Hi there friends. I've been trying to sort out why our Barack Obama coverage is being allowed to violate our WP:NPOV policy. In case anyone is unfamiliar with the policy it states that: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Yet significant and notable criticims, controversies and perspectives are being deleted from our Obama coverage. No I'm not talking about fringe craziness, although it should be included appropriately, I'm talking about the 44% of the United States, and the people on the political right and far left, who are having their views and media coverage of their issues excluded in violation of our policies (ie censored). I understand the decision was made to eliminate most criticism articles, but the content is not being integrated into any of the articles. So what then is the alternative? Help, suggestions, and ideas welcome. Thanks for remembering to assume good faith and for keeping the personal attacks to a minimum. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by examples. Do you want examples of the content that's being excluded or examples of the objections to it? To generalize, every possible policy is brought out in objecting to any addition no matter the phrasing or the source. Saying it "may" belong in "some other" article is also a familiar meme. If you clarify I'm happy to respond with specifics, but I don't want to burden the discussion with details that you're not asking about. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean diffs where properly cited, reliably sourced, NPOV information was censored or objected to or removed. I think it will be very hard for anyone here to stop the problem without knowing exactly where it is happening or who is doing it. In general I think everyone will agree that, per the policy you quoted, all significant views of his presidency should be expressed. 7talk | Δ |03:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at [1] for example I would agree with you, that you added a properly cited comment. I'll let an admin reply, because I was just really looking for a clearer picture of what your concern was. 7talk | Δ |03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume ChildofMidnight doesn't know the answer. Here's the short version: Wikipedia policies (meaning policies or guidelines) that have no enforcement mechanism are something closer to aspirational essays than actual policies. Unlike WP:NPA and WP:BLP, which have enforcement mechanisms, after a fashion, there is no enforcement mechanism enforcing WP:NPOV if a group of editors successfully camps on a particular page or group of pages. WP:CANVASS, an asinine policy that goes way beyond what's needed to prevent over-spamming of user pages, actually discourages you from going out to find a larger group of editors to overrule the POV fanatics who camp out on particular pages. If you do get that larger number of editors to overturn the campers, the definition of "consensus" will be expanded by the campers to try to deny that you have such a consensus, and since there is no set definition of it, you'll have to argue about that. Along the way, the campers will snipe at you for any procedural problems with your proposed consensus, helped by the fact that Wikipedia has vague strictures on procedures for developing a consensus, so if someone is motivated to argue about something, they can usually argue it for a long, long time. As you're trying to do all this, expect to be sniped at, continually, by campers trying to get your goat so that if you snap back in a way that steps over a behavioral guideline, admins will slam you with a block as AN/I commenters attack you mercilessly. These are, in fact, the rules as they now stand, and they are pretty much iron rules. We really ought to have a set of written-out real rules to help editors through the actual challenges of this website. The way it is now, it's kind of like a Congressman trying to get a bill passed only by reading some "How a Bill Becomes a Law" pamphlet, rather than by realizing that a certain committee chairman needs to have his ego stroked or a certain lobby needs to be mollified -- except when trying to get NPOV there are no unwritten rules, either: unless it's the unwritten rule You Can't Get There From Here. Extreme cynicism on this is the wisest attitude.
Can it change? Glad you asked. It's next to impossible to get any policy change on this website. SlimVirgin has a proposal still under discussion: Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. That proposal isn't my preferred way of going about it, but you and I and anyone else frustrated by Wikipedia's enormous failure in this area should probably discuss the matter there or somewhere. Keep in mind that, like any proposal, you'd be fighting ignorance, stupidity, complacency, bad-faith bias and a number of other problems I'm probably forgetting about on your way to establishing consensus for some proposal that probably hasn't been created yet and which might or might not work. Personally, I prefer to edit List of mammals of Connecticut. -- Noroton (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet one must consideer how 'out of bounds' the situation in an article may really be. CoM, for example, wants to see more in the BO article focusing on both the Ayers/Acorn/Wright stuff, and on criticism of his policies and presidential actions. The former are covered in a proportion which finds consensus, and doesn't become a tarring and feathering, which most of those opposed to the current proportion want implemented, and as to the latter, there's an article for that already. On highly contentious topics, like Obama, Wikipedia suffers as much from POV warriors as it does from apathy. We get a set of editors as regulars at that page, and unfortunately, they spend a great deal of their time fending off POV pushers. Regretably, the people inclined to 'drive-by' edit in a contentious edit aren't your average person, they're people with a seriously adhered to set of beliefs. They aren't going to be interested in hearing our policies, and they aren't interested in 'neutrality', though they shout that word a lot. They're interested in smearing the topic. A few of those may learn some policy, and shout it out, hoping that like whack-a-mole, they'll hit an effective argument. Unfortunately, that presents a misrepresentation of 'consensus' and 'neutrality', because they've simpyl gone from POV Vandals to the 'Civil POV Pusher'. They still aren't serious, reasonable editors. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretably, the people inclined to 'drive-by' edit in a contentious edit aren't your average person Neither are the people camped out on the article. Both groups tend to be POV warriors. You can't solve the problem of POV editing by bashing one type of editor over another. (In fact, no one can actually "solve" it anyway, all we can do is ameliorate it.) One idea is to have some mechanisms where we attract a broader group of editors to an ongoing dispute, so that advocates of one POV or another will need to appeal to a group that is, overall, likely to be a bit more neutral. Another idea would be to conduct some ongoing disputes more like XfD discussions with set periods to discuss, and a third party to make an ultimate decision in a process where there are some well-understood procedures. These ideas would build on what we already do, so they innovate as little as possible and might, eventually, sometime, somehow, get consensus. Just a couple of thoughts. -- Noroton (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is NPOV a core policy or not? How can we make sure it is enforced? And as far as what particular criticisms and contrary perspectives are the most notable in regards to Obama, I am very flexible and interested in collaborating on phrasing and sources. But certainly there are notable issues and concerns that have been widely reported on and that are that are appropriate to include. Excluding this content violates a core policy and it needs to be addressed. I don't think RfC provides an answer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
some requirements and policies can be specified more exactly than others. NPOV is always going to be a matter of judgment. Nobody is actually neutral on any important controversial topic. Even when one edits intensively on something one does not care about in the least -- some dispute for example involving two groups neither of whom one has the least interest in., it is almost inevitable that one will become of the opinion that one side is more in the right than the other, or that one has more sympathy for one position than another. We can try to repress the grossest expression of our biases, but we cannot do so completely. Nobody can. Most of us realise that there are so topics we care too much about to work on in an objective manner, or at least, that the strain of trying to do so is excessive. A reporter will always have the tendency to turn into an advocate. Inevitably also, the mix of people here is not uniformly distributed among all possible viewpoints. No work can be done totally objectively. All encyclopedias, all histories, reflect the views of those who write them. all group works reflect the group. The older encyclopedias reflect the cultural views of the time. This one will inevitably reflect the general views of those people most interested in contributing to a work like this. Given the nature of the work, there are going to be several general tendencies: one is towards general political and social liberalism, the other is to a somewhat libertarian attitude, both left and right. given the possibilities here, there will also be people of very extreme positions on all sorts of issues. the hope is to find some sort of balance. The general run of people here are not zealots; the y will normally give a very wide tolerance to opposing positions. I'd say, in fact, that of all works of this sort, Wikipedia gives an extremely wider tolerance than anything else I can think of. The sort of people who who support Obama here are by and large not going to be extremists about it. They'll accept a good deal of material from the other positions. And remember, there are people here also who oppose him--from the left. They too will help keep the fans from running away with things. The practical attitude, expressed rather cynically but not inaccurately by Noronton, is that you will get a good deal of what you want if you do not ask for too much. DGG (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comment. I will try again in the next few days. But we've gone from having criticism articles to having criticisms "integrated" out of existence for Obama. I believe it is an issue of censorship and it goes to the heart of Wikipedia's integrity. Many editors find the criticisms objectionable. They simply don't want them included, just as many of our articles on overt sex acts are objectionable to many, but we aren't confronted with them because they aren't topics that most of us work on regularly. But the policies seem clear.
Are we to believe there are no perspectives or criticisms that should be included in a U.S. president's biography? Are the criticisms about his approach to economic policies, foreign policies, associations (yes those!), not worth a couple sentences? Clearly there are sources discussing these issues. Clearly they are mainstream opinions even if they aren't majority opinions. If NPOV is a real policy, I don't see how it's acceptable not to include perspectives that are critical of Obama. We certainly include perspectives that identify his popularity, speaking ability, charisma, awards and recognition etc. And if there are more notable criticisms or controversies then lets include those instead. I'm flexible. But let's not have such an important article on Wikipedia that contains only the narrowest of perspectives and that violates one of our three core policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know you're dealing with POV pushers when they object to numerous criticisms, each of which has been made by significant, reliable sources, often many such sources that represent significant points of view on a subject. You know you're dealing with an area in which Wikipedia just doesn't work well when you bring up the problem and no one has a real answer for you. But you're not going to change a thing until you change your focus from your particular problem with the Obama article to the problem of POV in general. By focusing on Obama so much, you undercut your own case by making it appear that you're only interested in promoting your own POV, not promoting NPOV across many subjects. You seem to expect a greater level of intellectual and emotional maturity on the part of editors here than is justified by Wikipedia's history. Editors in general, and admins as admins, seldom respond to pleas to help other people with promoting their points of view when it's a POV the audience doesn't share, and a majority don't share the general outlook you and I do when it comes to Obama. Therefore, in their immaturity, they don't view the POV problem with that article as a particularly bad problem. They also view it as a knotty problem (because Wikipedia makes resolving POV issues incredibly hard to do when there's a determined group camping on the article, and everybody with experience on Wikipedia knows this). In other words, you're wasting your time by complaining on this page. I assume this thread hasn't been archived just yet because there's a bit of sympathy for the fact that there really is no adequate spot on Wikipedia to air this particular basket of dirty laundry. -- Noroton (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, The fact that we can't be perfect (or even nearly perfect) in terms of NPOV doesn't mean that we couldn't make enormous strides toward fair coverage. WP's free-for-all atmosphere on article talk pages is fine for typical discussions, but it tends to favor editors who aren't being fair but who have enough allies to push their own viewpoint. So far, the game has been to get editors on the other side to commit behavioral violations because that's the only way admins will eventually ban them from the topic. It seems to me that the best solution would be to create incentives for editors to be on their best behavior -- not just in terms of civility, but in terms of reasoning calmly and striving to be as objective as possible in their own thinking. By bringing more third parties to the page, POV pushing editors realize they need to provide adequate arguments to promote their view, and they tend to respond with arguments that are as reasonable-sounding as possible. When a discussion is subject to more rules and when there is someone there to enforce those rules, discussions tend to be more productive, more reasonable and less emotion-laden. I think even the worst XfDs are seldom as bad as the very contentious article talk pages for just that reason. Court trials and our own ArbCom cases have more rules and enforcers, and, despite the fact that very contentious subjects are discussed, they seem to work better than our free-for-alls on controversial-article talk pages. I think that's the direction WP needs to go in, and, I think, eventually it will. -- Noroton (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree with you about the problem. I think required decent manners even from devoted content writers would help tremendously. But I do not think formal process at Wikipedia works very well; if it did, why do we have repeated arb cases over the same issues? They don't lead to closure either. And neither do XfDs. I've been arguing the same topics for 2 years now. But yes, greater participation is the solution to many problems here. We can;t prevent a general trend that way, but we can prevent a few people dominating a subject. DGG (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think formal processes like ArbCom and XfD work better than the free-for-all situations where we have large numbers of POV warriors dominating an article, so it would be useful to have some kind of more formal process as an option for intractable content disputes, especially larger ones. By "better", I mean "more reasonable" and "with results bringing us closer to NPOV", but even "not as nasty" and "with less edit warring". I think the fact that XfD discussions are more formalized results in more editors taking part in them than would otherwise. -- Noroton (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably more suited to an RFC that details specific shortfalls of NPOV in it's initial findings, sourced to mainstream media (since while no source isn't partisan somehow, the general mainstream is arguably the most centrist). Since admin tools can't be used directly in regards to content disputes, and NPOV isn't a policy whose violations can be sanctioned for basically short of RFAR, there is nothing any admin can really do here based on this discussion. rootology/equality16:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal of topic ban for ChildOfMidnight
COM has been parroting on about wanting a "criticism" section in the Obama article for months, now. I should point out that no featured article, outside the arts, has, or should have, a "criticism" section. And why is that? Because they inherently violate NPOV by focusing solely on negative opinions. And that's the exact reason why Criticism of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) doesn't exist any more, and why there was a strong consensus to keep an Obama criticism deleted. And honestly, seeing how the Bush articles ended up, said articles will invariably end up criticising his choice of cheeseburger toppings (because it was discussed in reliable sources, after all). This is the point that COM just won't get. It's becoming very disruptive now. Sceptre(talk)13:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack on myself
Dear Administrators,
User:Interestedinfairness has made a personal attack on myself here, by saying "Seriously Cinema your a a discrase", and he furthermore told me to "So go away and go and concentrate on the Serbia page"... Now, I have made several attempts to explain how facts aren't the same as opinion (as you'll see on his talk page), and I just don't have any motivation to try to explain to him why POV pushing is simply not allowed (and I'm not the only one to do so, User:ThuranXdid so as well), and now the personal attack... I don't know, can anybody do something about it so that this doesn't get repeated?
I've left a warning on the user's page. Just do your best to stick to the high ground and talk about articles/sources, and you'll be OK. If the behavior continues, you can re-report the issue here. TNXMan19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rorschach test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been home to a content dispute that has been in progress since 2005 regarding the display of File:Rorschach1.jpg (an inkblot used in the test) in the article. It is claimed by some that the viewing of the inkblot could damage the results of a test the viewer might one day take, and as such, Wikipedia should protect the reader from the image somehow. Based on the above linked review, I have determined that community consensus rejects this notion and supports the display of the image in the lead section of the article. I submit the report for review and ask for neutral eyes on the article and dispute. –xenotalk03:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely approve of the image in the lead. Wikipedia is not censored for any reason as long as the image represents the subject. We also do not disclaim spoilers. While I can appreciate the sentiment of the argument, it does not apply to our standards. Keegantalk05:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Echo Keegan's statement, and also props to Xeno for working that summary out. I appreciate a lot of work must have gone into preparing that. Ironholds (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive work on that compilation! I briefly stepped into the middle of that a year ago (already?!) to enforce consensus after one of the debates, which you have presented in your review. My opinion then was simply to try and gauge consensus. I do fully side with that consensus, and believe the image should stay right where it is. I am not surprised that the debate rages on, however. Like the Muhammad images, it is going to be a controversy here until Wikimedia shuts down the servers for good. Resolute23:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Brown's 3rd studio album: Graffiti
Why aren't you allowing the page to be made when the release is nearing so soon? Why couldn't you just have it become a page that gets more information as time passes? 122.107.33.133 (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. how does one arrange to have an edit which I made completely deleted from the article edit history? it contains confidential data which I would like to delete completely. thanks.--207.10.186.108 (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly the same as the original, he's probably going to make his changes there and then upload them. that being said, userpages should not be in categories, which I will remove. Mind you, I'm not an admin. - Jarry1250(t, c)14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at MfD has been that this is an acceptable use of an established user's user page (not, generally, of other pages in one's userspace), notwithstanding WP:UP#Copies of other pages, a strict construction of which would tend to suggest that the use of a user page to archive a copy of an article indefinitely is disfavored; lest the GFDL should be violated, though, a user should, in an edit summary or in text on the page, note that it adopts content from XYZ article, with a link thereto. I imagine that we would extend that latitude, at least for a few more months, to a user who uses the page as a sandbox (from which he has migrated content to mainspace) but has made fewer than ten edits and has been inactive for more than a month. Joe16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merged page
The page Sydenham, Warwickshire was recently merged into "Leamington Spa". The merge was formally listed as a merge proposal on the article pages and recently at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. The discussion was closed by an editor who proposed the merger and who was involved in the discussion being in favour of a merge. There was some on-going discussion and the merge was then completed. I am questioning the merge, because I feel that this merge is not without controversy, the "votes" being 3 to 2, and also because the wiki guidelines indicate that an uninvolved administrator should be asked to close a controversial merge. Also, I there have been a number of edits initially on my talk page regarding aspects of the merge, which I perceive as undue criticism and which I am becoming uncomfortable with. I have copied the discussion on my talk page to Talk:Sydenham, Warwickshire, where the discussion can be continued. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus isn't a vote. There were no good arguments from the "no merge" side, the obvious choice was to go ahead with the merge. Jenuk1985 | Talk15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jenuk1985 - consensus was reached, with no adequate reason given against merging, and no attempt in 1 year to reach notability. This argument is moot - by removing the merge banners, Snowman had already subverted the process. As per guide above, further discussion of this issue should continue here Talk:Sydenham,_Warwickshire. Widefox (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a notice that I have indefblocked Freemee(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) for persistent creation of attack pages over the years. Well, only 1 page Taimak (edits in history)...but considering the warnings he/she's been given and the BLP concerns I think the project is better off without their contributions.
How bizarre--one account to vandalize one article and nothing else, really, over the years? I'm half inclined to suspect this is a bizarre sock of some other account, simply because it's so odd for someone to keep a lone account for this kind of purpose. rootology/equality16:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to any admins who haven't noticed this yet; there are quite a few brand new accounts doing subte vandalism with an edit summary linking to WP:Tags but using AF as the pipe. I'm not sure but this is likely a reference to the abuse filter. Anyway, these accounts usually pan out to be vandalism only, so just a heads up. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, based on the WP:Tags page, that it is the abuse filter itself providing the edit summary. The vandal themselves are just doing 'DSJDSHDJSDUISYHUIHEUWHDHSDJCSD' or whatever as their edit and the abuse filter put in an edit summary of 'AF: repeating characters' with AF piping the Tags page. Could be wrong. Syrthiss (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should be bold and just change that... it seems very confusing to use an abbreviation when it could be quite clear if only one letter longer. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the filter tagging the edit, not a vandal providing a helpful edit summary describing how they vandlaised the page. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may be mistaken, but don't Wikipedia naming conventions and the Wikipedia Manual of Style say to capitalize trademarks according to English spelling rules and not by the actual trademark? Because a user keeps changing the capitalization to what the trademark is, and that seems contradictory to MOS:TM... --Даниэла★18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you mentioned that. It did not say that it should be copied, I said that it indicates the capitalisation. Perhaps I should have added that MOS is also taken into consideration. Snowman (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion here seems to be superseded by User Daniela591's request on the talk page for an administrator to move the page back to "No nonsense". Snowman (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The topic ban imposed on TallNapoleon (talk·contribs) (see WP:RANDARB#TallNapoleon topic-banned and warned) is removed. In place of a mainspace topic ban, TallNapoleon is subject to a zero-revert restriction (0RR) on Ayn Rand and related articles for the remainder of the six-month duration. He is instructed to seek talk page consensus before undertaking any potentially controversial edits. TallNapoleon is encouraged to continue his efforts to develop a functional consensus and improve articles related to the subject.
Now might be a good time to clean up our Scientology articles; I note that the articles associated with entheta and enturbulation are deleted and now we have merely a circular redirect and a pointer to a particularly inscrutable Wiktionary definition; since the terms explain (or would have) the Scientologists' efforts here (see [3], perhaps one of them ought to be recreated. - Nunh-huh12:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I laughed a lot. Out loud. that's a whole lot of autofellation. Plus, way too much interest in it. Does Wikipedia REALLY need a how-to for that? come on. Really? ThuranX (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
haha I couldn't figure out how to explain it in a paragraph so I went the "history of" route. The FAQ is a necessity because despite the fact that a couple years worth of discussions/Rfcs has yielded no change in the consensus in regards to the particular image in the article, people just can't seem to accept that and to this day want the image hidden/removed/moved. {{Round in circles}} indeed. -ALLST✰R▼echowuz here @05:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the history is lost. As far as I can tell, the text was not created by Allstarecho but by Benjiboi. A history merge will need to be done. Fram (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the article FAq (not the talk FAQ), created by Benjiboi andedited mostly by the two of you. The current history does not indicate that the text added in edit 2 (after the redirect) was not created by you, or at least does not indicate who actually wrote it. I understand why you did a copy-paste move, but you shouldn't have done it and gone to requested moves instead. I'll try to correct the history now, don't be alarmed if some pages get redeleted and restored a few times in the next minutes :-) Fram (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. The history is quite complex now (I should perhaps not have restored a couple of the edits made on the main page after it was redirected), but all actual contributions to the text can now be traced back to the original editor, as required by the GFDL. Fram (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried something on a lark. The password this individual actually provided on a talk page for his sockpuppet accounts is apparently that of pretty much most if not all of his other socks. I just picked two at random and was able to log on to both. Any advantage to going in and changing these passwords since they're blocked anyway? This just gets stranger by the minute. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the passwords are freely available, the accounts need to be blocked with email blocked, to prevent abuse by third parties. Or scramble the passwords. Thatcher11:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this is a bad idea. It's a checkuser nightmare waiting to happen. Should any checks be done on this account, your IP will show up and your account could be suspected to be involved with Bambifan101. Also, it will mess up the SPI bot because it uses article edits to search for socks. Icestorm815 • Talk16:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HaX0r3d by PMDrive1061? - It would really be best to scramble the passwords.. If you really wanted to have fun with them, leave the accounts unblocked & let them spend hours trying to guess the password. (less time to abuse other accounts, and yes - I know there are all kinds of really bad things that could happen with this approach). Collecting them as "trophy accounts" probably isn't a great idea either. --Versageek18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The picture in the today's Featured Article on the Title page has a bad description ("Hunt in action in 2004" instead of "Paulinus of York"). It is locked, so I cannot corect it myself.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was topic banned by Administrator Fut.Perf. on 21 January 2009. So I expressed my opinion here (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Topic ban). Then Administrator Shell_Kinney ordered me like that spend some time working in other areas and show you can properly handle disputes; after a few months of that, ask for the ban to be removed.[4] I obeyed her order for months, and I have not edit the areas from 20 January 2009. Certainly, I made mistakes, and I caused people problem, sorry.
I asked her to release the ban on 26 May 2009.[5] Then she recommend me to ask Future Perfect at Sunrise. So I asked Future Perfect at Sunrise to release the ban. Future Perfect at Sunrise replied like that Sorry, I am currently too preoccupied with other issues to give further attention to your issue. If you want to have your ban lifted, I recommend to take it to the wider community (best post an appeal at WP:AN); if admins there agree to lift it, they are welcome to do so as far as I am concerned.[6]
Please release my ban. Because my edition[7] remains on Comfort women for months until now, it tells us my edition is not bad faith. And I tryed to talk at Talk:Comfort women when I was banned. However, I admit that I have tended to revert editions before the ban done, sorry. I mend my rough behavior. I keep promise, trust me. Please release.--Bukubku (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why not, but if a POV returns then consider a longer, or permanent, topic ban if the community decides it's necessary. Until then, they've been a good editor, no real issues, I see no reason not to AGF. Canterbury Tailtalk12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bukubku should not be unbanned from his indef.topic ban
Strongest possible oppose for the unban' See these are "some" of disruptions that Bukubku has caused to the community. His indef-topic ban is a very much generous decision by Future given his falsehood to Korean related articles. He not only harassed me by calling me "racist" several times because I restored his massive blanking of referenced contents that he dislike, but also by forum shopping to admins (including emailing), so he tried to make my reputation bad. His "bogus ANI" and "horrendous attacks" can be seen in his reports. Bukubku knows Future has no time taking care of Bukubku's recent edits and activities because of the Macedonian ArbCom case. I'll show why Bukubku should not be free but be sanctioned more. His insistent and false usages of primary sources that scholars define "unreliable" are all disruptive. His habitual lying to attack me such as accusing me of a liar (his lies were revealed, he never apologized to me), and harassed me whenever I corrected his misuse of primary sources. He admitted him doing wrong so deleted some of the sources that he used, but he deceived me as if he deleted all sources as if he uses two different types of primary sources. See below;
Reminder One of the topic-ban conditions is that if Bukubku evades his ban by using "socks", he should be indefinitely blocked. And I have a suspicion that Bukubku broked the restrict. So I request Checkuser on him. Before Bukubku had disrupts Korean related articles especially Empress Myeongseong, some anon with Mesh Isp appeared to insert "unreliable sources" to the article. See the edit summaries. After the anon's insertion, Bukubku created his account and and then his wiki-knowledge was way beyond newbies'.
Request for Checkuser Recently there are tendentious edit warring going on Cherry blossom. Bukubku appeared to edit the article, and his edit does not breach the ban (not to edit any Korean subject or mentions and not to leave to such articles' talk pages)[12]. However, a Mesh Ip user 220.144.194.227 (talk·contribs) appeared to edit and gave this insulting agenda 6 days after Bukubku appeared.[13][14]"South Korean's lie", that is what Bukubku has used to attack me and Korean editors. Given the previous appearance at Cherry blossom and the similar edit summary, and agenda, and Ip, I'm pretty sure the anon is Bukubku.
Besides, after he has got topic-banned, his edit to English Wiki is hugely decreased, so we do not examine how he has been improved himself. All his noticiable behaviors is to complain about his ban to Future, or protest somebody's breach of a Arbcom probation. Moreover, if the anon saying "South Korean's lie", indef.block is what Bukubku would deserve, not his freedom.--Caspian blue13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian blue and me had some troubles. I'm sorry. I apologize to everyone. Sometimes I made mistakes. Sorry. I regret what I has done beyond my translation skill. Sorry. However..Cherry blossom? I only insert picture explanation.[15] Is it wrong? Talk:Imo_Incident#Massacre and No Original research is not my OR. Do you know Boston Massacre? The casualties were less than Imo Incident. But I don't know correctly massacre mean how many casualties. Someone teach me. My talk inTalk:Korea_under_Japanese_rule#Togo Shigenori is wrong? Certainly, my words was not polite for Caspian blue. So I mend my attitude. What is the racist? What is the socks? I don't want to take advantage of Fut.Perf.'s busyness. If Fut.Perf. want me to wait his time, I would wait him for months. I am not cowardice. Please, don't insult people. Well, Caspian blue was blocked as his harrassment of other users in April 1, 2009. I don't want to create with your new drama, sorry.--Bukubku (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your harassment and disruption led your "indef.topic ban" and I can back up your racist attacks with diffs. As for my block, another user was blocked for the same case, and you intentionally forgot to mention about it. You're the ONLY ONE that has been INDEFINITELY BANNED in the history Future's banning editors because of your massive disruption. He has either banned 2 or 3 months, not indefinite time. I request the checkuser, so if you're innocent, you don't need to worry about. However even if you're not the Mesh anon who insulted Koreans on Cherry blossom, there are plenty of evidences that should not endorse your unban. However, you falsely accused me of a sock without any evidence because you wanted me to ruin my name. B'crat warned you for your insults to me. I gave the valid evidence in which is of course no insult to people nor you. You mislead this thread as if you're editing constructively. Since you're requesting for unban to the community, as I'm also one of the community members, I do not approve your unban. So behave nice. Moreover why your activity is hugely decreased since your ban? --Caspian blue15:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of transparency it should be noted that Caspian Blue has been blocked by Future in the past for edit warring on the same article on Comfort women, and harassment of other users. Plus has been blocked by other admins for 3RR and edit warring on Korean and Japanese articles. Canterbury Tailtalk15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well my blocks by Future are related sockpuppets from 2channel and I shot my feet by requesting Future to look into cases. He blocked me together with socks and others for making noise. In the interests of transparency it should be noted that Canterbury Tail has edited Japanese related articles. Canterbury Tail's first comment shows that he did not do research at all.--Caspian blue15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have edited Japanese related articles, but not edit warred and not gotten blocks on it. My original comments still stand. What IPs did before the OPs account was created is not the subject of this. Canterbury Tailtalk15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not revert more than 2 times per day even thought I was blocked for edit warring. You're entitled to your comment so does mine. Please respect my opinion. The diffs of a Mesh anon's edit are to show that Bukubku may evade his ban by using a sock ip. He is not allowed to edit anything Korean subject. So my checkuser request is valid.--Caspian blue15:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Shell Kinney's comment about your unban request.[16]I'm concerned that you seem to have mostly stopped editing since this discussion in February and I don't see anything in your editing since then that would indicate that you've learned to handle disputes. I'm not sure that you're going to get the outcome you're looking for here, but as I said, please bring it up with the person who placed the ban. Thanks. Shell babelfish 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're misrepresenting her comment too.--Caspian blue15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I highly respect Rlevse unlike your numerous rudeness to him User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_12#Unfair, and my request for checkuser is regarding the mesh anon on Cherry blossom. And you meatpuppeted the notorious sockpuppeter, Azukimonaka (talk·contribs) back then when I requested a RFCU on you. Since you're requesting the Community's approval, as I say, I don't allow as such. --Caspian blue15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's good idea!! I edit Cherry blossom, only one time. I don't use socks. It's good. Please check Cherry blossom. And please stop insult others.--Bukubku (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. This does not look like it will end cleanly or amicably. Taking a first look at the evidence (& AGF), each side is a bit sloppy in how they present it. On one hand, Caspian Blue's cite puts Shell's opinion in better context than Bukubku's. On the other, Bukubku did edit the article in question only once under this user name. Pending useful comments from Rlevse &/or Shell, is there any objection to Bukubku being allowed to contribute to the articles in this area by contributions to the Talk pages? (By that, I mean other than by Caspian Blue, whom we can assume will object?) -- llywrch (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian blue and Bukubku should both know that CU can't be used to prove innocence. CU is also not warranted here based on the evidence in this thread, but perhaps with more evidence it would be. The issue at hand is "Do we un-topic ban Bukubku?". The ban was "I am therefore banning you from all topic areas dealing with Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies". I'd have to say "No" because of these reasons: 1) few edits since Feb and even fewer outside his "home turf" of Japanese articles 2) it is readily apparent his combative nature has not waned and 3) I see no effort resolve disputes on the Korea-Japan articles but rather a lurking desire to "correct" the articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for comments.
Llywrch, I don't intend to colorize Shell_Kinney's comment. OK look her comment, this is the link User talk:Shell Kinney#Hello
Rlevse, 1) I edited mainly "home turf" since I have participated Wikipedia. Is it wrong? Now Caspin claim my edition of Cherry blossom. I don't use socks. And If Cherry blossom is related Korea-Japan, many article about Japan become relate Japan-Korea. Because most Japanese and Korean culture or history are overlaped. 2) My attitude was not good, I admit my former tendency. 3) I want to use talk page rather than revert. 4) Canterbury Tail's comment I see no reason why not, but if a POV returns then consider a longer, or permanent, topic ban if the community decides it's necessary. Until then, they've been a good editor, no real issues, I see no reason not to AGF.[17] If community think my POV returns, community should topic ban me. 5) Why only my ban is indefinite period? Caspian blue's ban is 6 month. And I didn't personal attack like.
My opinion is not match Rlevse's. However I respect Rlevse. Rlevse dealt with me fair all times. So what should I do? Please, guide me.--Bukubku (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bukubku, this is about YOUR UNBAN request from the indefinite topic-ban, but you're quick to attack me again. That has nothing to do with me. However such behavior just prevents you from releasing your indefinite ban. Your edits back then were all disruptive, so you're banned by Future accordingly for your disruptive editing to Korean articles with selectively chosen sources to shift the war blame to Koreans. Future said that your edit and intention are "cheap" and "disruptive". You also edited Korean articles unrelated to Japan and your countless edit warring with various editors are all vivid in my memory. There are many good topics unrelated to Korea that needs editing and expansion. However what did you do during the 4 months? Moreover, you have abused AGF and if you're changed, why you have posted the image on user box? (diff)
Rlevse saw the image once when socks from 2channel disrupted the Namdaemun to bash Koreans with the image over multiple language Wikipedias when a fire incident occurred to the Gate. Unlike other history userboxes on your page, you created the userbox instead of using existent ones that shows those who are interested in Korean history such as User:Historiographer/Userboxes/History of Korea and User:Mizunoryu/Userboxes/Korean history
I wonder why you use the image? You have nothing to show your improvement, but BATTLE ground attitude here and engages in NPA. You need to wait more after you can show you're improved by editing constructively.--Caspian blue01:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop machine gun. I like old picture, so I used old picture. I am very careful about using the picture. The picture was photographed in Joseon Dynasty period. If I had hostility, I would use burned picture. And there is other old good picture, but the one is Japanse period, so I didn't use the picture. Please, don't tell me bad.
If you think your above personal attacks could help your unban, keep continuing. You're very good at it so far. Why do you think that the burn-down Namdaemun image has to do with the one that has been used on your user page and socks from 2ch used to vandalise the article of Namdaenum? You also inserted the poorest image to the article of Joseon Dynasty regardless of the fact that there are obviously much better images taken before 1910 out there. Your introduction of the new image here shows that you have no interest in editing Korean related articles with neutral view. --Caspian blue14:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FriedC upped new clear image on 19:07, 28 May 2009. I haven't known until now. I changed my user page image now. I don't have any intention. Please, don't accuse me.New image upped on 19:07,28 May 2009--Bukubku (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really apologise if this is not the right place to ask for this, but I would like to respectfully ask an administrator to protect the Matthias I of Hungary article. I keep adding neutral, foreign sources about his Romanian origin (that is, his father was the Romanian nobleman John Hunyadi), sources from Corvin's contemporaries, yet I see someone tries to push a Hungarian or even Cuman descent on his father's side. I believe the vast amount of sources which indicate his Romanian descent at least allow for this "theory" to remain in the article, since there are many more numerous, and more objective, sources claiming he is Romanian, than otherwise. Thank you. --Venatoreng (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) The origin of the family is disputed by scholars. Maybe he was romanian or hungarian or cuman or serb we are not sure."Gáspár Heltai in his chronicle makes Hunyady the illegitimate son of King Sigismund and a Wallachian peasant-girl. Others try to establish the purely Hungarian origin of the family; others again put in a plea for its Serb or Wallachian origin. In view of modern investigations it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin; János Hunyady himself, however, may be regarded as a Hungarian from his birthplace; probably he spoke the Wallachian language only during his youth, and no doubt was born in the Catholic faith, which his father Vajk (Voik, Vuk) probably had already professed" [18] It was/is also disputed on the talkapge:[19][20]2.) Please do not remove reliable references from the article:[21]
Who is this person who doesn't even sign his username ? We have his contemporary and collaborator Antonio Bonifinius stating his Romanian origin, we have the neutral observer Ransano, we have his rival Friedrich the III who used his Romanian origin against him... There are sufficient sources pointing to his Romanian origin - it should be in the article, if this really is an encyclopedic article. --Venatoreng (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bonfinius? You mean the guy who wrote that the Hungarians are Huns and Matthias is the second Attila? Please read WP:PSTS. Also, this is not the place to discuss this.
Autofellatio is sadly well-known to many of you here for the legendary issues of displaying an image of someone fellating themself on the article. I'm afraid I'm getting a bit stressed out dealing with the same circular discussion over the past several months and several RfC's. I'm going to take a break but would appreciate anyone who feels up to it looking through the current talkpage and maybe the most recent archives to see if I'm misreading this. Any suggestions to put an end to this would be welcome, I'm afraid it feels a lot like quibbling semantics when the spirit of Wikipedia is not censored seems pretty clear to me. Any help or advice appreciated. -- Banjeboi03:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You document your unhappiness, but not what the issues are with respect to creating a fine encyclopedia consistent with our policies and guidelines. What is the issue? Difs, please. Common, suck it up and give us the details, no matter how much back ache it causes. Sorry to be a pain in the neck. Edison (talk)
OK, break was helpful. Autofellatio is the ability to give oneself a blowjob as it were. Since early 2005, possibly a record, there has been various ethical issues applied that have undoubtably resulted in our current policies on what is or is not censored. I'll leave it for others to decide for themselves if there are any implications of the heteronormative mainstream culture or WP:CSB concerns. As Wikipedia has grown so have policies evolved including the implementation of the MediaWiki:Bad image list, which really should be moved to the MediaWiki:Restricted image list, but I digress. Currently there seems to be support for at least one photo of someone autofellating themself without any masking, hide boxes, links to commons, etc. This is in part to confirm that what would seem physically impossible is, in fact, do-able. There is also a strong and broad community consensus against censorship. Previous efforts to hide the image were to use a template image link, the template has since been deleted. Over the last month an effort to find new ways to hide the image or otherwise make our readers take extra steps to see the image have been suggested and generally rejected with similar, IMHO, circular discussion. It's disgusting, Sorry, we don't censor with various nuances. Two RfCs, the second needed because the first RfC didn't add "and don't put the image at the bottom of the page", supported that generally ... wait for it ... we still don't censor. Since then we have had more theoretical and rather pointy threads all rehashing the same issue that has been recently resolved via community dispute resolution. I started a FAQ to help ease these issues but I feel this is starting to boil. I stepped back to avoid a 3rr myself. I hope some univolved folks could look at this and see if there is some obvious steps that should be considered, a projectwide ban of all naked photos?, a policy that any image seem as objectionable should be put in a click-to-see box?, something else? I feel there is an effort to disregard both the letter and spirit of the previous RfCs but I'm in the middle of it so would appreciate some outside perspective. -- Banjeboi08:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer? RfC's are a method of determining consensus; if they were closed with a consensus that the image should remain (and remain as the primary one in the article) then removing it is against consensus and is therefore disruptive. While, of course, consensus may change it needs to be demonstrated to have changed and therefore another RfC (or other method of polling consensus) needs to be held to certify that change of consensus. I suggest that it would need to be those who disagree with the existing consensus to put such a new RfC in place. Until there is another consensus reaching process that finds in favour of removing the image, the image should not be removed/substituted/hidden or in any way displayed other than as per the current consensus.
If you wish for someone to assist you in trying to convey that consensus is to be adhered to, and that the existing consensus is that the image stays as is, and violations of consensus is disruptive and may attract warnings and then sanctions should the disruption continue, then I shall do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I initially made a few comments at Talk:Autofellatio (I am adding this link in part for my personal convenience. A few minutes ago I unthinkingly clicked the link at the beginning of this section in order to get to the talk page, and was quite shocked when I realised that my 4-year-old daughter was almost watching. This might have led to her mentioning that "this man has the same thing at his butty as you, only much bigger" and asking why it is so much bigger and why he puts it into his mouth. Which wouldn't be a big problem so long as she doesn't ask at the nursery for further information. The nursery staff might decide to err on the side of caution and inform the relevant authorities what this little girl, who is living only with her father is talking about.) Then I stopped, because in my line of work there is only a handful of potential employers, and I can't risk one of them checking what my most edited Wikipedia pages are and coming up with Talk:Autofellatio!
It is being repeated ever and ever and ever and ever again what the consensus is: That the article absolutely must have the most drastic photograph possible, at the very top, and (latest detail) not even an option to hide it after first seeing it, to allow reading of the actual article without distraction. In fact, the reason I have heard it so often now is that each time someone says they don't agree with showing the photo, they are told there is a consensus to do so. I think it's safe to say that this is indeed the consensus of the regular editors of that article. It's also safe to say that there is a certain self-selection bias at work. And there are massive assumptions of bad faith and unfounded accusations of disruption against anybody who dares to disagree with the local consensus. There were no less than two "RfCs", but it seems that WP:Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex is not all that frequented, and apparently there were no efforts to advertise this further. There is also some inconsistency here between the treatment of sexual taboos on one hand and defecatory taboos on the other hand:
The editor who did this was blocked indefinitely soon afterwards.
Incidentally, I can't help feeling there must have been some secret canvassing going on. It is my impression that both RfCs had short bursts of "anti-censorship" votes followed by premature closure, against a steady trickle of commenters opposing the photo. Perhaps I am wrong, but the correct way to dispel such feelings is by going out of one's way to ensure the issues are discussed widely and in an orderly fashion, not by stifling discussion and making grotesque accusations of censorship against one's opponents. I wish Benjiboi and Allstarecho would learn this. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grotesque? Let's not go overboard, and let's not accuse people of canvassing either. What we've had in the last week on this page is a previously uninvolved editor who began a discussion about removing the image without having read the archives, and was told that we've already achieved consensus on the issue, and another editor who seems to have previously been involved coming up with yet another way to allow people to hide the image, seemingly circumventing both this article's consensus and general practice on Wikipedia. No one has accused anyone of censorship; people have stated that Wikipedia is not censored. There have been, as this section's title suggests, umpteen discussions regarding this issue. Wikipedia is consensus-based, and consensus can change, but revisiting the same issues over and over again ad nauseam is neither useful nor practical. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the consensus of 44 editors (against 75) in Archive 1? This is the only discussion in the archives that looks like a community-wide discussion to me.
As to "censorship", there were numerous RfC votes based only on WP:NOT#CENSORED, as if this was an obligation to break each and every taboo that we can legally break:
"Oppose - We are not censored, that's the end of the matter. If you have a problem with Wikipedias policy on censorship, take it to the appropriate venue. [...] No it's not. These individual disputes on each controversial page have got us nowhere. If there is going to be change to the censorship policy it will have to take place at a central point. Not an obscure article about men who can live without girlfriends (or boyfriends) because of their unique ability to self pleasure." (Realist2)
"Srong oppose. WP:NOTCENSORED is pretty clear and fair. Personally I may be offended at seeing people who aren't engaged in autofellatio - does that open the door for these convenient masking tools to be employed on every photo I can rally a group for? No, this will only lead to more arguments and splitting hairs and the community has somewhat reasonably sided to avoid images that are more pornographic for ones that are encyclopedic and prefer images of real people than the, IMHO, usually inferior graphics created. Apologies to the editor(s) who work on them but many are, inferior. There also may be some accessibility issues here but the policy of not censoring renders almost every other concern moot." (Benjiboi)
"Oppose: The users who 'accidentally' reach this page from Google can presumably speak for themselves. We should not censor a page to humour the sensibilities of certain editors." (Rōnin)
"Strong oppose: If we sacrifice the basic WP:NOTCENSORED principle here, what next? Slippery slope down which we should not slide." (ukexpat)
"Oppose WP:CENSORED." (Dlabtot)
"Strong oppose: we don't remove images just because someone finds them offensive, even if they were created to offend. NOT#CENSORED is clear on this: censorship of material runs against our mission of becoming a free encyclopedia that includes the sum of human knowledge. I should point out that Template:Linkimage was deleted because it was ultimately used for page 'sanitation'." (Sceptre)
"Oppose. Why are we still talking about this? [...] No, it's because certain people fail to understand basic ideas like "not censored." This debate has been going in circles for years; it's become ridiculous." (Exploding Boy)
Each of these !votes made an implicit assumption that there is opposition against the photo only for the sake of censoring – as if that made any sense. When people censor something they do it for a reason, and that reason is rarely a general desire to censor. We don't show everything. We don't show every single photo from commons:Category:Sunflower in sunflower, even though this would be feasible. Decapitation doesn't have a photo of a severed head, and won't get one even if one becomes freely available. There are obvious tradeoffs between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANITY. I could find no proper, community-wide discussion of this issue in the archives (except for the one in 2005 that started with Jimbo deleting a photo and in which there was a majority against the photo). And a large number of users including some of the owners of the article are refusing to discuss anything other than whether WP:NOTCENSORED is valid and worth defending. That's exactly as constructive as if the other side would refuse to discuss anything other than whether WP:PROFANITY is valid and worth defending. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this isn't something for Admins to deal with. Start a new RfC. I understand you're upset with that process but, unless you want to try an ArbCom (which I seriously doubt would be accepted), RfC is your best route for gauging consensus. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite16:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vaguely waving WP:PROFANITY around isn't going to help you, either. To quote that page - "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers..." - so good luck on defining typical Wikipedia readers. The only comment I'd make on the Autofellatio article is that the drawing is a bit redundant given the photo. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment, I simply don't understand what's going on at this article. My best guess is that there must be either a severe cultural/generational gap between me and some of the defenders of that photo, or a bunch of people are trying to change the world by changing Wikipedia first, showing no respect for the encyclopedia's reputation and integrity. Or is it a failure to distinguish WP from Encyclopedia Dramatica? It just doesn't make any sense, and is completely indefensible, to insist that the photo must be in the most prominent position possible. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI is the first impression, one can prewrite articles in user space it is common pre election to write a up likely candidates that dont meet notabitlity unless they win. It wouldnt IMHO be a speedy candidate Gnangarra06:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, okay. This is neither an endorsement or admonishment of the post.
If there was ever, ever, a user on Wikipedia whose opinion I would listen to, it's Jahiegal.
I am in no way saying that Marean is right or wrong, I would simply express that if Joe leaves you a talk note, it is good advice whether right or wrong.
There's less than my fingers of users here that I would ultimately go to the bat for (HI MZ AND YELLOWMONKEY! et al), so please take this into consideration when dealing with the ongoing situation ITN. Jahiegal has a voucher from me concerning good faith and attempting to resolve this conflict. Happy editing. Keegantalk08:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go a bit further - I endorse that post in its entirety, and it wasn't made in an uncivil fashion (unless I'm missing something?) Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I direct you to User talk:ZimZalaBim#CM as well as to prior discussions of your current events editing on your own talk page and this very noticeboard. Jahiegel is quite right that this edit of yours is crossing the line from disagreement into intentional vandalism to make a point.
I also note that you are continuing to add incorrectly dated material to current events. In this edit, for example, you added an event that occurred, as its source specifically states, on 2009-05-28 to the page for 2009-05-29. With this edit, and this edit, and this edit you did the same. ("Thursday", as stated in all three sources, was 2009-05-28. Two of the sources are even datelined 2009-05-28.) In this edit you added information to the page for 2009-05-30 that is not only not specific to that date, but that cites a source dated three days before, meaning that even if the event were date-specific it could not have possibly occurred on that date. You do the same thing in this edit. And in this edit you add an event for 2009-05-30 that the source itself explicitly says occurred on Friday 2009-05-29.
Jahiegel isn't an administrator, but several of us in this section are. I, as one, am telling you this: Stop! People are not reverting you because they are "terrorists" or because they want "only bad news". And they aren't being "uncivil" to tell you that what you are doing is wrong. They are reverting you because your edits have descended into vandalism to make a point and adding incorrect information to the encyclopaedia, namely descriptions of events that did not in fact occur on the dates that you are stating them to have occurred. Stop, and stop now. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Chuck has a long history of edits that myself, Jahiegal, and others have monitored, and largely, summarily reverted due to a variety of reasons. The way Chuck archives his talk page makes this difficult to highlight, unfortunately. Both Jahiegal and I have assumed good faith throughout, and, IMO, shown great patience. But I'm starting to come around to the notion that Chuck has tried the patience of the entire community, since we're constantly having to monitor his edits and revert accordingly. After multiple years, he still isn't making constructive contributions, and is requiring continued supervision. None of which is helpful for the project. --ZimZalaBimtalk13:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"My username (Aoganov) corresponds to my real name (Artem R. Oganov), with which I sign my edits. Within a short time I have made important contributions to WP. Being a professional scientist (and a good one), I can (and plan to) bring latest scientific discoveries to WP-pages, and correct (quite numerous) inaccuracies, currently existing on WP. Since I use my real name, I am directly responsible for my edits and can be contacted directly. I admit that in the beginning, when I lacked experience and did not know that this is a violation of any policies, I opened several accounts. Trying to correct errors, I edited pages related to sensitive/controversial scientific issues (thus, precipitating a conflict with editor NIMSOffice, the same user as Materialscientist, some of whose edits I found incorrect). With time, I learned more of WP policies. I can assure you that in the future I will use only one account for editing WP. You can already see that since opening of the account “Aoganov” I made no anonymous edits. I hope that my account will be unblocked."
I would like to take his word that he really wants to make positive contributions to Wikipedia and won't engage in sockpuppetry in the future. He is a new user who was drawn to Wikipedia over a conflict related to his area of expertise, a physical form of boron. But I do believe that he is learning and has a good chance of eventually becoming a productive member of the community. But there is the hot button issue of boron. So, I suggest a compromise: keep the block in effect for a week and then probation in the form of a indefinite topic ban on his editing of boron-related topics. This will give him an opportunity to prove he can be a nondistruptive editor by contributing to other articles. If that can be proven, then we can talk about lifting the topic ban. Any edits to boron-related topics or other disruption (such as sockpuppetry) in the probation period would result in immediate indef reblock. What does everybody think? --mav (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ban and unblock works for me. I note from his message that he plans to "bring latest scientific discoveries to WP-pages, and correct (quite numerous) inaccuracies" - it would be best to emphasise the WP:NOR and WP:V in any unblock message. Ironholds (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Q T C 21:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
