicts, for instance) tend to be filled with them. I don't know if there is a policy against having a racist opinion, but I doubt there really is one. If they are civil, they are civil. If they are incivil, they are incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Racism is actually covered by the policy WP:CIVIL, so by that definition the user is incivil. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair here - "When called on it, he essentially admitted on his talk page that he was acting on POV grounds [74]" Actually, what it says is that he is concerned that children are reading. This isn't a "POV ground". This is a legitimate concern. The difference may be subtle here, but one we should all recognize. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, give me a break. The only image he removed from that page was the one having something to do with homosexuality (the filming of a gay porno movie), which was a non-graphic image directly related to the content of the article. The other images, actually more graphic, he left intact. The explanation at his talk page shows that what he was really upset about is the homosexual content of the image. The attempt to remove the image as supposedly non-free after his "immoral pic." argument did not work was clearly in bad faith. Regarding self-revert on the Mugabe article, sorry, but if you do not find the original edit, even if it was self-reverted, completely unacceptable, I cannot help you. These kinds of racist vandalism edits should never be made in the first place and they are not an acceptable form of "joking". They remain in the edit history where the others can see them and only serve to insult and inflame. It is not acceptable to vandalize and then self-revert. One should not vandalize at all in the first place. Nsk92 (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then say that. You don't need to introduce "POV" into it. HE removed things without consensus. Thats good enough, isn't it? The editor demonstrates and unwillingness to talk to others before editing and ignores consensus afterwards, according to you? Does he revert it back to his afterwards? Is he unwilling to discuss it afterwards? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, give it a rest, will you, please. Removing a relevant non-graphic image from the Pornography article because of the image's homosexual content is POV pushing. Nsk92 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your hostile mannerisms make it clear that you do not care to listen to others or go to the source of the problem. Instead, you are throwing around pejoratives instead of talking about these issues. Because of this, this will be my last response on the topic with a recommendation that your response should be used to take into considerations on how to deal with the above user. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do care to listen to reasonable arguments of others. And I don't throw pejoratives lightly or without thinking about them or without justifying my position. I certainly do hope that my response and my other posts in this thread are taken into account when this thread is resolved. Nsk92 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor's contributions to Mental retardation and Talk:Mental retardation are also somewhat troubling; edits like this and this on the Talk page, for example, as well as additions to the article itself here and here which appear to be chosen primarily because they use the word "retarded". (In the case of the external links this was done even for organizations that do not use that word in their name - he just gave them new names that used the word.) - EronTalk 16:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    the user's made a habit of showing that he's anti-gay[89], anti-black[90], anti-jew[91], anti-woman[92], anti-down's syndrome, pro-USAUnited States of America, "pro-family", and doesn't mind lying and disrupting to push his edits. Hell of a list for a "good editor". I'd support a significant block for him to have time to read our policies, or a community ban. ThuranX (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Further, we have [93], which relates to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pearl_necklace_.28sexuality.29 another thread on this very page. ThuranX (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Although he reverted himself straight off, this edit alone is so disruptive as to be blockable. Taken along with all the other disruptive edits (noted above), I wouldn't mind if someone blocked this editor indefinitely and almost did it myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cedjje deleting Nudve citations from article Self-hating Jew

    Those are not my citation, but ratherNudve's.

    Help! --Shevashalosh (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not possible.
    Please, see the history starting 10:35 (and sooner if you like).
    I corrected a spelling mistake, I added a "/" without which the article was not readable, and I added "by their political opponents".
    He reverted in attacking me, and he added the "quote" at another place (again with spelling mistakes).
    I left a message on his talk page.
    Fed up. Ceedjee (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I urged you do something.
    After I explained him [94] he goes to other pages to report his story.
    Ceedjee (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you didn't delete anything, then you can safely ignore him and he'll go away. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How easy it is...
    If you were proud of the WP:NPoV and quality of wikipedia articles, you would already have banned her. That is just the 5th time.
    Ceedjee (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    September 11, 2001 attacks -- community advice sought

    Links added by: Jehochman Talk 13:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Please note that I am currently topic banned as a result of a discussion here at ANI, in which I had no chance to participate (it was concluded before I logged in). In order to determine whether and how to appeal, I am requesting community input.
    1. As I understand NPOV policy, significant minority viewpoints require treatment in articles. Regardless of the merit and truthfulness of the official version, I would expect it to be legitimate and even necessary to include mention of major minority views in some detail in any article, no matter how "foolish" or "opportunistic" such views might be, as long as they are held by prominent figures and are not confined to tiny minorities. Concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks wikipedia is not the forum to debate the validity of viewpoints, but merely to represent them, fairly, without giving any undue weight to such views. Now in the case when former ministers or current parlementarians of major countries such as the U.S.A., Great Brittain, Germany, France, Japan all have expressed their doubts about the official version, would it not seem adequate that wikipedia report this?
    2. Would quoting the 9/11 Commission be allowed, even where the 9/11 Commission is contradicting its final report and conclusions?

     — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, the anti-American biased viewpoints of foreign leaders is irrelevant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Are you sure that sanction was placed here, and not at WP:AE? Perhaps you should provide a permanent link to the discussion so that other editors can actually see the basis for that sanction. Your comment above indicates a poor understanding of verifiability. Beliefs of actors, government officials and other notable people are not reliable sources of information for Wikipedia, except perhaps as primary sources for articles about those people. We prefer scholarly sources, or reliable news outlets, that conduct extensive fact checking. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well put. Unless the opinion of foreign leaders is based on some inside information, it remains of no more relevance to wikipedia than the opinion of some random guy on the street. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support expiration of ba in 24 hours The above user has explained his opinion coherently and in a very civil fashion. The banned person poses questions instead of proclaiming "this is the only way the edit should read". Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia so the most scholarly and referenced view is the correct version, with exception to an emphasis on controversy in articles about porn and coitus. (see above ANI discussion). Scholarly stuff, when written by multiple authors, needs discussion as this banned person is doing. Furthermore, the user says that the ban was concluded before he had the chance to respond. If true, then Wikipedia is no better than North Korea or Saddam, both of whom have show trials and give long sentences. Let's not be Kim Jong Il or Saddam. As far as quoting leaders, the leaders of the relevant entities (US, al-Qaeda) may be important. The opinion of minimally related countries, such as Andorra and Zambia are not. As far as "major minority opinions", we just need to prioritize. With article length restricted, the first priority is the facts of the event. Then comes analysis. Maybe a sub-article is appropriate, maybe not. In conclusion, I agree with the above behavior and civility of the banned person so I favor expiration of the ban by tomorrow but I don't agree with political opinion of the person. HRCC (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Detective help wanted

    Hannahmontanafan112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) popped up on August 16, and created three reposts of deleted material in extremely rapid succession. I'm investigating who this might be, but am hampered by my inability to see the histories of the deleted articles. I know the histories of the Vanessa Hudgens stuff, but not the Britney stuff. Can someone tell me what accounts created the older versions of Britney Spears' sixth studio album, Britney Spears's forthcoming album and Britney Spears Forthcoming Studio Album?
    Kww (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hope that's useful for you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Insults, edits, strange threats on userpage etc

    Hello. This user User:tharnton345 has been leaving a number of personal attacks, a stream of unexplained edits and a number of bizarre threats and strange messages on talk pages. Some of it is documented on his talk page by both myself and other users. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What's more interesting is that he admits to being a sock of a former blocked user here. Isn't that gorunds for a block in itself? Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user self-identifies on his userpage as 9 years old. He is apparently making some useful contributions, and needs to have our core policies (e.g., that the fact that he supports the independence of Scotland in the future does not mean that he can deny that locations are in the United Kingdom in the present) explained to him in a clear fashion. He also needs to be strongly cautioned against providing personal identifying information on his pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When they were Fila934 (talk · contribs), they self-identified as 17. On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. Delicious carbuncle (talk)

    Disruption at Quackwatch

    At Talk: Quackwatch#Conditions for editing there is specific conditions that say you should not remove content from the article but instead try to reword or tag the disputed text. I believe that this edit] by Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is in violation of these restrictions. I do not want to simply reinstate the material (which is discussed at Talk:Quackwatch#What is Hufford?, but I think that some enforcement of the rules should be done. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]