Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive468

Please delete Image:Helloyo.jpg and block the uploader. NOT WORK SAFE!! Corvus cornix_talk 21:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. It appears that the account was compromised, it had no edits since 2007, and all the edits I checked before it's recent spree seemed fine. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question from a n00b admin... Should I unblock account creation and remove the autoblock? I don't know what the standard procedure for compromised accounts is. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, your block was correct. If it was truly compromised, the autoblock will prevent whoever gained control of the account from creating new ones and/or using other compromised accounts. - auburnpilot talk 22:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW J.delanoy ... congrats on being an admin :-)

(drive)

22:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So basically if they have other compromised accounts but can't use them due to autoblock, we don't know or care... — CharlotteWebb 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the contributions of these two users. I see a string of high speed script aided reversions of what is not vandalism, to the same articles. Is blocking justified?Edison (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Both have been indef blocked by other admins. Socks? Of whom? Edison (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the targeting of Will Beback's edits is a sign of this guy. Deor (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it's
  that guy. The last RfCU didn't seem to know of any way of stopping him. If anyone has any bright ideas it'd sure help. ·:· Will Beback ·:·
  23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Alison found a range that included many of his IPs and it's now softblocked. I'll prepare a complaint letter to send to his ISP abuse department. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • He's back again today: Jtjn6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He must have found another connection to access Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User apparently blocked indef according to reporting user. SoWhy 19:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Through my user account, I received an email from another user. The email seeks information about complaints and it states, in part: "So we can go to the press, and later file a lawsuit against English Wikipedia."

Does this constitute a legal threat per WP blocking policy? Should I disclose the User name here or to an admin? (Do I need to send the email somewhere?) Thank you. (Submitted anonymously) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.13.72 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd read the rationale section of

WP:NLT

and assess if that matches the email you have. As you have described it, I can't see it being a direct inhibitor to building the encylopedia and doesn't sound like it's being used to "win" arguments, so perhaps it doesn't meet the rationale. You may of course feel you should forward it on (via email) to OTRS or Arbcom if you think it's a serious issue. --

82.7.39.174 (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just send the email including the header to an admin via email. In my view, the user has breached NLT and meets the standard for a block. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Follow-up. I see that the user has now been blocked indefinitely for legal threats (and socks). Thanks. 96.228.13.72 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A few months ago, the pro-Israel Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America became caught up in a controversy regarding its activities on certain Wikipedia articles. It seems that we've now reached the sequel, as a group calling itself the Jewish Internet Defense Force has begun actively targeting Wikipedia. Their activities also include seem to include offsite harrassment and stalking, as the JIDF has posted an attack page against me on their blog.

Update: Since I posted my original comments, the JIDF has (i) replaced the pages referenced above with random Youtube content, (ii) removed them entirely, and (iii) brought them back in a modified form, without the real-life personal attacks. I suppose this addresses some of my main concerns, providing that these attacks are not returned as some point in the future. CJCurrie (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an element of onsite stalking and harrassment in this situation as well. User:Einsteindonut, who appears to have a strong familiarity with the JIDF's activities, has recently accused me of anti-Semitism (You're not the first to accuse the Jewish people of conspiracy.), while User:Saxophonemn has accused me of supporting Hamas.

I fail to see how stating that "you are not the first one to accuse the Jewish people of a conspiracy" is labeling you an anti-semite, however, thanks to the JIDF's efforts [1] there does seem to be some anti-Jewish and anti-Israel leanings in many of your edits and actions. You yourself have stated that you "oppose religious nationalism" yet many Jews, by their very nature, are religious nationalists (as being a Jew means having both a religious and a national identity.) Again, I am not labeling you an anti-Semite.--Einsteindonut (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that a secular, non-Zionist Jew might find your comments offensive. Believe it or not, there's great diversity within the Jewish community on these questions of identity.

Anyway, it's not acceptable to write that I was "accus[ing] the Jewish people of conspiracy", nor is it acceptable to write that there "seem to be some anti-Jewish leanings" in many of my edits and actions. You may not be "labeling me an anti-Semite", but the implication is as clear as day -- and it's completely unacceptable conduct on Wikipedia. I repeat that you owe me an apology. CJCurrie (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this normal WP behavior to demand apologies? If so, you owe me an apology for trying to educate me about my own Jewish community. You owe Dr. Oboler an apology for your actions. You owe the JIDF an apology for trying to create a completely biased page against them[2], pulling reliable sources and citing a Facebook group in their place[3]. You owe the Jewish people and Israel an apology for quoting a Hamas supporter on Wikipedia in your effort to make the article "neutral."[4] Once you do all that, I will apologize for the implication that you might have something against Jews and Israel. Regarding "secular, non-Zionist Jews" they make up a very small minority of the Jewish people, though if they were to deny that being Jewish means to have both a religious identity and a national identity, then the secular non-Zionist nature wouldn't bother me as much as their ignorant nature about their own heritage. --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I will leave it to others to determine which of our complaints is more substantive. (Btw, the "quoting a Hamas supporter" assertion is a misrepresentation.) CJCurrie (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that, at minimum, User:Einsteindonut and User:Saxophonemn should be required to apologize for their personal attacks and vandalism (respectively), or be at risk of sanction. But I also think there may be a more fundamental problem here ... CJCurrie (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you seem like you're out of your league here. You seem to have little expertise on the subject matter as your specialty appears to be in Canadian politics. Yet, you seem to show up everywhere editing Israel related pages. There was a list I linked to that showed your work.

I honestly figured you left something out of your page and you should advertise your work in editing pages that deal with Israel. My only apology was doing it not fully within the ways of wiki sourcing to make it more coherent.

You seem to think you can bring a NPOV to a topic that it seems nearly impossible to do. Hamas for example is about killing Jews, not Israelis. That fallacy is what happens when you ignore their charter which is quite clear on what it believes and wants. That was just the microcosm of what goes awry in your edits. It seems like evil doesn't exist nor apply to any group. A group that goes out specifically to perpetrate acts of evil is evil. When we ignore what evil truly is and let it run its course we become complicit in its work. To further emphasize the fallacy of the argument for NPOV it would require balancing Nazi ideology with,"The white people are superior", white supremacist PhD -- --Saxophonemn (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Saxophonemn, this edit was vandalism pure and simple. You owe me a full apology. CJCurrie (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, this demand for an apology, is this normal? (I'm new here.) --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a good way to avoid further sanction for creating and linking to off-wiki attacks. Such actions are a great way to wind up banned. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with "creating off-wiki attacks" and if you're referring to the link to the JIDF site, are we not discussing the JIDF in general? They seem to have done their own research on CJCurrie which I found helpful in light of his wide variety of questionable attacks and actions for which he does continues to not apologize. --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an amazing coincidence that their monitoring and your editing coincide like that. One or both of you are actively involved in that JIDF site, which means your actions here constitute a

Conflict of Interest. You clearly have a problem with anythign that makes Jews look bad in any way shape or form, regardless of the facts and history of a situation. As such, I highly recommend you find another hobby, or another website to go after. I'm sure Conservapedia, which reports that Jews killed Jesus, could use your help more. ThuranX (talk

) 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. If being a reader of the JIDF site constitutes a

Conflict of Interest, guilty as charged. It's not very coincidental when one considers the nature of what the JIDF does. If you look at what they do, they seem to be monitoring everything (Facebook, YouTube, Google Earth, and lately, Wikipedia) most of the time. Of course the new article about them in Wikipedia just might be of interest to them, don't you think? --Einsteindonut (talk

) 21:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

At times we like to act as if Wikipedia exists in a vacuum, but that's not always the case. I believe it's obvious that you're a fan of the site, at least; that doesn't mean your views are irrelevant, but it does mean other users are likely to bear in mind you're approaching the situation from that angle. The bigger question, for me, is what you're here for -- if you're here trying in earnest to contribute to a neutral encyclopedia which takes no sides, then I'd say you're welcome to try; if you're here to represent a particular side in any given conflict, then frankly I do think you have a COI (I hope it would go without saying, but I'd tell the same to anyone else if it came up). I'm not accusing you of anything, but hopefully the explanation is useful to you. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am new here, as I have stated and I am learning Wikipedia. Upon reading some of Dr. Oboler's work and the JIDF site and their interests in the problems on Wikipedia, I have become more interested in the happenings here and have wanted to learn about how to do this. Upon seeing unfair edits to the JIDF article, I wanted to make them more neutral and accurate. As I learn more I hope to be more active in other articles, but this issue is apparently becoming a pretty big deal. I personally feel that everyone clearly represents a side in any conflict, ESPECIALLY those who pretend not to. I am Jewish and I am pro-Israel and I feel I represent an important side in many conflicts which needs to be heard as it is often drowned out by many people who either a) cannot comprehend a Jewish perspective and/or b) do not respect a Jewish perspective. For example, if a non-Jewish person wrote an article about a conflict involving the Jewish people, would I not be remiss in my duty both as a WP editor and as a Jew to not represent a particular side in the conflict? Who can actually pretend to not take sides? Furthermore, can't "not taking a side" be construed as taking a side? It seems to me that you would have a lot of accusing of COI to do. --Einsteindonut (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Some excellent points. :) As I hope I emphasized enough, I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, there. That you're putting earnest thought into neutrality/POV issues is enough for me. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey I didn't see you apologize for going out of your way to "vandalize" a bunch of works. You went out of your way to go out of your specialty or full understanding to delete massive segments of pages. As pointed you're distaste for religious self determinism creates a large bias in your edits. I don't see your work on Tibet nor the Vatican City nor Mecca. Thus it appears you only have a focus one religion's homeland. How do you think Jewish people perceive this partiality? Linking to an offsite page didn't seem to be a problem it was a page that monitored CJCurrie's edits on Israel related sites. Does this make sense to anyone? One would expect that an encyclopedia to depend on content from people knowledgeable in the subject matters. Editing as well would require some expertise as well, otherwise you're playing with a topic you don't fully grasp.

What do others think of the matter?--Saxophonemn (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on your talk about the userpage edit specifically; the rest I'm hoping will settle down over time. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

By way of background

By way of background, I should indicate that I removed several Wikipedia links to Andre Oboler's "Zionismontheweb" site a few months ago. My reasons for doing this were fairly straightforward: (i) the site is of very questionable notability, having received only a few passing references from the mainstream media (WP's entry on ZotW was deleted as "non-notable" quite some time ago), (ii) despite its dubious notability, ZotW was being used as an authoritative source on several articles having to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict, (iii) many of the ZotW citations were linked to cut-and-paste copies of articles that were already available online from the original sources (eg. [5], [6], [7], [8]), (iv) some ZotW citations were linked to biased original articles from non-notable sources, written and in some cases posted by involved parties (eg. [9], [10], [11]), (v) in a few cases, the ZotW citations were linked to credible reproductions of primary sources from early Labour Zionists ... and might have been entirely appropriate for Wikipedia, were it not for the presence of tendentious introductory essays written by non-notable figures (eg. [12]), (vi) some ZotW links were flat-out misleading ([13]), some were transparently promotional ([14], and others were inappropriate by any measurement ([15]).

I've never concealed the fact that I removed these links, and I've never apologized for it. It might be worth noting that, aside from User:Oboler (who openly identifies as Andre Oboler) and User:Jayjg, I only received one complaint in the first two months after I removed these links, and that that matter was quickly resolved.

Some editors have asserted that I targeted ZotW as part of a personal vendetta against User:Oboler. While it's true that I came across the links during a dispute with Oboler, I would nonetheless beg to differ with this interpretation: I deleted the ZotW links because they were unsuitable to the project, and because another editor pointed out that they had been added to Wikipedia out of proportion to the site's very questionable notability (refer: [16]).

It strikes me as noteworthy that the JIDF is strongly supportive of both Dr. Andre Oboler and the ZotW project, that User:Einsteindonut has recently taken up Oboler's cause on the JIDF talk page, and that User:Oboler has been actively involved in both the JIDF article and discussion page (he recently added one of his own articles to the footnotes section). These two issues are clearly related, and the possibility of collusion between User:Oboler and JIDF strikes me as too obvious to be ignored or dismissed out of hand ... I cannot help but wonder if User:Einsteindonut is effectively acting as Oboler's meatpuppet in this instance.

Is it so odd that Oboler, the JIDF, and myself would seem supportive of each other in theory, and on the same page about things without you alleging a Jewish conspiracy? Can you not handle the criticism without jumping to such false allegations? I never called you an anti-semite and my qualms with you originally started with your biased and unfair edits to the JIDF article.--Einsteindonut (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not alleging a "Jewish conspiracy" (and that's something else you owe me an apology for). I'm suggesting that there are enough connections between Dr. Andre Oboler and the JIDF to suggest that there may have been some shared activity between them. As regards the JIDF Wikipedia article, I would welcome comments from uninvolved parties on our respective edits. CJCurrie (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you not the same person who earlier tried to educate me about the Jewish people? Are you unaware that all Jews are "connected?" There are many jokes about this within the Jewish community (ie. playing "Jewish geography.") The JIDF shares much of Dr. Oboler's work on their site, therefore would it not seem reasonable that there would be some sort "shared activity" (however minimal) between them? I fail to comprehend the severity of whatever it is you are suggesting. Dr. Oboler was quoted in reference to the JIDF in the JPOST and on his site and the JIDF have referenced him on their site. No one is hiding these facts. If you are not alleging some sort of conspiracy, I'm not sure what it is you are trying to allege or the problems you have. --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, Einsteindonut, that your definition of Jewishness is (i) not universally agreed upon, and (ii) remarkably inappropriate for the argument you're trying to make. I'm also starting to think that there's little point in continuing this discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you have never heard of the expression "3 Jews, 4 different opinions" either. Not only is there little point in continuing this discussion, there was little point of you starting it. --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I was moved to update the article at Jcom Radio with a newpaper report that they've closed down, unable to pay the damages awarded against them in court. An apology and offer of "right to reply" was not considered adequate for their imputation of antisemism, they needed to categorically state that the allegation was false. PR^talk 19:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments welcome. CJCurrie (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

When I left a note for

WP:NPA, she/he responded with another attack directed at User:CJCurrie. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs

) 00:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. CJCurrie actually linked to an Inspector Gadget cartoon with the simple caption Wikipedia seems non-neutral as if it were evidence of a conspiracy by some group called the Jewish Internet Defense Force. If this is an attempt at humor it's mildly funny, although CJCurrie violates the contributory copyright infringement clause of

WP:COPYRIGHT. I don't see a personal attack in Eisendonut's reply, although its general tone doesn't bode well. Durova^Charge!

00:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The JIDF added the Inspector Gadget cartoon after I wrote my initial intervention (see above). I still think that Einsteindonut's comments here (ie. You're not the first to accuse the Jewish people of conspiracy) constitutes a rather serious personal attack. CJCurrie (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. A good reason to use a stable citation for that sort of thing. Durova^Charge! 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie wrote, "I cannot help but wonder if User:Einsteindonut is effectively acting as Oboler's meatpuppet in this instance."- I find that very interesting, considering I do not have a clue what a "meatpuppet is" but it sounds disgusting and I do not appreciate the personal attack. Regarding the accusation of "WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA" - again, I apologize. I'm new here and I am trying to tone it down and will continue to do so in the future. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A

meatpuppet is Wikipedia site jargon for someone who comes to Wikipedia to back up a friend or acquaintance. It might not be the ideal term for the concept, but it isn't a personal attack--particularly when expressed as a possibility open to speculation. Durova^Charge!

00:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I will admit that I am familiar with some of Dr. Oboler's work and support it, but I have come here on my own volition. Now that I sort of understand what it means, I am surprised that CJCurrie would use this derogatory term and associate it with Dr. Oboler in any capacity.--Einsteindonut (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not construe the term as inherently offensive. I see other reasons to be concerned here on both sides, and hope you work out your differences in a constructive manner. Suggest

dispute resolution? Durova^Charge!

01:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a "meatpuppet" is never useful. It is derogatory, it dismisses a person as just being a tool of another editor, and it is so reminiscent of "sockpuppet" that it can make people forget that there are separate people involved. The concept of meatpuppets may be helpful in sorting out some disputes (not necessarily this one), but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to point at someone and say "MEATPUPPET!" Focus on the edits instead of trying to dismiss people with a label. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a point: polite wording is helpful. I doubt CJCurrie intended to get vertically challenged with anyone. If you object to an accepted site term that strongly, the place to discuss its replacement is at the relevant policy. Now I'll bow out: this place is turning into a wildlife conservation park. Durova^Charge! 22:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If an investigation is opened into this I'd require that CJCurrie's actions with respect to Zionism On The Web and myself be investigated in full. As a remedy I'd require him to restore ALL the links he removed as they were removed with malitious intent (see below on good faith). True, some of them are could be replaced by links to the original content, but citing where you see something is an acceptable practice - as third partys posted those links that is nothing to do with myself or CJCurrie and this work of his was productive - even if done for the wrong reasons and with bad intentions. This is however only a small part of what he removed. Additionally his objection that a page contains "non notable commentary" in addition to an online version of a historic document is a non argument. As long as the document is there, refering to the original content as seen at X is acceptable. There is further nothing objectionable about the content except it doesn;t meet his POV (or perhaps it does, I doubt he read it... he was after all simply trying to very rapidly remove links to Zionism On The Web under any and every pretext immaginable). In short, I utterly reject his attempt at explaining away what ammounts to vandalism of wikipedia. His characterization of Zionism On The Web as unreliable etc has also been rejected previously on his notice board - IMMEDIATELY before he went on this deletion campaign [17]. The fact that some years earlier when Zionism On The Web was still new an article was created and speedy deleted is entirely irrelevant. At that point it was non-notable and had not been refered to int he press it etc. Now it has. On the notice board at the time people even suggested that a Wikipedia page should now be added for it. The details of what CJCurrie did are here: [18] note that removing ALL references (I mean every single reference!) from Wikipedia is an attack and when we are talking over 200 references, and when those references were added over 3 years and had not been questioned in all that time... the suddenly the whole lot is removed, by an editor who was attacking the owner of the site, throwing accusation at them, etc... (all because he objected politicaly to an op-ed I had published in the press)... that is faily serious and at minimum it suggests assuming good faith about CJCurrie's edits in respect to myself would be out of place.

Further, in the article in question here I was quite open about mentioning that I was adding links to OR material I wrote that is published in a RS. My understanding is that if an editor chooses NOT to be analymous, that shouldn't preclude them from posting relevant links to their own work publish reliably else where. Given I specifically highlighted my connection to the content in my comment another editor replied on talk that it seemed perfectly acceptable. This argument of CJCurrie's insinuating that there is something with me adding a reference to publish work I have produced as an expert in the field is again an attack on me personally and one he needs to appologise for - zgain he has doen so in a thread about conspiracies etc. I asked him on his talk page to stop stalking me and to stop removing references to my work (to be clear these latest references weren't even on my site, one was a widely respected report published by a recognised and well respected think tank, the other was a press article from a well respected paper). He did not reply and continued to make dramatic changes to the article in question. Some form of investigation into CJCurrie's actions (on wikiepdia) would be welcomed. His refusal to engage in dispute resolution (not only with me but in many other cases) should also be noted. Finally trying to squeeze milage out of the CAMERA issue by throwing about conspiracy theories is a rather serious problem in an of itself. If this is motivated by things published outside Wikipedia about CJCurrie's behaviour, perhaps he should alter his behaviour or respond off line? Speaking in general, off line content about Wikipedia editors is simply not a wikipedia matter unless it directly involves a threat to the project. Highlighting abusive behavious of Wikipedia editors off wikipedia is I belive fairly common practice and could arguably be said to help improve Wikipedia. While frowned upon, even publishing the real life identity of a Wikipedia editor at an external site is not really grounds for sanction in Wikipedia. I do find it sad how those of us who are domain experts editing under our real names can be made into targets by anonymous editors who then complain if there is so much as a comment about them off site. CJCurrie's removal of Zionism On The Web content (infact, the SAME report on Antisemitism 2.0 he tried to remove here) is actually already mentioned (without naming him) in a RS [19]. Maybe I should name him in a RS? I mentioned before he got involved in this article that I have a publication being reviewed at the moment on the JIDF situation. If CJCurrie keeps this up he DOES become part o the story and there is no helping that. (Much as he might object). Oboler (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Of the diff links CJC has linked, above, I don't see any I'd strenuously object to at first glance; several of them merely replaced links to ZOTW-copied articles with links to the original articles, which seems like a no-brainer; others suggested that more reliable sources could be found, another claim which seems to be true. Have any of CJC's removals been controversial amongst Wikipedians? I'm aware I'm reading things from his side of the story -- a hand-picked set of diffs -- so figure I should give you a chance to retort. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue was that CJCurrie had a conflict with User:Oboler, who had been published on the ZionismOnTheWeb site, and subsequently went to every single article in which ZionismOnTheWeb had been linked and removed all the links, often citing different reasons for removing the links, but always coming up with some reason. For example, here he sources material to a blog, rather than ZionismOnTheWeb, here he removes a convenience link, then sources to a geocities personal website instead, repeatedly, before insisting that no convenience link is best after all. It seems odd that someone who was complaining about the quality of ZionismOnTheWeb as a source would preferentially source to geocities sites and blogs. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so I see. Thanks, Jay. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you Jayjg. Seeing like that really helps explain more. Looks like we have our answer---seems like solid evidence of a "disruption campaign" and "stalking" in this case at least. And to think that this happened to over 200 links. Seems like quite a blight on the WP project. As someone is new to all this, I'm a bit shocked that just one person could take it upon themselves to do so much damage and not have to apologize or face any sort of "sanctions?" Again, I don't know how it all works, but it's interesting to be accused of things by someone who definitely seems guilty of them himself. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The references kindly provided by User:Jayjg mostly concern the work of Ahad Ha'am, a Zionist who was shocked by the conduct of the immigrants against the natives. I can't vouch for the particular clips used, but Benny Morris quotes him in Righteous Victims p.47-48: "Ahad Ha'Am in 1891 warned that the new settlers must behave "cautiously ... [and] act with love and respect" toward Arabs. But the settlers, he wrote, finding themselves in a land "with limitless freedom," as the Turkish authorities were extremely lax, began to exhibit "a tendency to despotism as happens always when a slave turns into a master."[45. Ro'i, Ya'akov, in Hebrew, "The Relations between Rehovot and Its Arab Neighbours (1890-1914)" In HaTziyonut, edited by David Karpi, 1980, p. 165] Two years later he wrote: "The attitude of the colonists to their tenants and their families is exactly the same as towards their animals".

Sadly, we may be wholly dependent on translations from non-professionals for more of Ahad Ha'am's writings, but then we do that a lot. There is no automatic reason to doubt the integrity of Hebrew-speakers that I know of - subject to the restriction I'm about to remind everyone of.

Another of the references is to the blog "Engage", however it's only a copy of a press release by "The Association of Jewish Sixthformers". If "Engage" is a hate-site, then I'd strongly support taking it out (probably leaving a "citation needed", since the information is hardly "surprising") - but much, much worse mirror sources are used for very, very "surprising" claims, eg "Back to the Moslem terrorist's Page". That particular unpleasant and unreliable source has been repeatedly edit-warred into place into a major article (where it is quoted 3 times). I think we're entitled to see some consistency here from top administrators.

In fact, the more I look at this the more it looks like a gravely abusive on and off-wiki attempt to stalk, harass and muzzle yet another editor for entirely POV reasons.

And yes, to answer an earlier question, it is normal to ask for apologies, otherwise it will appear that an editor, brand new to the project and strongly suspected of linkage to an attack-site, is seeking to pre-emptively damage the AGF that regular editors depend upon and are entitled to expect. If this was a critic of Israel arriving and immediately setting on well-respected editors in this fashion (or indeed any other), there's not the smallest doubt that he'd have been blocked immediately. Lets see some consistency. PR^talk 09:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the PR in your name, it does stand stand for "Palestine Remembered", correct? There was an interesting piece in the Jerusalem Post about "Palestine Remembered" recently. I can see that your initials do, in fact, stand for "Palestine Remembered" according to your User Page. Furthermore, I had a look at your "talk page" and I wish I could say I was a bit shocked to see what appeared to be rationalization of the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations as well as what appeared to be a suggestion that Israel itself was involved with the hijacking with regard to Entebbe. My point here is to not bring up these topics, but to question your own neutrality on the various issues with regard to Israel and the Jewish people. --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie responds

It's amazing how much can accrue during a single a day spent offline. There's quite a lot of material to go through here, and, as I don't plan to spend an entire day on this, I'll make an effort to rein in my legendary verbosity and focus on the highlights.

First, a general comment: I'm a bit disappointed, though not surprised, that some editors have chosen to frame Wikipedia's controversies concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict in terms of "Jewish perspectives" vs. "non-Jewish perspectives". I'm disappointed by this, because I don't believe there is any single Jewish (or non-Jewish) perspective on the conflict. It's quite possible to be Jewish (or pro-Jewish) and non-Zionist, even anti-Zionist. For that matter, it's possible to be a Zionist and disapprove of the State of Israel's actions and/or its present constitutional status. The Jewish people and the State of Israel are not the same thing, and we shouldn't pretend that there's an uncomplicated link between the two.

And now to specifics. In response to User:Oboler's comments, let me state that I have never concealed the fact that I removed several links to his own "Zionismontheweb" site a while ago. I make no apology for this, and I'm not about to reverse the process now. I do not believe that ZotW generally meets the standard of a reliable source; moreover, I do not believe that the specific links that I removed were appropriate for Wikipedia (for reasons already explained above). My general motivation for removing the links was fairly simple: another editor (JzG) pointed out that they had been added to a copious number of pages, far more than the site's rather dubious notability could justify. Oboler would be correct to say that I discovered this matter during a dispute with him on another point, but I didn't remove the links out of a personal vendetta.

Let me add that Oboler's math is a bit off. There were several ZotW links on Wikipedia a few months ago, but there's no way the number was over 200, as he has claimed.

Oboler is correct that my characterization of ZotW met with objections before I started deleting links to the site, but he neglects to mention that he himself was the only person to raise these objections (apart from what I've already described as an uncharacteristically tepid response from Jayjg). He also neglects to mention that he's raised this matter in several other forums, generally without receiving much support. Jayjg has more recently objected to the removal of some specific links, but I don't believe he's championed a "right of return" for all.

On another matter, I find these comments from Oboler somewhat troubling ...

Speaking in general, off line content about Wikipedia editors is simply not a wikipedia matter unless it directly involves a threat to the project. Highlighting abusive behavious of Wikipedia editors off wikipedia is I belive fairly common practice and could arguably be said to help improve Wikipedia. While frowned upon, even publishing the real life identity of a Wikipedia editor at an external site is not really grounds for sanction in Wikipedia. I do find it sad how those of us who are domain experts editing under our real names can be made into targets by anonymous editors who then complain if there is so much as a comment about them off site. CJCurrie's removal of Zionism On The Web content (infact, the SAME report on Antisemitism 2.0 he tried to remove here) is actually already mentioned (without naming him) in a RS. Maybe I should name him in a RS? I mentioned before he got involved in this article that I have a publication being reviewed at the moment on the JIDF situation. If CJCurrie keeps this up he DOES become part o the story and there is no helping that. (Much as he might object).

It's possible I'm misreading some nuance or other here, but this almost seems like a threat (possibly to reveal my real-life identity, possibly to do something else). Given that Oboler has recently contacted one of my most frequent on-Wiki opponents about his academic projects, I can't help but wonder if I should be concerned.

It should go without saying that revealing someone's identity is seriously frowned upon, and I believe it could result in on-Wiki consequences depending on the circumstances. (Side note: Odd as this may sound in light of what they've said about me, I'll actually credit the JIDF for removing their "real-life" speculations -- they didn't get the information right in the first place, but it's the thought that counts.)

Let me be clear on this point: Oboler has every right to criticize the on-Wiki actions of "CJCurrie" if he wants to. I'm quite capable of responding in kind, and I won't claim any sort of exemption from criticism. I notice that Oboler referred to me as an "activist" in the newspaper article that he referenced above. That's fine too -- I may or may not agree with his assessment, but it's fair public comment. However, he emphatically does not have the right to reveal my identity (if he knows it), nor does he have the right to make defamatory remarks about me. (I'd also like to think that he's above including personal disputes about his own website in a serious academic paper, but that's another matter.)

In response to Jayjg:

(i) Regarding the Ahad Ha'am situation, let me first say that ZotW has done its readers a useful service by providing an online transcription of "Jewish State, Jewish Problem". The only problem is that they've also tacked on a non-notable and partisan essay at the start of the piece, which is hardly suitable for us to use as an external reference.

Consider for instance the following lines:

However, Achad Ha'am's historical view both of the settlement movement and of the future of political Zionism were incorrect:

It needs not an independent State, but only the creation in its native land of conditions favorable to its development: a good-sized settlement of Jews working without hindrance [1] in every branch of culture, from agriculture and handicrafts to science and literature. This Jewish settlement, which will be a gradual growth, will become in course of time the centre of the nation, wherein its spirit will find pure expression and develop in all its aspects up to the highest degree of perfection of which it is capable.

The British Mandate ban on Jewish immigration and settlement in 1939 was to prove precisely that only an independent state could provide the the Jews with the ability to work without hindrance in Palestine. Herzl too was proven wrong, since the ban on immigration and settlement was imposed despite the very völkerrechtlich, legally recognized mandate to create a Jewish national home. However, it was not Achad Ha'am whose ideas were vindicated but rather the practical Zionists who believed in settling the land, regardless of laws. (source: [20])

This strikes me as a less than neutral, and possibly less than objective overview of Ahad Ha'am contested legacy. For us to give "authoritative" status to this essay is not appropriate.

That being said, it occurs to me that we may be closer to a mutually agreeable compromise than we originally thought. If someone is willing to transcribe ZotW's copy of "Jewish State, Jewish Problem" to Wikisource -- with proper credit, but without the introductory essay -- then I'd have no problem including it as a convenience link.

Would this be agreeable?

(ii) As I've said before, I don't think the AJ6 information is vital to

Academic boycotts of Israel

. AJ6 are sixth-formers, the proposed boycott was primarily focused on universities, and we're already including a fair bit of criticism from other sources. My decision to link to "Engage" was clearly a mistake, for which I apologize. My intent was to provide an alternate link, that would allow us to focus on the relevance of the AJ6 document and not get caught up in the "ZotW" side issue. I didn't realize the specific nature of the site, and I can guarantee I won't link to it again.

On a related note, I wasn't aware until fairly recently that GeoCities was considered a dubious source. (Not all of us have PhDs in Computer Science, you know.)

To Durova: Unfortunately, there was no stable Google cache that I could link to at the time.

One last comment to Einsteindonut: PR has stated in the past that his name is not taken from the Palestine Remembered website. Also, you still owe me an apology. CJCurrie (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie said, it's quite possible to be Jewish (or pro-Jewish) and non-Zionist, even anti-Zionist. -Yes, this is true, however, it is extremely rare, and those who claim that status (ie. the Neturei Karta) are typically part of a fringe minority. The vast majority of Jews and friends of the Jewish people are strong supporters of Israel in general. It is very common tactic for the enemies of both Israel and the Jewish people to try to say that they have no problem with Jews or Judaism, but just "Zionism." However, "Zionism" is just a relatively new term for a concept which is an inherent part of Judaism itself and has been for thousands of years. Therefore, when people attack the general nature of "Zionism," people are very much attacking Judaism and the Jewish people (whether these are Jews or people who claim to be friends of Jews or not.) You also said, The Jewish people and the State of Israel are not the same thing, and we shouldn't pretend that there's an uncomplicated link between the two. However, no one with knowledge of history with regard to the Jewish people can deny their inherent ties to The Holy Land. Furthermore, anything that happens on the Land has a ripple effect among all Jews (even those of us in the Galut.) This is proven even by non-Jewish obsession with all the activities there. There are many other countries throughout the world doing far more evil than Israel, yet Israel is by far the one which is under the microscope the most. However, it seems to be a malfunctioning microscope--since all these "anti-Zionists" are very quick to exaggerate all in which they feel is wrong with the Holy Land, while completely ignoring all the good (and there is a lot of it.)

Regarding PR's name, I didn't say it was "taken" from that website. I also do not believe in coincidences. Furthermore, I disagree regarding owing you an apology. If the consensus thinks I did something wrong with regard to you, and can explain it to me sufficiently, then I am willing to consider it. However, in light of all that I have seen you do, I cannot assume good faith and feel I owe you nothing and believe that Wikipedia should consider an investigation (if that is what is done) with regard to much of what I have learned about you, as your actions with regard to certain people and topics seem antagonistic to the general spirit of Wikipedia.--Einsteindonut (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeping score or demanding and refusing apologies back and forth rarely ends well; might it be time to consider a nice cup of tea and a sit down, or perhaps a breather, instead? Not suggesting I want either of you to drop out of the dispute, by any means, but I'm concerned with increasingly stressed tones in the dialogue. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a formal complaint against CJCurrie for the following remark which I take as deeply offensive for my own reputation on wiki:

'I'll make an effort to reign (sic!) in my legendary verbosity.'

If some admin could sanction CJCurrie for this splendide mendax attempt at trumping me, I would be deeply appreciative.

As for Einsteindonut, in his last post he brandishes an appalling ignorance of the complexity of Jewish identity, especially in remarking

'CJCurrie said, it's quite possible to be Jewish (or pro-Jewish) and non-Zionist, even anti-Zionist. -Yes, this is true, however, it is extremely rare, and those who claim that status (ie. the Neturei Karta) are typically part of a fringe minority.

If this presumption by several posters, representing fringe positions themselves based on ethnically-defined politics, to represent themselves as spokesman for a nigh unanimous community, takes root in wiki, and in the present case, in I/P articles, we are in serious trouble indeed. Please note,Einsteindonut and Dr Oboler, the following, one of several dozen quotes one could provide on the issue of Jewish identity, and one widely shared by Jewish intellectuals otherwise regarded as reliable sources in Wiki.

'What exactly could 'being Jewish' mean in the 1920s to an intelligent Anglo-Viennese boy who suffered no anti-Semitism and was so remote from the practices and beliefs of traditional Judaism that, until after puberty, he was unaware even of being circumcised? Perhaps only this: that sometime around the age of ten I acquired a simple principle from my mother on a now forgotten occasion when I must have reported, or perhaps even repeated, some negative observation of an uncle's behaviour as 'typically Jewish'. She told me very firmly: 'You must never do anything, or seem to do anything that might suggest you are ashamed of being a Jew'.

I have tried to observe it ever since, although the strain of doing so is sometimes almost intolerable, in the light of the behaviour of the government of Israel. . .It has been enough to define my Judaism ever since, and left me free to live as what my friend the late

Shoah (and in the era of unique and unprecedented Jewish world achievement, success and public acceptance), asserts unique claims on the world's conscience as a victim of persecution. Right and wrong, justice and injustice, do not wear ethnic badges or wave national flags. I observe that, if there is any justification for the claim that the 0.25 per cent of the global populatioon in the year 2000 which constitute the tribe into which I was born are a 'chosen' or special people, it rests not on what it has done within the ghettos or special territories, self-chosen or imposed by others, past, present or future. It rests on its quite disproportionate and remarkable contribution to humanity in the wider world, mainly in the two centuries or so since the Jews were allowed to leave the ghettos, and chose to do so. We are, to quote the title of the book of my friend Richard Marienstras, Polish Jew, French Resistance fighter, defender of Yiddish culture and his country's chief expert on Shakespeare, un peuple en diaspora. We shall, in all probability, remain so. And if we make the thought experiment of supposing that Herzl's dream came true and all Jews ended up in a small independent territorial state which excluded from full citizenship all who were not the sons of Jewish mothers, it would be a bad day for the rest of humanity - and for the Jews themselves' Eric Hobsbawm,Interesting Times(2002) Abacus Books, London 2003 pp.24-5 Nishidani (talk

) 16:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

not sure what that has to do with the price of beans, but Jewish marxists with no interest in mitzvot is nothing new and empathy for everyone but their own (with whom they foster mostly resentment and disrespect) is nothing new. i'd be very interested to know how much Hobsbawm knows of Judaism itself. if he is considered a "reliable source" on wikipedia, then i'm very happy to be here as i'd imagine this place needs more reliable sources who are not marxists (by the way, Karl Marx is widely regarded as a Jewish anti-semite.)--Einsteindonut (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Would this be the right time to mention that David Ben-Gurion was both a Marxist and a secularist? (For clarity, I should stress that I don't intend either term to be read as an insult.) CJCurrie (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Or that Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism and virulently anti-Marxist, was, if I recall Colin Schindler's words correctly 'wonderfully oblivious' of most of what constituted Judaism. Nishidani

You mean the same Ben Gurion who wouldn't allow Jabotinsky (not a Marxist) to be buried in Israel? Rav Kook wasn't a Marxist either. He knew something about Judaism too. In any event, I thank both CJCurrie and Nishidani as you both prove that the Land of Israel is connected to the Jewish people no matter their political beliefs or religious observance. Therefore, trying to create some sort of separation between "Zionism" or the Land of Israel and the Jewish people in general is impossible. Even the Jews most passionately against Israel are proving their connection to the Land through antagonism toward it. The same thing holds true with Judaism. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor, EnduranceRace (talk · contribs), and what is obviously his IP address, 65.28.227.116 (talk · contribs), has broken the 3RR on David trying to push his interpretation of a particular Bible verse, Psalm 83:18. I have tried to explain my position, and another IP editor has agreed with me, but Endurance refuses to listen. I cannot go further without breaking the 3RR myself. Can someone look at the page history and help me out? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted and put a 3RR warning on his talk page.

talk

) 03:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not good. I see four reverts each for

WP:3RR, one with more success than the other perhaps. Apologies if I'm wrong on that. Either way, 3RR shouldn't be a game of chicken. After one or two reverts, discuss it on the Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean an admin socking? That's a pretty harsh accusation there. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

From the page history, I just saw IPs and user names. If I were aware that one of the named editors was an admin, should that have changed my evaluation of their actions? I don't know. I said what it looked like to me and apologised in advance if I was mistaken. I did not accuse anyone of socking, admin or otherwise, and I have no interest in making any such accusation. My concern is that two, three or four people have engaged in fairly rapid edit-warring, which is disruptive and unproductive. If one or two reverts don't solve the problem, why should three or four? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 06:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have calmed down, for the time being; David (disambiguation) was also edited (and reverted), but did not have what I would call an edit war. Worth keeping an eye on for a few days, at least. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a 3RR warning at User talk:65.28.227.116 since there was another revert. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked for 12 hours for

taunting. Toddst1 (talk

) 01:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And sending me more mesages. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And having comments deleted by the complainant, I see.

Angry? No. Confused, yes. What standard does Jeremy suggest? Leaving uncited material, or deleting? It's not "my version" or his opinion of it I object to. It's his suggestion that wholesale deletion is preferable. And if it is, why, then, does that only apply when he says so? As for "copying and pasting my message"? Yes, to illustrate it's less his comment on the version than it is on his advocacy of policy in that comment, which leaves me wondering, again, if it only applies to others. Are only some pages to have material "aggressively removed"? Which ones? Do only some editors have the proper security clearances to "aggressively remove"? Which ones? (I'm guessing I don't, or we wouldn't be here.) Do only some editors have the right to comment on the statements/replies of others (Again, I'm guessing I don't, or that wouldn't have raised a complaint.) or have immunity from being quoted? (I'm guessing I don't.)

I'm also guessing an effort to add sources, pix, or material

WP:V, or something? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠}

00:59 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Would a couple admins mind watchlisting

I have justified these type of links in the talk page, as links to community sites for games that are defined by the fact that they are designed for their communities. I believe this user complaining of "static" is a bit far-fetched, when all I am doing is attempting to defend my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.170.170 (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

6RR report filed. I'm sorry.

I cannot believe the absolute arrogance you show by such a thing when I had said I would refrain from putting that section back until this dispute had been resolved. I can only assume that you've taken personal offence at me for arguing a point with you. That's a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.140.34 (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The report was filed right when you were doing what you were doing, and it was really nothing personal. I took nothing personal about any of this, at all. I just worked to remove excessive overlinking. I'm sorry if it upset you so much, alright? The report was filed time wise right before I think you posted that agreement. If someone wants to unblock I sure don't mind or care, as long as you don't start breaking over 3RR and fighting or anything.

T

) 06:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

After doing a bit of digging into your history here and in other places, Mr. rootology, I have come to the conclusion that I want nothing to do with you and am disengaging from this dispute at warp speed. You frighten me. You win. Leave me alone now, 'kay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.140.34 (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just totally unhelpful. You rebooted your modem to come back on a new IP to just slag me?

T

) 06:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User has been absent from editing for several months. Previously, user focused mostly on editing Eric Greif. Now that there has been activity at that article again, user removing edits and left this edit summary: "what are you sorry about pussy? stand up and be a fucking man. you sound like a little baby bitch...now go cry on the admin page haha" This was in response to my revert of the vandalism. By the way, as I DO NOT want a repeat of the hell that was April-May with this user (which involved a few admins and personal threats via Wikipedia Mail that required I remove myself from the service), this submission is being made with my IP address. Thanks for your attention to this before it gets out of hand again. 68.147.60.114 (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Tiptoety got to him first. Blocked for 31 hours. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 04:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Repeatedly = twice. I don't feel strongly about it either way, I just never saw it before, looked it up, and found the xfd consensus. No reason for its inclusion was given in the revert, so i removed it again with a link to the xfd *shrug* I've edited here only as an IP, but it changes with the wind. Paranoia often ensues, but frankly I don't care anymore. 86.44.27.122 (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

On second look I saw the link in your edit summary. Your rationale makes sense. It is clear that you are an experienced user, but there are many harmless explanations for that. I have no further issues. Jehochman ^Talk 04:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The editor at 208.116.156.55, aka Lopini, keeps adding fraternity information to the Radley Balko article. Every other editor who works on that page agrees it's irrelevant trivia and removes it, but he keeps adding it. He has never discussed this on the talk page, despite requests to do so. Diffs: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. He seems to know Wikipedia policy well enough to always avoid triggering 3RR, and this doesn't meet the definition of vandalism, but I was wondering if an admin could tell him to knock it off?—Chowbok ☠ 04:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not an admin, I have given him a warning. Hopefully he'll stop or make more relevant contributions. ~ Troy (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – vandalism gone. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to help with the grunt work? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a sock of similar previous vandals. Open a checkuser? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't think that will work, he's wannabe'ed by many people all the time. OT, all the vandalism is gone. Good work, guys! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We've got a censorship issue at

Looking into it. --mboverload@ 09:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps a drawn picture could be more suitable than a graphic photograph --The High Commander (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

I guess it depends on how hot the picture is. Dayewalker (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The image needs to be taken out. --

(mailbox)

09:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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 ;)) --
  (mailbox)
  09:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 "

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)

A related article,

(mailbox)

10:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Plausible as in "it's never going to happen"? --mboverload@ 10:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Forget images entirely. Take 'em all out. --

(mailbox)

10:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I mean subliminally and yes, what images wouldn't? Exactly. Which is why I've been saying take all kinds of these images out.

Never say never MB. I was going to edit the article with this template:

(mailbox) 10:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Think of the children, literally. -- (mailbox) 11:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Can just see it now. Wikipedia becoming a Child Care Centre. Bidgee (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 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. -- (mailbox) 11:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 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) {{ WP:ASR so hopefully it was the talk page you were trying to add it to. Guy (Help! ) 10:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 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? -- (mailbox) 10:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 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) How blunt. However, I do considor this image to be offensive and disturbing and frankly, kinda gross. -- (mailbox) 11:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 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. -- (mailbox) 11:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 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) [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) 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. ☄ 11:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 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. :( -- (mailbox) 11:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC) (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. -- (mailbox) 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC) "Vajayjays"??? If you're too young or immature to use the word vagina, you need to go find another hobby. No one can take you seriously if you're going to act like that. (not that many of us are really taking your histrionic 'think uv da wittle Kiddiez' excuses. Parents think of their children, we'll think about the encyclopedia. ThuranX (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC) 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. -- (mailbox) 12:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 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) 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) The image was removed for distastefulness. -- (mailbox) 22:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Nothing wrong with deleting an image because it degrades the tone or content of the article / encyclopedia more than it enlightens it. We make content decisions all the time. This image doesn't seem to add to the article in any encyclopedic way. There is no particular aspect to that image that is not fully conveyed in the words, except perhaps that the woman in question seems pretty nonchalant about the whole thing...but that's not very encyclopedic. Wikidemo (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 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) 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) Also User:Nandesuka is out of line by removing the image on the grounds of Copyvio[44] which the image has not be tagged for deletion and hasn't been deleted and if it's an obvious copyvio then the image should be easy to find. The image should be readded until this matter has been cleared up and if anyone feels that the image is a copyvio then tag it on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC) 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) (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) 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) 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) The image is essentially the only contribution to Wikimedia projects that I could find (I checked en.wikipedia, commons, and it.wikipedia. All of this user's edits (there were fewer than 20 in each project) centered around either this image or discussion of this image. Unless this user is a big contributor at some project I didn't check, this is a single purpose account whose main purpose was to upload this image. If that doesn't set off alarm bells for you, then you are way more trusting than I am. Nandesuka (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC) No special trust is really necessary here, just basic AGF in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the uploader is not lying in his comments about the image. There's nothing odd about an uploader of a sexuality-related image not being a regular editor. If I wanted to upload an image of my semen on my girlfriend's neck, I would certainly register a single purpose Commons account to do that. Prolog (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Apparently this is a Commons image ... it was 96 15:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 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) Nandesuka, now that's thinking. Let's reconsider when we have an image which is provably PD from an editor whose assurances of status we can actually trust. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Zee lack of metadata is a side effect of the file format. png isn't a conventional choice for photos due to size issues. Photo appears to be uploader's only upload but they have edited on a number of projects. May be related that user:Publicgirluk's Pearl necklace pic was a PNG.Geni 01:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC) While I agree that copyright would be an overriding concern, it doesn't appear this is an "obvious" copyvio, and per discussion here may not be one at all. Should Nand's edit be reverted, pending other consensus to the contrary? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Many images have been deleted for less than this image was deleted. Not only would we create a double standard with sexual items, we would be going against legal sense. We need to prove an item is free, not prove an item is not. This item lacks any real evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC) But there is no proof that it isn't free. Bidgee (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC) The way GFDL works, you have to prove that it is free and under a free license. The fact that the image was proven to be altered from another source shows that there is a missing source information, which in itself would force it to be deleted. You seem to be harping on this quite a lot and it seems troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Well this isn't commons which is where the image is hosted. "You seem to be harping on this quite a lot and it seems troubling." oooh please. Last time I looked anyone can reply and discuss issues here. 14:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I can point you to some Commons admin who use Wikipedia regularly and have items hosted on Commons removed from articles because of bad copyright tags even though they are still hosted there. I work int he FA area, we deal with image copyright problems quite often. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I see no issues with the copyright tag on the image so it's still no grounds of removal and we don't know the history about the Commons Admin nor does it have anything to do with this issue. Bidgee (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC) "I see no issues with the copyright tag on the image" - No date when it was taken. No date when it was first scanned or uploaded to a computer. No date and author of who cropped the photo. CC 5 would mean it was copyrighted in another source, which needs a link or a statement. 4 major problems, each worthy of deleting the photo. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Image was uploaded in 2006 and there are a few photos from 2005 - 2007 that have no date, Image has a source!, Image is a png format so the image isn't going to have EXIF data. No proof that it's a copyvio. Bidgee (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I don't think you know what "uploaded to a computer" meant, as you used the "upload to WikiCommons" date instead. For something to be licensed as a CC image, you have to have this information so you can track the trail of derivative works. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC) The original image had metadata. The couple who took the pictures supplied it when they created the article. After discussion on the article and attempts to remove and then linkimage it, they offered an elarged and cropped version of the image, which is the image being discussed.[45] When it was cropped, no doubt the Metadata left, as is often the case. I offered diffs to much of this on the article talk page. The image is not a copyvio, and the couple states their ages on his Commons page, Here. Atom (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC) With all due respect, I think you are misremembering. I undeleted the original image to examine it. It was a 640x480 png with absolutely no metadata. The editor who uploaded it did assert that he owned copyright in it, but that isn't very surprising, and doesn't help us beyond being a bare assertion. But if you have a version of the photo that does have metadata, by all means point me to it -- perhaps I have the wrong one. Nandesuka (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC) So? There are also many photos on Wiki and Commons which don't get deleted just because there is no EXIF data. Such as Image:Cyclone Helen 3919.jpg which lost it's EXIF data and if anyone thinks I stole it then thats there problem not mine. Bidgee (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC) No matter how many times you try to frame it this way, I am not claiming that all leather purses are stolen. The lack of metadata is one of the many aspects of this image that make it problematic. The most problematic, of course, is that this image seems to have been contributed by a SPA. For comparison, had David Shankbone (or another editor with a long history of contributions) submitted the same image, I would certainly not suspect it of being a copyright violation. As it stands, however, there are too many oddities about this image, taken as a whole, to simply shrug our shoulders and say "Well, the contributor claims it's self-made. Good enough for me!" Nandesuka (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Nandesukas removal of the image was not appropriate, however I understand his sincere concerns about copyvio. The removal should stand for the moment. A survey to gain to attempt to gain consensus for the removal is underway at the article, and it should be allowed to complete. Based on the current count, I would expect there to be a failure to gain consensus for removal, as people who support removal are in the minority with a large number of votes. Atom (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC) It's not a vote. WP:Voting is evil. Bidgee (talk ) 12:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Note that in the past day, the image has been nominated for deletion on commons, citing the concerns raised here, and was speedily kept. Consensus does not appear to support the image's removal on any of the provided rationales at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Legality question Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. Does the Wikipedia main page need a "over 18 warning"? There are clearly titillating and semi-porn images and articles on wikipedia. What is the value of a pearl necklace article in an encyclopedia. Why not an article on "white dragon", that's where the man gets oral sex and cums in the woman's (or I suppose another man's) mouth and it drips out of her nose. Some articles, like this, could simply have a template. The user would click one of two choices. The "under 18 choice" would redirect to either an explanation or the main page. The "over 18 and horny" choice would redirect to "Pearl necklace (over 18)" article. HRCC (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Exactly HRCC. -- (mailbox) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC) I bet the WMF's lawyers have thought of this already. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Most of my teenage friends would see such a warning and be more eager to see the article - is anything about this in the WP:General disclaimer? ¡ Dendodge .. TalkContribs! 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC) It's covered in the Content disclaimer. Resolute 19:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Been looked into the answer is no. Apart from anything else we have no actual photos of people engageing in sexual activity with other people.Geni 19:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC) In UK jurisdiction, at least, we don't need an adult-content warning, no. Anthøny 19:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Neither in the DK one. Maybe i'm prejudiced, but the censoring of sexual images, seems to be mostly a US phenomenon. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Kim, why not create Category:Porn images and Category:Racy articles and Category:Shocking articles. Dirty Sanchez (or whatever that article where feces is apply above one's lip) would be in the shocking articles category. US phenomena? Many countries are far more restrictive. HRCC (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC) If your examples had encylopedic value, then i can't see why not. But i can't see the value of those meta-categories, which do not seem to have such. And which countries might this be? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Opinion - wouldn't this topic better be served as an entry on the Wikitionary? It seems that the page does very little beyond defining the term. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC) The original poster, HRCC appears to be trolling. Take a look at this diff. I recommend erasing this thread per WP:DENY. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Not liking an administrator is not an excuse to "deny" someone for "trolling" or to label them as such. Otherwise, most of us would be trolls at some time or another. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Calling another editor, or group of editors, "Nazis" and recommending punishment is a pretty egregious violation of decorum. Please check this diff. Jehochman Talk 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC) I've seen it. However, this could be the case of a newbie blowing off steam after having something like losing their user name upset them. I'm sure we can find some far more graphic reactions by respected people of the community. Remember, AGF is a two way street, and BITE was written to ensure that we teach new people how to act and not outright dismiss them. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Maybe a nice article template? Or maybe entire deletion of this category? Or perhaps a warning window? Hmm? Especially if you're wanting to keep these damn images. -- (mailbox) 22:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC) I propose that it is not ideal for Wikipedia to cater to exhibitionists. Jtrainor (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC) this has been done to death in many many places - broadly, we do not and will not fliter content on the basis of the viewer of the age, their religious beliefs (which is another common call for censorship) or any other such fact. In addition, we do not add disclaimers to articles and in fact, the addition of additional disclaimers is strictly prohibited by the general disclaimer. It's a complete non-starter. If someone finds a good quality free image - it goes in the article - no amount of "think of the children!" will change that. --87.114.131.159 (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC) If we were to find that content warnings or access restrictions were required by law that's a decision to come from Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, and that would come down pretty firm - no consensus or discussion necessary on our part. I'm sure Godwin has thought of this before. I think he knows the field. It wouldn't apply to this image because it's not porn by any legal definition - nothing shown. A partial correction to Geni. Under 18USC2256, the sexual content regulated by the US government (porn, for short) includes not only sexual contact with genitals but also "lascivious display of the genitals or pubic area", a term that is rather broad and hard to pin down, though there is some further commentary in the law and some case law. One interesting result is that not all photos of genitals count, but some pictures of clothed genital areas do count as porn. The photo over at Cameltoe might count, the hands-on-hip pose is suggesting a clinical inspection more than a lewd invitation to sexual conduct (yes, the law gets into this kind of body language). Anyway, there's a bigger concern about underaged photo subjects than underaged viewers, and some pretty serious laws about that. That image comes from the UK, which makes it all the more complicated. Again, a subject for Wikimedia's counsel not us, but we should be on the lookout to porn subjects who are not clearly of age. Regarding the proposal, anyone who is truly concerned with inappropriate adult content could easily create a tagging system for Wikipedia images and articles so those ones would be blocked or behind an access restriction - and implement it somewhere else, say in a browser plug-in or a mirror site. So they can have their kiddie-safe version of Wikipedia and we can have the uncensored version. Wikidemo (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Notice The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Resolved  – Not going to happen per WP:PEREN#Content warnings. Sceptre (talk ) 16:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Out of curiosity, and this may be better suited for the Village Pump, but perhaps the code can be modified so that an article can be flagged by an administrator as being for "18 years of age and above" and pop up with a notice before the article is loaded, with a message that states the content may be unsuitable for minors. A simple notice, nothing more, nothing less. seicer | talk | contribs 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Not going to happen for quite a selection of reasons which we have been over a number of times. If you want such a fearture best bet to write an extentsion for firefox or something for DansGuardian.Geni 01:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I support Seicer's idea. It's not that difficult and it doesn't have to be JavaScript or anything. Since removing all of these kinds of images seem a hard enough task, this will suffice. -- (mailbox) 02:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC) There is no way you can provide an objective list of articles that contain material that needs flagging.Geni 04:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC) What good would it do anyway? It wouldn't actually stop anyone from viewing material they are supposedly too young for. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Do we tag Holocaust tagged, so they can stop people from reading truth before indoctrination, the republicans want Homosexuality tagged, and so on. It won't stop. A template to tag articles like that would wind up being tagged to 3/4ths of the project in a couple weeks. Every anti-Wikipedia board on earth would have instructions about how to add it to articles they don't like, the project would wind up spending 90% if its time reverting the stupidity. No thanks. A template like this wouldn't be a slippery slope, but a freefall to the bottom. ThuranX (talk ) 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Nandesuka Admin Nandesuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the image when the page is protected claiming the image is a copyvio[46] but the image isn't marked[47] and Nandesuka keeps saying that the image hurts Wikipedia[48] as an questionable image but if the image is an issue why not tag the image for deletion on Commons if they felt it was a copyvio instead of removing it without anything to back-up the claims[49]. It seems the copyvio claim was used as an way of censoring the image. The image should be readded until an consensus can be reached or the image is deleted from Commons with a vaild reason. Bidgee (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I would like you to expand on the sentence "It seems the copyvio claim was used as an way of censoring the image." I believe that the image is an obvious copyvio. I believe this because the image has a number of attributes (soft, even lighting that I'd characterize as professional, contributed by (what seems like) a single-purpose account, uploaded during the middle of the User:publicgirluk fiasco, a complete lack of metadata, contains personally identifying features). I removed the image because I believe it hurts no one for us to look for an image with a less suspicious provenance. If you are claiming that I am using the copyright status of the image as a pretext, then I would suggest, politely, that you are making unjustified (and insulting) accusations. I have worked on Wikipedia's sexuality articles for years and years. I have worked hard to make sure that our articles are appropriately illustrated. Sometimes that means adding a photo that other people are offended by. Sometimes it means removing a photo that is crap. No one is hurt by keeping a photo with a provenance as suspicious as this one's off the article for a bit while we find a better one. That's not censorship. That's editing. I removed the photo because, in my administrative judgment it puts en.wikipedia at risk to use it. I am more than willing to accept criticism that I am wrong in my judgment that it is a copyvio. I categorically reject implications that I am acting on a pretext. Nandesuka (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC) See Luna Santin's comment] on the bottom of the Pearl necklace (sexuality) section. In your administrative judgment you've jumped the gun (See Atomaton's comments) and just because you maybe an Admin doesn't mean you can remove an image during an dispute in which you're involved in (You're involved since you did support it's removal) and as I said if you think it's an "obvious" copyvio then tag it on Commons but you haven't done that only removing the image which is censoring. I'm in NO way making unjustified and insulting accusations since it's fact. "I am wrong in my judgment that it is a copyvio." then your removal should be reverted. Bidgee (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Nandesuka, if there is an actual claim to there being a copyright violation, then nominate the image for deletion and make a valid claim of how it is. But since its been through the deletion process twice on Commons, I don't think your going to make a successful case that hasn't already been presented. You are involved in this dispute, and editing the content of this protected page is outside the realm of exceptance of using your admin bit when you don't like the content of the image. — Moe ε 12:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC) As an journalism-trained photog and computer geek, I've taken a lot of pics with nice lighting, and either removed tags, or lost them during photo conversion. The absence of tags and presence of lighting does not represent a copyvio in and of themselves. Please feel free to actually prove copyvio, or you need to AGF. (drive) 11:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I think that Nandesuka was expressing genuine concerns about copyvio, and not attempting to censor an image that he did not like. I do think that there is clear evidence that it is not a copyvio though, and that he was mistaken. As there is a surveu to gain consensus for the removal of the image on the talk page of the article, we should leave things as they are for the moment until that completes. The image can be returned if that survey fails to gain consensus for removal. Atom (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC) A copyviolation is a legal matter and should be addressed first, and if incorrect, restored after proof that there was no copyviolation. I have seen no proof of such, so why is this even being discussed? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Incorrect. You need hard proof to remove an image and Nandesuka hasn't given hard proof that it's an copyvio other then it having no EXIF data but thats no grounds to call it a copyvio. Bidgee (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC) That doesn't seem to have any accord with the practice so I am unable to believe that you are correct. Pages are deleted at the commons constantly over speculation that they were miss-tagged and without proof. The burden of proof is always on the uploader. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC) There is nothing there to prove that the image is in doubt but the main issue I'm talking about is that the image was removed from the article on the grounds that it's a copyvio but the image isn't tagged. Bidgee (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC) T: That issue is easily addressed: I'll tag the image tonight when I get home from work. Nandesuka (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Nandesuka needs to lose his buttons. He abused his Admin power in an manner that shows obvious disregard for the consensus evinced in this thread and in numerous linked to prior threads, just to get his way and CENSOR the project. Admins who engage in POINTy CENSORship ought to have their button license immediately revoked; his distractions about the licensing are irrelevant, they've been asked and answered numerous times, but he's playing the 'I didn't hear that' game. The Image needs to be restored, pending consensus. What a disgusting example of COI editing by an admin. Pull his buttons now! ThuranX (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I think you need to back down from this. Your comments against others are unwarranted. Your comment here is especially troubling to me. Furthermore, you keep saying that this is an encyclopedia and even mentioned breast cancer. There is a clear difference from a sexual act and a non-sexual act. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC) And this is my last response to the topic. The above user has made such a claim against me that makes me feel uncomfortable discussing this issue with them present. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I ahve no intention of backing down, and you know full well that your comment placement made it look like I was saying something I hadn't said, specifically that you were requesting proof that I didn't provide, instead using a one word answer to dismiss you. You know how to properly factor your comments into a conversation, but don't. And there's no difference for the context of breasts if censorship rears its head on here, and you're also hopefulyl smart enough to see that. ThuranX (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I am actually quite concerned how an editor who is involved in a conflict over an article and/or image would then unilaterally use their admin privileges to "solve the problem" themself. That's not really the way Wikipedia works. Admins are given that privilege because they supposedly know the policies, and are editors first, admins second. They need to recuse themselves from that admin role when necessary, and this appears to be one of those times that it should have happened. Removing admin rights doesn't fix the issue - reversing of single-sided deletes and edits, a little warning, and a nice little bit of mentoring would go a long way. (drive) 17:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Comment Ugh that's absolutely revolting and an offence against good taste. I thought this article was about the "Country Life" frontispiece with a girl in twinset and pearls or something. Disgusting. Delete it now. Peter Damian (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC) You're kidding, I hope ... (drive) 17:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia: Come for the pearl necklace, stay for the long drawn-out argument. HalfShadow 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC) No why should I be joking. It's absolutely revolting. Here is a much nicer picture. I thought it was about that. Why would anyone be interested in the other rubbish? Peter Damian (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC) You click on Pearl necklace (sexuality) and expect something non-sexual? --Conti|✉ 17:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I expected something like this or those pictures they used to have in Country Life. What's this article for? Peter Damian (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] And I first thought this was about deleting the article. Turns out it's only some crappy picture. Again, what are these articles for except to gratify some teenage vandalistic impulse? How does this help people in Africa? Peter Damian (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Oh shit! That's what we're doing wrong! We're not cleaning our plates at dinner because kids in africa are starving! Stop trolling, Peter Damian. If you really think that a page specifically labelled 'Sexuality' is going to be about some old magazine, then you're in the wrong hobby. Go read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and move on. ThuranX (talk ) 22:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Well, a (drive) 17:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC) The article offends me because it is a crap article. We do have policies about crap articles. Peter Damian (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC) We have a note about just this sort of issue that you might need to read. Not liking an article, even being disgusted by it (as am I), is not grounds for deleting it. S.D.D.J.Jameson 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Don't say 'we'. It depends on the reason for not liking it. I don't like articles which have poor spelling, which are unreferenced, which are ungrammatical, which have no thread, which are generally non-encyclopedic. These are all reasons for changing or deleting an article one doesn't like. You catch my drift? Peter Damian (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I say "we" because we're working on a project here. And, no, being ungrammatical (as annoying as that is) does not a deletion rationale make. I would also point out that using the phrase "you catch my drift" is a bit, well, rude. I was simply pointing you toward a link I thought would help you understand why you will garner very little support in an attempt to have an article deleted because you find it disgusting or vulgar. I apologize if you found the link unhelpful in this regard. S.D.D.J.Jameson 18:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Peter Damian, you appear to fundamentally misunderstand the acceptable reasons for deletion. Nevertheless, this conversation, which is supposed to be about alleged misbehaviour by an admin, has gone wildly off-topic. If any of the participants wish to continue the off-topic discussion, they can take it to user talk or email. Regarding the topic at hand, although I disagree with him my view is that Nandesuka acted in good faith. Rather than reverting at this point I would suggest leaving things as they are until the discussion plays out on the article talk page, and in the meantime, if it hasn't already been listed, list the image itself for deletion to hash out the copyright issues. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Please note: Users who persist in continuing off-topic discussion in this section will be blocked. Stick to the topic and take off-topic discussion to email or talk pages. See: WP:TALK for further information. This is your final warning. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk ) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC) You have got to be kidding! Topic drift is a fact of life online, and you're going to block for it!? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Give me a break, this thread is getting more ridiculous by the second. Nandesuka's rationale is pretty thoughtful and convincing, and since the stakes are low getting rid of the image was the right call. If you're that concerned about having an image on the article, take a photo yourself (use a doll?) or draw one. Calling for a desysop, or a non-admin threatening to block people for not posting on topic... Hysterically funny, but thats probably unintentional right? T 22:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Holy crap, Exploding Boy is an admin and is still threatening to block people for off-topic posts (and in this case, he thinks the main topic is the misuse of admin tools, and not the image that is referenced in the highest level header). T 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC) No, I' m fairly serious about the Desysop. Nandesuka abused his buttons to force a change against consensus, and now Exploding Boy is threatening blocks liberally to intimidate other editors. So now I'm all for TWO de-buttonings, Nandesuka's and Exploding Boy's. Exploding Boy for intimidation via button, and Nandesuka for POV pushing with special buttons. Both are explicit no-nos, and both have clearly done so. Further, I call for a reversion of the page to the status quo, which was image in. ThuranX (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC) The main topic is the image. The topic in this sub-section is whether Nandesuka abused his admin privileges. The off-topic posts had nothing to do with either issue. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Bullshit. Peter Damian began discussing the image and related article here, This is the furthest section down the page, thus the most recent, and he posted here. I think he's trolling, but if not, we AGF, and accept that sometimes users simply use the most recent section to discuss the topic. In PD's case, he discussed the image and article instead of nandesuka's behavior. Avoid causing a chilling effect with your self-righteous bullying, which is exactly what we're seeing here. ThuranX (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC) How about remaining WP:CIVIL for a start? Comments like "how does this help the children in Africa" do not constitute constructive or serious discussion. My intention was to stop the silly conversation that was taking over and disrupting a discussion about a serious accusation, and that's what happened. Nobody was blocked. The users were, and still are, perfectly free to discuss the merits of the article elsewhere, like on the article's talk page. Anyway, I've made my view on Nandesuka's action clear already, and I have no intention of getting into an argument with you. Exploding Boy (talk ) 22:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry, that wasn't me. that was someone else. If you wanted to stop it, you should've called for him to stop trolling ,instead of throwing around threats. ThuranX (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Can we all calm down here? Throwing around requests to desysop people rarely makes things calmer. Nandesuka does not have any history of problematic use of the admin tools and it is hard to see a single bad use of the tools as a reason to immediately desysop the individual. And threats of blocks aren't useful either. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I do think it somewhat unbecoming of an admin to close an AfD saying that the "keep arguments presented below are spectacularly unpersuasive." One could say he is not persuaded by the argument without using somewhat insulting hyperbole. I also advise for such AfDs as this when it is a second nomination for which the previous discussion had ten keeps to only five deletes (yes, I know it is not a vote, but still...) and four editors (including two current admins and one previous admin) in the current one arguing to keep (and it doesn't help that one account arguing to delete in the current discussion was determined to be a ban evading sock and another has said it is his mission to delete and would not and has not ever argued to keep) really deserves more of an explanation of its closing. Thus, these are some other at least moderately questionable examples. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Tally-ho! 23:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I commented about the image as well, am I going to be blocked for such an offense? Can you point me to where such a block is described in policy? I haven't seen it written anywhere that "Posts which do not pertain directly to the sub-topic being discussed in a section can result in a block." I must just not have read that particular page. T 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (outdent) I'm sorry, we deleted the picture that included that information :) (Just a little humour to defuse the tense situation) (drive) 14:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I do see a few questionable decisions here: (1) removing an image from an article based on an unprovable claim that the image is too well done to be amateur - it isn't all that well done; (2) doing so in an arguable case where many or most think otherwise; and (3) inasmuch as #1 and #2 are non-administrative content decisions, protecting an article immediately after editing it to enforce the administrator's personal content opinion. There's every reason to assume good faith on Nandesuka's part - agree or disagree with the action, but it was done to protect Wikipedia. Good faith misuse of tools is still wrong, if indeed it was a mistake, but why chastise? Why not discuss in a supportive way? How about taking this discussion either here or elsewhere to the rather more sober question of when is it okay to remove, or delete, an image that one feels is in bad taste for the article it's in, and/or a possible but unprovable copyvio? Wikidemo (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Ok to get this clear. I in no way that I'm after Nandesuka to be de-Sysoped only that the image to be reverted until the discussion is over since there has been no consensus to remove it. In no way was it to protect Wikipedia, if it was it would have been mark/tagged before it was removed from the article which it wasn't which makes Nandesuka's edit summary invalid since who can it be a copyvio without a tag and proof? It would be like someone saying to me that I stole my own image without backing up the claim. Another thing that was wrong was Nandesuka was involved since they voted support for it's removal (A third-party Admin should have removed it from an protected page) and also Nandesuka never left a vaild message for the image removed expaining the actions done plus the refusal to revert the removal. Bidgee (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Unprotection? Is it time to unprotect the article? It seems highly unlikely to me that the image will be removed by consensus unless it is in fact a copyvio, a point of contention which many editors have suggested should be addressed on commons rather than here. I would ask Zscout370 directly, but it seems they haven't edited in two days. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Addressing an issue on commons or having to wait for commons to come up with a decision does not mean that Wikipedia is given a pass to display the image or deem it in compliant of a copyright. I can link you to some top admins over at Commons who have stated this same thing at Wikipedia if you wish. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC) The image has no copyright issues and doesn't mean that the image will have copyright issues here as well though we should wait for an outcome (Even though it looks like a clear keep ATM) to be sorted before we unprotect the article. Bidgee (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Two different images claiming to be the original means that there is a clear copyright issue. It is dishonest to say otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Oh please. Read whats been said on the Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png 3rd nomination deletion page (Note that the IP who was commenting on that page is blocked). It's not dishonest. Image:3801 Wagga Wagga.jpg is a cropped version of an original I had which doesn't make it a copyvio and the same goes for Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png which was cropped for a reason. Bidgee (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Deletion reviews are not a vote and popular opinion does not override legal concerns. Also, reading over the review, it appears that at least 6 people put reasons for keep that have nothing to do with the topic, suggesting that they are not using the process correctly. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC) There is no proof that it's a copyvio there for no legal concerns until someone can back-up the claim with something vaild. Also it's not a vote and those 6 that you say didn't address the issue then the same could be said for those who want the deletion. Bidgee (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Just because you repeat something does not make it true. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Wouldn't the same be just as true for you, Ottava...? Your repeated attempts to complain the original uploader is somehow violating their own copyright, no matter how many users explain this is impossible, is at best pedantic or misguided. That horse is dead and has been for some time. There are other, better horses you might want to consider beating. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Please stop misquoting me. Wiki Commons holds the document. Wiki Commons needs to acknowledge its a derivative. It doesn't matter if the original owner gives them the derivative, because the Creative Commons 2.5 even has language to say if the original owner gives a derivative. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Yes, it does matter. You're failing to distinguish between first and third parties, as several users have tried to explain to you. The "requirement" you're citing appears to be your own misunderstanding. I don't mean to be rude, but I can only try to gently explain that you're wrong so many times before coming to the conclusion you don't understand this licensing issue nearly as well as you think you do. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC) As everyone can see, ""Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works" does not say "except if the original author does it, then it counts as a new work". This falls under derivative, as the primary work was already uploaded. I don't know why you don't understand this. There is a distinction, and it is an important one - according to CC 2.5, all derivatives must state the original work in order for those who aren't the author to host the derivative. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC) To be a little clearer - the owner can do whatever he want as long as he holds it. However, once it passes into Wiki Commons's hands, they have to be compliant. The original owner, while in possession, doesn't have to do anything. However, for Wiki Commons to always have the right to it, they must attribute the original work in order to distinguish this as a derivative. There is no primary party involved. There is only Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Would an option be to follow this suggestion (the nominating IP appears to be okay with this)? Would this get us a step in the right direction? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC) The steps seem to be laid out in full here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC) That image was deleted because of privacy concerns - it showed an identifiable face. It should not be undeleted, even temporarily. If we need someone to view or alter the image, that should be done by an admin who has access to the deleted revisions. And I don't think it's relevant if an anon who was blocked for trolling is 'okay' with any solution. -- Vary | Talk 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Vary, the image would only be restored long enough for someone to copy it, copy the meta data, and then crop it out for a new edition that is compliant. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Well, given that most of the commons folks agree that the current image is compliant, that doesn't seem to be necessary - it sounds like this may be largely an effort to satisfy the (apparently unwarranted) concerns of the tendentious IP who nominated the picture. But even if it were needed, why undelete the picture even temporarily when there are people who can access it without making it available to the general public? -- Vary | Talk 16:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Seeing as how this is a copyright issue, mob rule doesn't make a keep. I doubt elcobbola would have bothered posting the above (as he is an admin at Commons) if it was as clear cut as those like Bidgee makes it seem. Now, Vary, about process - can the image be accessed? Nadesuka had to undelete the image to verify its state. Does a Bureaucrat have the ability to look without undeleting? If so, then it doesn't need to be undeleted to get the image, and thats fine. The ability to see deleted images isn't really listed anywhere, so it would be nice to know. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Sigh. No, it's not a copyright issue. We have one anon editor who claims it's a copyright issue, and a number of experienced commons editors who have explained that it's not, and why. That's not 'mob rule'. We can't allow consensus to overrule policy, but nor can we allow spurious claims of policy violation to overrule consensus. I know that here on en admins can look at deleted images without undeleting them, the same as with deleted revisions, or at least we could last time I tried it. I don't know for a fact that the software is implemented in the same way on commons. But, as I said, this should only even be undertaken if there is a legitimate problem. It seems as though there isn't. One user who refuses to listen to editors with a lot more experience than him or her is not a justification for undeleting this image. -- Vary | Talk 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Commons admins can see deleted images without undeleting. I don't really care what happens to this image one way or another, I was just trying to see whether a certain route - even if "unnecessary" - would resolve concerns and let us move on with our lives. Note, also, that privacy isn't really an issue. As we're applying AGF to the uploader, their statement of "we are a couple" (i.e. a statement on behalf of both participants) and the implicit assertion of being "self-made" indicates they are well aware that they uploaded an identifiable image. We blur faces/delete images when the subject is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and no proof of consent. Consent for this image is reasonably implied by the aforementioned remarks. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry, ЭLСОВВОLД, I thought I responded to this comment earlier, but I guess I didn't hit save? If it's not a privacy issue, I'm less concerned, but I still don't see the need. Thanks for clarifying that deleted images can in fact be viewed by admins on commons. -- Vary | Talk 19:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Vary, doesn't WP:IANAL automatically discount taking "opinions" as legal certainty? However, I doubt that will matter, and I do not have faith that you will be willing to change your mind on the issue, so I wont bother responding to you anymore. Our first run in was over you attempting to use an uncopyrighted and unauthored source as a reliable source on Wikipedia, and I don't believe that your views on such things have changed since then. Ottava Rima (talk ) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC) (ec)Oh, how nice. Thanks for trying to inflame the situation with a pointless jab, Ottava. As anyone who cares can look into the actual particulars of that situation, I won't bother clarifying your, shall we say, 'slanted' summary here, except to say that the 'disputed' material did stay in the article, so I guess you would have to say that I succeeded in using a (gasp) "uncopyrighted and unauthored" source. But IANAL works both ways; the blocked IP's "opinions" are not expert legal advice, either; they certainly shouldn't get more weight than those of editors who are experienced with dealing with copyright issues as they relate to commons. -- Vary | Talk 18:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Ok, had some computer issues. Due to that, if any admin feels the urge to unprotect the article, go right ahead. Just drop me a note when it is done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC) IP block exempt Resolved  – Spellcast (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC) WP:IPBE, but I'd like to get some second opinions first. Thanks, Spellcast (talk ) 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I see another admin granted him exemption for now. Unless anyone has anything to add, consider this resolved. Spellcast (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC) 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) I notified in a neutral way two wikiprojects which dealt with related subject matter.[50][51] 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) 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) I said that whatever their will was for the article I would accept- you can't get much more neutral than that. My 'brothers and sisters' comment was in imitation of the post above where a lady their refered to the others their as 'brethren'. I was trying to be amusing. As I explain in the post below that one, I'm well aware that most metal heads do not consider themselves to be satanists. So the 'brothers and sisters in satan' comment can only be considered as ironic/humourous (which is what it was), in imitation of the post above, which demonstrated what most metal performers say their use of such terminology is about- showmmanship. Only one person participating in the AfD is from either of the wikiprojects, so it has not skewed the AfD so my "canvassing" by asking wikiprojects as hundreds of AfDs do has not skewed the AfD or even affected it at all. Anyway, AfD is not about numbers, but about the strength of the argument. <str>Anyway I will change my tone in that request if my use of humour is going to be used to get me into trouble, and I apologise if my comment was ambiguous in any way.</str> Ok now I'm going to change my wording and I apologise if my comment was unclear to anyone. If the AfD is started again I would consider it very cruel as it is a painful process to undergo for any editor whose article is up for AfD, especially as I've worked hard and found dozens of sources for the article, looking at virtually every mention of the phrase in WP:RS. Anyway as I said it hasn't skewed the AfD at all, as I said only one person commenting has come from either of those projects. Actually I will remove my requesting wikiprojects related to the subject to view the AfD, even though that happens in hundreds of AfDs, if it's going to be used to torture me with another AfD lol:)Sticky Parkin 21:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC) You don't need to joke, you don't need to pander, you don't need to be engaging or witty or anything else besides totally neutral. You say here's something you might be interested in and give an address, what could be simpler? No, you were canvassing, that's abundantly clear. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC) And, for the record, this, this, and this - notifications all placed after you alleged there's no such thing as voting and an impartial admin will make a decision on this whole matter by reviewing the discussion and judging the merits of the nomination with reference to the content policies. ColdmachineTalk 09:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (ec) to Ed- I said I don't mind which way you vote, I ust want you to 'turn your all-seeing eye' to the article/AfD i.e. have a look. I'm sorry if you view being humourous as wrong.:) Most people at the AfD disagree that this was canvassing and have explicitly said so, so no, it's not clear it's your and Gatoclass' interpretation, which most of the editors there don't see or agree with. Anyway, all done now so can I be saved further stress by closing this AN/I please? As my comments to the wikiprojects have been removed, I think Gatoclass' should be too. Gatoclass- never notified me of the AfD, the AN/I, never responded to any comments or questions I left on his talk, never added a reason for his insertion of a tag on the article, which I asked on his talk page for him to explain, he only commented on the article talk page after I removed the tag. It's very rude not only not notifying an editor that you've made a thread on them at AN/I, but not even letting them know their article is up for AfD, and no response to talk page comments. If xtianity wikiprojects have been notified, these should be removed as I removed my notification of two very quiet wikiprojects which led to no change in the way the AfD was going. Anyway I don't need this stress.Sticky Parkin 09:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Please don't restart the AfD- my notifications had no effect on the vote and I don't need this dragged out for another five days- it's an "eternal torment" as it is:) P.S. To Coldmachine- I'm not the one getting het up about anything, I just don't need the stress and b******s (which no doubt someone will find a way to use saying b******s against me now) :) Sticky Parkin 09:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid you've attracted all of the bollocks with your canvassing, which started this thread. If you don't need the stress, then try to follow the rules. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Well said WBOSITG. I agree with your comment - please try and follow the rules Sticky Parkin.--VS talk 10:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Well I think I did and so do numerous others. Anyway, all over now. Sticky Parkin 12:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I'd just like to say that Gatoclass starting this thread said my notifying two relatively quiet wikiprojects had somehow possibly made the AfD invalid. I notified them for one day and then removed my notification due to this objection by Gatoclass, though I personally disagree with it. Ed then notified about six large Christian wikiprojects, and he claims this evens it out lol, even though I'd already withdrawn mine and they had not effected the vote. What I'm trying to say is we're square, and the AfD is not skewed, well not in my direction, as only one person voted who possibly did so in response to my notifications anyway, and at least one person has voted in response to his notifications. Unlike them, I will keep mine or others that I think might be interested such as maybe a media wikiproject unnotified, so as not to escalate any row. Unlike Gatoclass' opinion of the other wikiprojects, I credit the Christian wikiprojects with the intelligence and decency to be objective and consider the article as wikipedians, anyway. This is WP:POINTY. I notified the religion wikiproject. That was neutral. That group should have a neutral view point to the AfD about Hail Satan. It was Wikiproject:Religion, not Wikiproject:Christianity. I think the canvassing charge is bogus and I also think that the policy needs rewording in order to clarify situations like this. 70.182.240.47 (talk ) 16:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Now I'm signed in. Let me make this clear. I think that until the issue of votestacking is resolved within the article rescue squad, this incident should not even be looked at. For one, sticky notified two wikiprojects in good faith. She did not say anything out of line, other than notifying us. Now, that happens on an every day basis. Music groups are notified when bands are up for deletion, WP:AIRPORTS is notified when an airport is listed for deletion. I don't think that is canvassing. I think that should be allowed. If the project who covers the articles is not notified, how will the article be brought up to wikipedia standards? It would be deleted without the proper people being warned. Undeath (talk ) 17:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Just for the record, SP notifed two groups: WikiProject Black Metal and WikiProject Religion/Left Hand path work group. This was votestacking because his notification (which in the case of Black Metal was not neutrally worded) went only to groups that were likely to produce "Keep" votes for the article. After a lot of discussion on the AfD, Undead warrior offered to help balance things by notifying groups that were likely to vote the other way. Unfortunately, all UW did was notify WikiProjectReligion. To help balance SP's votestacking, I notified, in a totally neutral way WikiProject Christian Metal, WikiProject Christian Music, and WikiProject Christianity. Let me say that not only did I !vote "Weak keep" on the AfD, my preference all along, expressed in my !vote comment and elsewhere on the AfD, was not to try to balance SP's votestacking, but to have the AfD closed down and started again, because it had been tainted by SP's actions. Since no one took up that suggestion, notifying other groups seemed like the only option available to me to help make the process more fair. I guess my question for folks here is - in an instance of obvious votestacking such as this, where the only people notified are those more likely to vote one way, what steps should an editor take to counter them? Is there another course of action which would have been preferable? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Oh, incidentally, while SP's notification were up for a day or more, mine were removed after an hour or so, I can't recall by whom. (Not me.) I didn't bother to repost them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC) There is no "balancing" a vote stack. That is WP:POINTY and you know it. Also, notifying WP:Religion would have been the best course from the start. It is represented by every religion which makes it un-biased. You never try and balance out a "taint" in afd, that is not the right course of action. What SP did, in my opinion, was not vote stacking. And until anyone can tell me why it would be votestacking and how the article rescue squad is not votestacking, then I believe this issue is done. Undeath (talk ) 05:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Um, thanks for your comment, but I really was hoping for some unbiased guidance from the regulars here, this being a situation I have not found myself in before. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I'm not biased and I have been here before. This isn't a come and get advice area, it's a "you've done something wrong" area. Undeath (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Can we mark this resolved now seeing as how people on the other side of the debate have "canvassed" multifold more to far more active and larger wikiprojects, after I already removed my notifications after just one day, so we're more than even? Not that it helped them as editors on wikiprojects have minds of their own and aren't manipulable in that way. Sticky Parkin 12:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Just adding this over here for the sake of explanation/completeness. I wrote this in the AfD, in response to a comment from Gatoclass where he implied I didn't trust the Chritiian wikiproject's objectivity, or I would have notified them:- I thought (rightly or wrongly) Christianity not quite related to the subject in the same way as Wikiproject Left Hand Path and Wikiproject Black Metal is all. Christians don't tend to study or use the phrase "Hail Satan" a lot, do they, or listen to media in which it is used particularly frequently? Not the ones I know, anyway.:) I did consider notifying them when people made this fuss over it but instead decided to remove my notifications to the wikiprojects who would have the most knowledge of how the phrase is used. The same as a Muslim would know more about the phrase As-Salamu Alaykum than me. Plus I only have so many hours in the day lol. But I've appreciated the input from the Christian wikiprojects. Sticky Parkin 14:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Note User:Sandstein's close of the AfD as keep and his comments.[52] User:Gatoclass came to ANI when the vote was already not going in his/her favour, claiming something invalidated it. This will sound familiar to anyone who's been frequently involved in AfD or DRV. This admin was elected in May, and in this instance IMHO s/he (I hope temporarily) forgot what is asked of any editor. They didn't even notify me of the AfD, something asked of all editors. They didn't explain any tags they put on the article on talk, until they were removed. They didn't respond to any questions about the tags or any explanatory messages left on their talk page. Of course that's not required, but communicating with other editors is something praised in admins. They didn't notify me of making this AN/I about me, nor did they say beforehand on my talk page anything they disagreed with in my actions, which is asked in the dispute resolution process before AN/I. If this admin continues like this, I doubt this will be the only instance where people see this person's conduct as not meeting that asked even of an editor, and I expect several people will recall this particular instance of s/he's complete lack of what's required of any editor. This is not a personal attack, simply my opinion and an accurate analysis of all the things this admin did not do that they should have done. Not only that but this was an article I entered for DYK as it had over twenty sources and an IMHO interesting hook. The response of it being entered for AfD without even the courtesy of notification after all my hard work, illustrated the atmosphere a lot of people feel is developing at DYK, and is not encouraging to other editors, if their hard work and request at DYK is going to be treated in this way by a regular there. Forgive this rare long post from me. If I wanted the hastle I would make an RfC, but these issues are not sufficiently wrong for that, just discourteous and unpleasant. But if an RfC is ever brought against this person, which at some point if they continue it no doubt will from someone encountering a problem, I will certainly contribute. S/he may say that about me notifying wikiprojects- but if s/he brings it up anywhere in future, I will simply show people the closing admin's comments that he saw no irregularity as it's never certain which way individuals in a wikiproject will go.Sticky Parkin 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Response to SP's accusations Firstly SP, User:Sandstein is not God, and the fact that he considers there to have been "no procedural issues" as I think he put it, was clearly not shared by myself and numerous other editors. As for your criticisms, taking them one by one: They didn't even notify me of the AfD, something asked of all editors. As you yourself indicate, there is no obligation to notify users about an AFD - but in fact I did leave a message at the DYK suggestions page of my intention to AFD the article. Also, I considered it unnecessary to notify you since you had only recently been working on the article and were sure to see the tag. In my opinion, notification is really only necessary when an article is old and there is a chance the user who created it might not see the tag. But if you hadn't turned up at the AFD reasonably quickly, I would have notified you to ensure you knew about it. They didn't explain any tags they put on the article on talk, until they were removed I thought the reason for placement of the template was self-evident, as I had placed several {{fact}} tags on the article just prior to placing it. However, I immediately responded to your request for clarification on the article's talk page, here. They didn't respond to any questions about the tags or any explanatory messages left on their talk page. That is a patent falsehood. The article's talk page shows that I responded to every question you raised there. And in fact, the only person who failed to respond to a question there was yourself. They didn't notify me of making this AN/I about me I didn't notify you because it wasn't an AN/I about you, it was an AN/I requesting procedural advice regarding AFDs corrupted by votestacking. Had I been asking specifically for your conduct to be investigated, or been requesting sanctions against you, or had someone else raised the possibility of such, I most certainly would have notified you. So much for my alleged misconduct. Now let's take a look at some of your actions. I was on the verge of withdrawing my AFD nomination days ago, but after discovering an apparent episode of votestacking on your part, [53][54] decided it would be appropriate to keep the AFD open to get the greatest possible input from the community. Even then I had essentially washed my hands of it and was resigned to its failure. Unfortunately, you continued to add posts misrepresenting my actions and those of other users, to which I felt obliged to respond for the sake of setting the record straight. Firstly, both you and Coldmachine repeatedly misrepresented my position on the AFD by characterizing it as tantamount to a call for "cleanup", when in fact I nominated the article on the grounds of notability, which have nothing to do with "cleanup". Coldmachine made the claim here and here and you repeated it here and here. Coldmachine also chose to personalize the discussion by accusing me of "mudslinging". Secondly, you claimed regarding a self-published source I deleted that "Gatoglass [sic] is claiming articles are self-published when they're published by the University of Missouri!" In fact, as I was forced to clarify following this falsehood, I did no such thing, as the diff in question demonstrates. Thirdly, when I made the conciliatory comment that the article was "in considerably better shape now than when I nominated it", you responded by arguing that the article was "much the same except for more cites for the content" - which is like saying an article without references is "much the same" as an article with - a patently absurd argument in policy terms, but a comment which again implied a lack of competence on my part. Fourth, in relation to the votestacking charge, you claimed you had removed your notifications "after just one day" when in fact the notifications were up for 38 hours (which is closer to two days), and then claimed that someone votestacked "more than three times as much in the opposite direction" by notifying "six Christianity wikiprojects",[55] a claim you repeated again in a post in this thread above. I would like to know what these "six Christianity wikiProjects" were, because AFAIK Ed Fitzgerald notified only three, which he listed at the AFD. And at the time you made this claim, those three wikiprojects had been notified scarcely longer than those you notified yourself. Fifth, though you have accused me of lack of transparency for failing to notify you of the AFD and AN/I thread (to which charges I have responded above), you yourself failed to inform the AFD that you had notified two WikiProjects, a glaring omission for which in my opinion there is much less excuse, and which opens you to charges of hypocrisy. Further, your apparent lack of judgement is not confined to making questionable wikiproject notifications and then failing to inform anyone of such. Here and here are a couple of atrocious "sources" that you added to your article, which I was obliged to delete. Also, I felt your tendency for misinterpretation was sufficiently pronounced that I toyed with the idea of getting your interpretation of an important source checked by someone with access to the journal in question, but decided against it as I didn't want to risk further ill-feeling. But perhaps now I should reconsider that decision. So now after all the wasted energy and gratuitous unpleasantness of the last few days I return to this thread to discover it has become an attack thread against me - again without the courtesy of notification. Here I find myself subject to personal attacks such as that I demonstrate a "complete lack of what's required of any editor" and more insinuations such as the claim of an "atmosphere a lot of people feel is developing at DYK, and is not encouraging to other editors", which I am apparently responsible for. If you think there is something amiss with my contributions to DYK SP, you are welcome to bring them up at the DYK Discussions page, and we will see how well they fare. Apart from that, I will close simply by inviting users to judge for themselves on the evidence as to which party's actions during this dispute have been more problematic. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Gatoclass didn't notify me of an AfD of an article I wrote, didn't reply to any questions or comments on his talk page until a tag was removed from the article, didn't ask on my talk page first as we are supposed to as part of dispute resolution, didn't notify me of an ANI involving me which is what is required, and of course it was about my actions, to suggest otherwise is semantics. The ANI is called "votestacking at AfD" and it was me you were accuusing of votestacking. Even if you really thought it was just about the AfD you should contact someone about an AN/I in which it's their actions you are bringing up. I have no more to add, all the unpleasantness was on the part of someone who didn't do even these most basic things, and now finds more things about my words to interpret, well I'm sure I could go through his comments to do so. But unlike mine, his are not a matter of interpretation or parts of a complex discussion at AfD, the things I list are procedural and cannot be denied. P.S. I'm sorry if I misunderstood something you did with the Missouri cite, it was just in the heat of an AfD. But you should notify people if you nominate someone's article for deletion. If you put a tag on a page you should put an explanation for it on talk. If someone messages you on your talk page, it's nice as an admin to give a response IMHO, although of course you're not obliged to. Certainly you should notify someone if you make a thread on AN/I about their actions. You can't deny that you knew you should at least notify someone of an AfD on an article they created. Instead, you did so secretly, if I hadn't happened to be browsing AfD I wouldn't have known. The same with this AN/I thread. If you felt bad having to defend yourself on the AfD imagine how I felt having to come here. As to your saying "it's improved a lot since I(my italics) brought it to AfD", rather than being an olive branch to me, youur comment was in response to someone else saying they didn't see why it was at AfD at all, as an attempt to justify your action.[56] I found it patronising and a backhanded compliment, plus as if you were trying to claim credit for the improvement. But I'm sorry if I interpreted it wrongly and that's not what you meant. Anyway, this is now not a matter for AN/I in my humble opinion:) Sticky Parkin 13:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I have already replied to these accusations, so I'm not going to bother doing so again, except to reiterate that I repudiate them. However, I'm inclined to agree that this is no longer a dispute that need concern AN/I, so as far as I am concerned this thread can now be closed. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I don't see how you can repudiate the facts that you did not notify of an AfD as is required, nor notify me of an ANI discussing my actions, nor discuss anything you disliked on my talk page as per WP:DR. But I hope this will remind you to do so in future, if it does then I'm happy.:) Sticky Parkin 14:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I can repudiate that claim for the simple reason that the guideline specifically states that notification of an AFD is not required - it is only regarded as a courtesy. But if I had seriously thought for a moment that you wouldn't immediately have seen the AFD next time you went to the article - which you were clearly still working on - of course I would have notified you. However, it took you a mere six hours to find the AFD, which vindicated my assumption. I really think you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Further discussion Well, we must keep accusations again... ColdmachineTalk 23:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Um, excuse me, but an AFD is a process that any user may initiate or participate in, it has nothing to do with the tools. If I had made a problematic close of an AFD, you might have a point. Gatoclass (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC) It's true I need to read the 'rules' or whatever about wikiprojects, as I'd like to interact more with them but find all the different pages or whatever confusing. Having said that I think a 'spin' was put on my words which wasn't there- unintentionally on the part of Gatoclass of course.:) Sticky Parkin 23:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Matt Baron Resolved  – Article was deleted. SoWhy 13:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Don't know that person, but the article Matt Baron looks strongly like vanity or worse. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Either the link is bad, or that person's page has already been deleted. Dayewalker (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Already deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Recreated, retagged. Dayewalker (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Weird tag-teaming by Vikaszt and Ripleyscool Vikaszt (talk · contribs) keeps introducing grammatical errors into articles. Of their edits, only a handful do not break things, and none actually improve the articles. Both times that users have warned the user, Ripleyscool (talk · contribs) has come in and blanked Vikaszt's talk page. Any thoughts on what's going on, and what we can do about it? I smell a sophisticated troll. -- Mark Chovain 09:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Hmm - Vikaszt's user page points out that they are the same person. The weird "corrections" are still a problem though. -- Mark Chovain 09:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Anyone with the self-belief required to produce an edit summary like this had better be writing truly astoundingly good prose. BTW, I've notified the editor of this discussion. EyeSerenetalk 11:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I've left a note on User talk:Vikaszt regarding alternative accounts - I can see nothing that looks like sockpuppetry, since there have only been two edits from User:Ripleyscool (the first account) since the second went active, and those were the talk page blankings. There's some minor edit-warring, but nothing much to worry about as long as it doesn't continue. I'll be watching both accounts in case there is something more malicious going on, but hopefully we have nothing worse than an editor who sometimes overestimates their grasp of grammar. EyeSerenetalk 12:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Could the Admins who have been looking into this issue take a look at Children of the Corn (film)? In the last few days, Vikaszt has attempted (numerous times) to improve one of the sentences in this article. Unfortunately, his\her edits have not been helpful. In an attempt to make the best of the situation, I wrote to Vikaszt on his/her talk page explaining why certain edits were not good English. (Let me be clear that I am not claiming that my own grammar and usage is always perfect. I do, however, have a fair grasp of proper grammar and usage.) Today, a new user, Bluefeather13 has edited the same sentence. Bluefeather13's style of editing bears a curious similarity to that of Vikaszt's. I have no special feelings about the Children of the Corn article. However, I became aware of Vikaszt when he/she made some edits to Socrates (an article I do care about). I saw his/her edits, despite being well-intentioned, are often unhelpful. Thus, I have been trying to fix them. At this point, I fear that if I continue to do so, I risk starting an edit war. Please look into the Bluefeather13 issue. And if any more experienced users have suggestions as to how I might help to remedy Vikaszt's edits without edit warring, I'd appreciate the advice. ThanksFixer1234 (talk ) 18:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Suicide Threat User:Bambifan101 (also known as the Disney article IP vandal who has been blocked numerous times) has made something of a suicide threat on his talk page[57]. Per his talk and earlier notes, he claims to be a 13 year old boy. His various IP addresses were identified as being from a Bellsouth ASDL account, but don't have anything more specific than that. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs ) 19:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Excuse me but we need an RFCU on this ASAP. Local authorities should be contacted. I would report it myself (as I have in the past) but to step out. Toddst1 (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I see no need for an RFCU here. If that's a credible threat then I'm a banana. –  iridescent 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I have to agree with the above (except the part about being a banana). Shereth 20:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse Iridescent being a banana. Friday (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Seriously: "I just suck at it so I need help or else I'm gonna comite Suicide.Seriously.I'm not joking"? That is not credible at all, ignore it per Iridescent. Prodego talk 20:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC) If every 13 year old who ever thought about killing themselves actually went ahead with it, there would be a lot less people around here adding words like "penis" randomly to pages. I'm just saying... Just remember: Internet = Serious Business. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I agree that chances are less. But the question is Should the risk really be taken by ignoring him or her?. There is nothing wrong in informing the authorities. Hi 20:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Conversely from Ottava Rima's comments, if every 13-year-old who made a bogus suicide threat on Wikipedia got reported to the authorities, there would be a lot less people around here vandalizing Bambi-related articles and then playing dumb (or at least, one less). To put it another way, if he's serious, then it should be reported so he can be helped. If it's not serious, he should be reported so they can put the fear of God into him and make him stop this bullshit. So if somebody feels like making a call, I see it as a clear positive. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I can't help but play better-safe-than-sorry on such things, so I put in an RFCU. Never done such a thing, so I don't know if I did it right. (Is there a policy on stuff like this?) CRETOG8(t/c) 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Really? If anyone calls the authorities on this one, all they're gonna hear is a "Okay we'll look into it... *click*" Honestly, this cannot be a serious request. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC) What if he really does and this gets reported in mainstream media. wouldnt it be a PR disaster for WP? Hi 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I doubt anyone would blame us for discrediting a suicide threat from someone who said he sucks at editing Disney articles and if he can't get help with it, then he'll kill himself... but if your conscience is really not a rest, go ahead. I just think it's a waste of time on this occasion. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 20:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC) And what happens if the kid's serious, and he kills himself and the press starts reporting "Teenager commits suicide after making a threat on Wikipedia, threat laughed off by Wikipedia insiders"? Corvus cornixtalk 22:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Some perspective - "I'm not gonna make any more edits untill I know you'll accept them or that they're not vandalism!" This is the reason why he wants to kill himself. It seems more of him using that as either for attention or to motivate someone not to block him. This is the internet equivalent of "give me a cookie or I'll hold my breath". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Don't laugh. About 2-3 weeks ago, I saw a not so good editor being mistreated by someone else. The details are not important. It is conceivable that the mistreated editor was so distraught that they would commit suicide. Suicide is not a laughing matter. I knew someone who did it. I don't think we have to report all suicide threats but anyone who reads it should treat the person kindly and seek a dialogue. At the very least, one could say "Would you please seek assistance from someone, such as a teacher, friend, pastor/rabbi/priest/monk/imam, who can guide you through these difficult times. See one of them and hold off your plans for suicide please! I can't discuss things with you adequately on the internet. It has to be done in person." Fossett&Elvis (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Most americans know someone who did it. But if you really think he's gonna do it, you have two choices. Track it down and report to the local authorities, or give him good advice, like 'make sure your whole head is in the oven, you wouldn't want to be found dead and half raw, would you?' ThuranX (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I also know someone who has attempted it, being myself, and someone who actually carried through with it. I'm well aware it's not laughing matter when it's even slightly ambigious as to whether it's a real attempt. This, however, is clearly a fake call. Be it on my conscience if the guy ends up killing himself, but I really don't see it happening. I agree with the above poster, if you're that worried, do something about it, but I won't. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC) My 2 Cents: I have just read most of what is here, and clearly, people, we have learned absolutely diddly since the PatPeter issue which sent users scrambling for the phones and people talking to each other thorugh Skype, trying to work out who was in charge of this kid. In the end, it resulted in phone calls to the school, phone calls to the local police, and it wound up this kid was playing with us, and he got indefinitely blocked, and at that point, we vowed to publicise this kind of stunt as little as possible, such as whopping great threads like this on AN/I. Where did we forget? talk ) 21:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I think the majority of responses having fun with the matter helps to diffuse anyone possibly repeating the process. Maybe. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Just be friendlyish to him (given his actions.) It's not always the best thing to tell the authorities if someone threatens suicide. The reason being is what if they're still alive but suicidal and suddenly all their family, school etc know about it? If we're just relatively nice to him, we've fulfilled our obligations. If someone's going to block hhim, do so in a nice way, saying 'I don't thiink thiis siite is the best for you but...' and suggest something else to him/some bland advice. Sticky Parkin 22:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC) There's no policies or guidelines for suicide threats? I'm surprised. We're editors, at best jumped-up editors with a couple extra buttons. We're not counselors, this kid's parents, or doctors. I refuse to change how I edit a page because someone threatens to hurt me in real life, I would similarly refuse if someone threatens to hurt themselves. The media getting wind of this will add to the wikipedia in culture page or somesuch, then it will blow over, but it's unlikely that this will hit the press anyway. Some people will be friendly, some will be callous, per their own approach to editing and I see no reason to treat this as a special situation. WLU (talk ) 22:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Yes, WP:SUICIDE, which says post here and let the admins deal with it :P As the original poster, I suspect he isn't serious. He's mostly an annoying brat who was vandalizing Disney articles every damn day for weeks and driving folks nuts. Now he's likely just throwing a tantrum. Still, per guidelines, I decided to leave a note and decline to send him the response I wrote. I am curious, though. I noticed someone protected his page to keep him from reposting it, but he isn't blocked from editing...that just seems odd :P (he is, BTW, a confirmed sockpuppet). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs ) 22:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Just for the record, WP:SUICIDE is neither a policy not a guideline, only an essay. --Steven J. Anderson (talk ) 00:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Well in that case, Steven, seeing as we (should have) learned something from the PatPeter *fiasco* from last year, I suggest putting it to whoever makes the decisions, presumably the WMF, that talk ) 01:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I have a locating IP address should anyone need it. If someone is serious about following this up, they can contact me - Alison ❤ 09:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Umm, and while we're at it, can we ask this suicidal person to not create accounts like Tinkywinkyisgay (talk · contribs) and Tinkywinkyisawesomeandnotgay (talk · contribs) immediately after their threat. It doesn't look great :p - Alison ❤ 09:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Guess he fooled me atleast taking his threat seriously. The important lesson I learnt from this thread is the lack of clear guidelines for handling such a situation. Hi 12:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Should he be given a barnstar for keeping NPOV by having both interpretations in his collection of multiple accounts? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Personal attacks and sockpuppetry by user User:DroneZone After informing DroneZone (talk · contribs) that I suspected he is a sockpuppet of User:Jetwave Dave (please see User talk:DroneZone#Desert Eagle & S&W 500), he posted this comment full of personal attacks and possibly a threat. He is also editing disruptively[58][59]. — DanMP5 17:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Eh. The diff provided isn't really a personal attack in my opinion - that is pretty light stuff. It is beginning to border on incivility but still not warranting administrative action. Perhaps a warning on his talk page. His partial blanking of his own talk page is not disruptive editing, either. Shereth 17:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Reporting WP:CIVIL . WP:NPOV continually is [60], [61] (the two pieces of evidence I have just cited are articles that are undergoing AFD discussions, and they may be deleted soon), [62] (this edit is sourced, but its language is not neutral), [63], [64]. There is more evidence, which can be examined from his contributions section, but I didn’t want to clutter this post. The evidence I would like to cite to show that the user has broken WP:CIVIL is [65], [66], [67] (please look at the section entitled “Attempts to falsify history by Allied countries”, and please not where he has accused, for example, people of insulting the memories of people who have died, and how he has threatened to remove material from the Dresden article that does not fit his view of the bombing) , [68], [69], [70], [71]. The evidence I would like to cite to show that this user has been warned many times about breaking WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV is [72] (please look at the section entitled “Attempts to falsify history by Allied countries”) and [73]. The evidence I have cited regarding warnings also shows, imo, how I have made a real effort to help him become a good Wikipedian. I believe he will not abandon his goal of trying to re-write Wikipedia articles so that they fit his viewpoint. JEdgarFreeman (talk ) 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC) That is certainly one problematic editor. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I believe so too. I have tried to teach him about following WP:CIVIL, but he doesn't seem to listen. When it seemed to me that he would not change, I believed that admin intervention was needed. JEdgarFreeman (talk ) 23:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Proper WP:Diffs (as opposed to URLs) would help folks trying to sort this out. Toddst1 (talk ) 23:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC) WP:NPA. I'm not sure if a block is warranted yet. Stil looking... SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I will work on getting diffs up. In the meantime, I believe this evidence, when considered with his past record, suggests a block is needed: [74]. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I have replaced many of the URLs with diffs. PeterBln's talk page contains lots of relevant info, so I have decided to leave the URL to that, as I would clutter up my statement with diffs if I were to use them to link to his talk page. Please note [75], where he says " I think you Allied people are appalliung, the way you try to hide your evil history. Sorry but this is disgusting", and is asking why a Wikipedian is not going to prison for denying the "British-India Holocaust" (a term which PeterBln has has coined, by which does not appear to be used by reliable sources). JEdgarFreeman (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I note that this editor has a focus on Eastern Europe and articles relating to the bombing of Dresden have been the main area of recent disruptive behavior. Moreover, they have been making highly dubious comparisons with the Holocaust and Stalinism in both articles and when discussing other editors. As such, would it be appropriate to apply the talk ) 11:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I understand that this issue is being dealt with, but I urge that some sort of action is taking against him soon. I am asking this because he is continuing to go against WP:NPOV, as evidenced by this edit: [77]. I am trying to revert some edits which do not fit in with Wikipedia guidelines, but they keep getting reversed by PeterBln, [78] and [79]. I will not attempt any more reverts, as I do not want to engage in an edit war. I would like to point out that [80] suggests there was an article in the British Guardian entitled "How Britain Denies its Holocausts, Why do so few people know about the atrocities of empire?", written by George Monbiot and published on December 27 2005. PeterBln cites this article, claiming that it says there was a holocaust in India, and is using it to support his edits that say the famine in India was a holocaust. I have looked, and George Monbiot only published one article that day, and its title is "The Turks haven't learned the British way of denying past atrocities", and nowhere in the article does it specifcally claim the famine in India was a "Holocaust" (please see [81]). The article says Britain was responsible for the famine, but it does not call it a "Holocaust", as PeterBln insists it does. This would seem to suggest that PeterBln is lying about sources in order to get his POV across. I tried to remove the inaccuracies in the British-India Wikipedia article regarding the Guardian article, and PeterBln proceeded to revert my removal of the inaccuracies without explanation([82] and [83]).JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC) JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Wow, looks like someone beat me to writing this. See here for example. His POV pushing against the Americans/British is so phenomenal, he's actually tried to argue that the Allies were as much perpetrators in the Holocaust as the Nazis (I'm not joking). Would support a lengthy, if not, indefinite block of this user, clearly has no interest in building a balanced encyclopedia, has complete disregard for WP:NPOV in the face of numerous warnings (as demonstrated recently), is only interested in pushing his agenda. WilliamH (talk ) 09:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Well, welcome to the fanciful world of the far right in Germany building up a history of Holocausts everywhere and dreaming in a wonderland of parallel truth. As long they do so in their futile little conventions, it is barely okay. But popular media like Wikipedia should do everything they are allowed to, to keep their waste away. Geo-Loge (talk ) 19:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I would like to ask for more of a discussion regarding this issue. There have been a couple of recommendations for a block, but no decision has been taken. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC) User:82.44.194.247 violating WP:CIVIL Resolved  – 48-hour incivility block issued EyeSerenetalk 16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Despite warnings in the article talkpage for WP:CIVIL . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unforgiven_(2008)&oldid=233057396 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unforgiven_(2008)&oldid=233315560 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unforgiven_(2008)&oldid=233316836 Please review this IPs conduct. Thank you.  Hazardous Matt  15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC) That IP was clearly goaded by WillC and SRX at a point when discussion was civil. If you want threads to degenerate into this sort of foolishness, act like them. If you want new users to know there are actually policies on how to behave on talk pages, don't. Being dicks and then getting people blocked when they respond is evil. 86.44.27.122 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Borderline incivility seems to be an issue with a few of the editors on the talk page. On the other hand, the IP was the only one who descended to personal insults, and maintained them despite being warned and across a number of posts. I can also understand the regular editors becoming frustrated at constantly taking flak for attempting to enforce a consensus freely discussed on WP:PW. However, there's no excuse for incivility on either side - I've also left a note on the article talk page. EyeSerenetalk 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Yep, appreciate that. The line between incivility and personal attacks is nice and clearcut for regs and admins, not for IPs. Basic fairness may count against deciding who's frustration to understand and who is an expendable irritant. Not to get too highflown, but sometimes i think short-term decisions like this, though they seem fine each time, overall are damaging to the health and integrity of this open project longterm. 86.44.27.122 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Protect film templates? Resolved The Zodiac vandal hit two templates I wrote which are used in a large number of film articles. Would it be a good idea to protect them? – Template:English might be good to be protected as well. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont ) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I've protected them. All have hundreds of transclusions and aren't likely to be changed in a hurry. Hut 8.5 20:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Pagemove vandalism Resolved Sleeping Beast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I don't have much experience cleaning up page moves and don't want to make a mess of it. Lil help? -- Vary | Talk 21:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC) The page moves have been reverted. AngelOfSadness talk 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Judging by the history, I suspect a compromised account. 96 21:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Or it could be himself, first leaving the account dormant for more than four days then making ten useful edits in order to start making page moves which are less than helpful. Probably just another sock/impersonator sock of the real deal by the looks of it. And also the redirects have now all been deleted aswell. AngelOfSadness talk 21:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Def looks to me like a sleeper account, not a compromised one. Sorry I wasn't any use with fixing the moves. -- Vary | Talk 22:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC) User:Barberio - prevention needed This editor has been, and continues to use Wikipedia as a battleground [84] [85]. He doesn't seem to get that this isn't a mere dispute about who agrees or disagrees - it's completely inappropriate behavior. Further disruption needs to be prevented. (NB: the user hasn't been informed of this ANI report - by me anyway.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Notified. Daniel (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Ncmvocalist was obviously aware that the subject of the report should be notified about the existence of the report he filed, but he didn't do so, and then ostentatiously announced that he hadn't done so. Is there a reason for this? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (ec) I've looked at the diffs Ncmvocalist provided, and the rest of the discussions they are part of, and I see a debate that perhaps got a little more personal that it should have, but nothing that I would describe as "disruptive", and certainly nothing that, in my opinion, requires admin intervention. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC) While I've not been disruptive in main-space articles, I admit it, I've been vocal in my opinions about policy and the current ArbCom majority. I've assisted in the RfC process on Arbitration Policy. I've made statements, both ones that gained significant community support, and ones that didn't. I've tried to push the ones that did get community support into actually being actioned. I was unaware that those were blockable offences. --Barberio (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC) If it was merely that, then I would not have brought this here. You've been using Wikipedia as a battleground and it's grossly inappropriate, and blockworthy. And continuing to do so isn't exactly helping . I don't expect to be around for a couple of days - so hopefully this doesn't continue to be a problem when I'm back. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC) For your future reference, the recognised dispute resolution. As noted both in the page's masthead, and the Dispute Resolution policy, this noticeboard is not part of Dispute Resolution. --Barberio (talk ) 13:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC) WP:BATTLE enjoins us not to turn Wikipedia discussions into personal crusades. Good advice for all of us, no? MastCell Talk 19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC) While it's good general advice, it's clear from reading it that it's really not about policy debates. The opening section says: Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. As I said, good general advice, but clearly meant to head off personal disputes from spilling over into Wikipedian discussions. Its invocation here seems more like an attempt to use it as a weapon to prevent a Wikipedian from pursuing policy changes which he believe are best for the project, but which Ncmvocalist disagrees with. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) 2012 Summer Olympics Hi Please see this. I'd appreciate an action review. User waged edit war, was warned on article talk page - then blocked (for a time) User is now back - arguing for censorship of the article and Providing their real world identity as a young wikipedian. I've protected the article page, and requests that any changes be made by consensus, but am concerned that a) she's identified herself, b) she requires mentoring to understand how to contribute to wikipedia constructively. Any help much appreciated. Kbthompson (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC) She appears to be Polish and have English as a second language. Are there any Polish-speaking admins who could do the mentoring? Here's the full history, so you have an idea where she is coming from: rude, rude, slightly misleading edit summ, deleted entire thread, incl comments by two other editors, highly misleading edit summary; deletion of another editor's statements, misleading edit summary; deleted another editor's comments, misleading edit summary; claimed grammar, actually removing entire sentence, misleading edit summary; claimed 'changed word'--removed sentence, also edit-warring from here to here, after being warned re: 3RR. Plus an edit here, after the block expired, and after saying she would seek compromise on the talk page. Her own talk page has been blanked; diff here. t | c 09:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I have asked t | c 09:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC) User has now degenerated into t | c 10:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC) As I just said at WP:WQA, knowledge of specialist syntax *{{article|2012 Summer Olympics}}[87], etc. Gordonofcartoon (talk ) 10:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC) A final warning has been issued, further disruption will result in blocking the account. This action does not preclude discussion in Polish with Elonka, but the disruption to multiple inappropriate boards has to stop. Any comments? Kbthompson (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Is there a way to merely restrict her from editing anywhere other than her own Talk & article Talk pages until Elonka (or another Polish user) has the chance to talk to her? I strongly suspect she won't stop, she'll get blocked, and just create another account or continue anonymously. t | c 11:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC) A block allows the editor to comment at their own talk page. It prevents further disruption to the project either in article or talk space. A ban would be self imposed and it does not look like such co-operation is forthcoming. This is not an action taken likely, but the situation has just got disruptive. I'm still assuming good faith, although a checkuser would be handy - considering the wheel war that's breaking out. If the editor is genuinely just naive, then it can be sorted out after discussion. I would appreciate comments from other admins as to the appropriateness of the actions. Kbthompson (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Ah, thank you. I have filed a request for Checkuser here. t | c 11:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Request denied. t | c 12:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC) [EC] They just (properly) declined it, I guess I was looking for prior evidence of disruption, etc. Wrong, my fault. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC) MissOrgum1996 has not edited since 10:44 UTC (three hours ago). She has received an appropriate final warning. If she returns and continues to edit in the same vein, I think a one-week block would be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks for that. Still no activity, hopefully the final warning has caused pause for reflection. I'll keep an eye on it. Kbthompson (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC) She seems to have passable English, so I am not sure what we can translate into Polish to improve the situation. Kids are kids (i.e. notorious brats) everywhere, and if they disrupt our project, plonk the little trolls and move on (which study showed that majority of wiki vandalism occurs during US school hours...?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC) My inclination is to go for engagement first - someone's got to be editing here in ten years time - and keep the big stick behind our backs. It's not as though we've not seen many perfectly good contributors go through here, but when they get the bit between their teeth, they go off (and well off). It's only the disruption that needs to be stopped, if that level of enthusiasm could be harnessed, we could power the server farm for years! Kbthompson (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Review of IP vandal Resolved  – block tweaked Toddst1 (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Ok I did some stoopid vandalism here, but the admin blocked the IP indefinitely, and another one confirmed that. You can't block that IP indefinitely, it's a dynamic IP by a commercial ISP, which I don't even use anymore, now I have 77.12.234.15 (talk)!. Make that a timed block, will you? 77.12.234.15 (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Well I am more of a visitor here than anything else but frankly the block looks ludicrous in the absence of other evidence. --Herby talk thyme 12:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Fixed (downgraded to 31 hours), I guess User:Ckatz misclicked. -- lucasbfr talk 12:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Huggle block; I thought it was set not to indefblock IPs? –  iridescent  12:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC) And that's exactly why I don't use Huggle to do any admin work. Useight (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC) You've heard my opinion on the matter - I don't personally think Huggle should have any admin tools enabled (when I see pages speedy-deleted 30 seconds after creation I cringe) but I don't think Consensus agrees. –  iridescent  18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: Mis-click indeed, and not noticed while cleaning up the nineteen pages the guy vandalized in his desire to add the word "Satan" to as many pages as possible. Certainly could have been resolved without an AN/I post, but then it was posted by the vandal. Anyway, thanks to Kralizec for letting me know this was going on, as the IP certainly didn't bother to do so. --Ckatzchatspy 23:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Civility problems by User:Straight Edge PXK talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log ) Over the past few months, I've had a few problems concerning civility with Straight Edge PXK, who appears at times to be uncivil. At first, the user looked a lot like a violation of WP:FORUM which didn't help in discussions: [95][96]. After I warned him about his forum-y and non-constructive edits post, he accussed me of harrassing him, even though I wasn't, and in fact was only warning him as he was violating Wikipedia guidelines. He has also (although I don't believe this is prohibited) removed things from his talkpage, including the warnings I gave him. [97][98][99]. The last diff of the two was given after he personally attacked me here. I find it interesting how he removed my warnings, yet reverts others for removing warnings from their talkpage. IMO this user as a whole is disruptive and isn't really a constructive user, with only 31% of his edits to the mainspace himself. Thoughts? (Note: I haven't notified him of this discussion, as my post to his talkpage will probably get reverted.) D.M.N. (talk ) 17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC) First off, I think you should notify him/her on his/her talk page. Reverted or not, he/she needs to be able at least to notice this. If he/she decides to ignore it, it's his/her own problem. Second, this user seems to be adopted, so maybe his/her adopter can talk some sense to the user. It's worth a try. Another idea would be a WP:AIV, no matter if he/she ignores the warnings. SoWhy 17:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Appears to be a young kid, acting the way young kids generally act. We have no generalized solution for this problem. If his disruption becomes severe enough, he can be blocked. Until that time, there's not much to be done about it. People could stop this "adoption" nonsense and encourage people unsuited to Wikipedia to move along rather than encouraging them to stay, but good luck convincing the social networkers that this is the best approach. Friday (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I seem to remember one incident now on my talk archive where I suggested something and then the rest of you went off subject to single me out as non constructive (find the irony there) as if to say "It's PXK suggesting it, what the fuck does he know" without using those exact words of course. Also, I'm 15, but I do sometimes have child like tendencies dueto reasons I don't want to go into. T /C 18:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC) You mean, this which I linked above. That was intended as advise to make you a better Wikipedian. That doesn't take away forum-y posts and comments that takes discussions off course. We're here to improve the encyclopedia, and create a nice atmosphere that abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The posts linked above fail to do that. D.M.N. (talk ) 18:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I absolutely agree with everything D.M.N. stated, but at this point, I can not come up with a solution to solve this problem. I just think that if PXK doesn't clean up his act, a block may be justified. -- T.C. 01:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Deathgrinder IP WP:3RR. I appreciate any assistance with this user. Best, A Sniper (talk ) 23:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC) It seems the account hasn't edited since the last warning. Perhaps they got the point, or perhaps they've just left for the day. If they show up again and cause problems in spite of the warnings they should be blocked; but since there has been no new problems since the warning there's not much that can be done at the moment. Shereth 23:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC) User:Steve Washington Resolved Macy 00:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Note: User has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Odd behaviour by a couple of new users Anyone got any thoughts on what these two are up to: Newcrewforu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 347Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I get the feeling I'm missing something. CIreland (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC) it's a weird bunch of accounts, edit-warring with each other. They've been here before. See this, for example - Alison ❤ 05:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Possibly connected with Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/96.247.37.61. Kevin (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Ah! :) - Alison ❤ 05:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I have indefblocked both. No good contributions, userpage vandalism like this or that Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC) 202.14.81.49 edit warring 202.14.81.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps removing content that I've sourced in some cases removing the reliable source and is also being uncivil. Bidgee (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Fair use at Images for Deletion make a point with images that plainly fulfill our criteria. Could an uninvolved admin please look into these images? Nyttend (talk ) 01:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC) News agency images are pretty much always at the very least debatable with respect to the non-free content policy. All the IfDs look legitimate to me insofar as a valid discussion could be had on each. I certainly didn't see any that were in bad faith and hence none is appropriate to be "Speedy kept". Damiens.rf could arguably consider slowing down a bit but our widespread misuse of news agency photos is an issue that needs to be addressed. CIreland (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC) @ Nyttend: That is not an admission it passes the criteria. It is an admission it passes ONE criterion. It must pass them all. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Each image can be discussed individually at IfD. A fair use rationale is not a ward for copyright considerations, it is still the purview of the community to discuss whether or not we are using the images appropriately. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC) The two main problems with news agency photos are complying with policy WP:NFCImages#6, now that is a lot tougher to comply with. Though being a guideline it doesn't carry the same weight as the policy criteria but should still be respected in most cases. RMHED (talk ) 03:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC) The copyright lawyers are lining up at wikipedia's door even as we speak. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Indefinite block requested Resolved  – user was indefinitely blocked -- Crossmr (talk ) It is obvious that User talk:Gamingnews is here to cause trouble, so could someone please investigate and impose a sanction? I recommend an indefinite block. Thanks. BlackJack | talk page 07:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC) User:347Editor The user User:347Editor's account has thus far been used only for vandalism, trolling and harrassment, and has now begun adding purported persona information and petty threats. --Killing Vector (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC) The guy's blocked already. I did submit an SSP case on this guy. Edit seemed fishy. Arbiteroftruth (talk ) 07:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Guys, you might want to check out the thread three sections up. It's the same editors again - Alison ❤ 07:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Something Worthy of Attention [100] (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Looks like EdJohnston has replied over there. No further action required for now. — Satori Son 14:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Roman Abramovich Misunderstoodment by User:Alexnia Resolved  – The involved editors appear to have sorted things out between themselves. EyeSerenetalk 16:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Dear Admins, I need help regarding this article were User:157.203.42.50 had removed information. At the beginning I thought this user was vandalising this page. Later I was noticed that the edits by the IP address weren't vandalism and that the case was discussed in the Article's talk page. The IP address is extremely angry at me and I ask help to remove all warning I gave out to him. p.s Yes I am reporting my self talk ) 13:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Can't you just delete the warnings from the talk page? Ged UK (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I can but I tested out every time I remove a warning from a user and he gets warned again the templates act as IF the warning I gave him are only invisible but are still there and now the IP user in talk is trolling my talkpage I need help of a Admin to solve everything talk ) 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I also found out that there is a small chance I was correct with the warning I gave him since a other user noted that his edits were unacceptable for wikipedia. talk ) 14:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC) problem is almost half way solved after research I found out the facts were more on my side but came to the conclusion that the IP address didn't deserve the warning . There fore I am going to archive the discussion about the case on my talkpage and I'm going to delete any further comments by this user on my talkpage (reason : he is given me a headache + Trolling talk ) 14:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC) User EvilLuthor Came across EvilLuthor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the history of some pages while on vandal patrol. He seems to be making a personal attack in all his recent edit summaries. ArakunemTalk 14:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Never mind, I see he has been blocked already. ArakunemTalk 14:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Additional eyes please: TOV? These edits might be considered threats of violence: 1, 2. I've blocked the IP for 72 hours, and I'm assuming no further action necessary since the threat is so general, but I'd appreciate additional scrutiny on this. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk ) 15:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Seems like the right call to me. GlassCobra 17:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC) User:Ooa9309 Arbiteroftruth (talk ) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC) User:Comayagua98 indef block I've just indefinitely blocked this user so we can get a clear idea of what's going on. Basically, they have been blanking user pages, slapping on block notices and chucking sockpuppet accusations around indiscrimately (examples). I suspect there's some history here. Thoughts anyone? --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I'm more than sure this user is a sock of (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC) That would fit the evidence. Good block. EyeSerenetalk 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Feminine I've become used to Abtract's "playfulness", but it just so happens I'm discussing sodomy with someone at Virginity atm, and the meaning of Greek malakoi, usually translated as "effeminate", but with the sense of "unmasculine" happens to be relevant to that discussion. Abtract's insistance on removing both the description of the normal use of the word masculine and any link even to Masculinity clearly impedes even internal use of Wikipedia in discussions at other articles. All that seems to be needed is to encourage him to use the talk page to make his case. Though I suspect he knows as well as anyone else that what he's doing has no defence. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Actually his last edits to both pages leave your version in place and simply add {{disambig-cleanup}}. Both predate your post here so this edit-warring complaint is resolved. I'll note that Masculinity was indeed linked in his version, and that your version seems really really weird to me for a dab page. 86.44.28.251 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC) New Cold War The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. This is going nowhere. Wait for the AfD to be closed. GlassCobra 21:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC) There is a New Cold War (an article which I created), which will meet its five day mark in a few hours. The nominator and I both feel that the the discussion has not yet resulted in a consensus for delete. Outside of the deletion process, User:Commodore Sloat, another participant in the discussion, de facto deleted the content of the article here. I consider his deletion of the content of the article to be without consensus, but I obviously think that my reverting his deletion of the content would just escalate the issue further. I believe the deletion process is specifically designed to help create stability in situations like these, and I'm afraid User:Commodore Sloat has just made an end run around that process.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC) The de facto deletion of the article has been reverted, but User:Commodore Sloat has indicated he intends to revert that edit, and delete the content again, should the article be kept as no consensus for delete.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Ummm, what? This AN/I report is baseless. I created a disambiguation page based on the discussion on the deletion page. Someone else reverted the disambig page back to the inappropriate page based on the reasonable argument that we should wait until the AfD discussion is over. I concurred with the reversion. I am not sure what user:j is complaining about here, but I think an AN/I report is entirely inappropriate -- my behavior on that page has been entirely civil and within the rules. csloat (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Deleting the content of the article outside the deletion process is not "within the rules" and promising to do so again is just as unacceptable, hence your deletion of the content being reverted and this issue being brought here.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC) csloat, you were perhaps a little over-eager to prejudge the AfD outcome - the final decision will be made by the closer, and it may not be to disambig the page. However, the content has been replaced, and you say you have no problem with that, so is there really anything more that needs discussing here? EyeSerenetalk 17:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC) User:Commodore Sloat has indicated that he intends to delete the content of the article and restore his disambiguation if the result of the process is keep, regardless of the lack of consensus for that action and regardless of the concerns of others. I'm afraid that's the issue at hand here now.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Of course there is nothing that needs discussion here, other than perhaps an admonition to users not to file phony AN/I reports. csloat (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC) This all seems to me to be jumping the gun. I would suggest that both of you wait for the AfD closure, rather than worrying about what might (or might not) happen afterwards. If the article is kept, and if someone then begins to edit disruptively, then would be the time to bring it to admin attention. However, a reminder might be helpful that dispute resolution should be the first ports of call in a content dispute. EyeSerenetalk 17:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC) (←) I brought up this issue here because I believe deleting the content of an article to circumvent AfD, and promising to do so again after that edit was reverted, is disruptive and harmful to the deletion process. I agree that talk page discussion and dispute resolution (if necessary) should be employed, not unilateral edits that significantly alter the page without consensus.   user:j    (aka justen)   18:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Your attribution of evil motives to me is uncivil and violates WP:AGF. And the suggestion that I should be punished for future actions smacks of, well, Phillip K Dickism. csloat (talk ) 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC) csloat, user:J raised a perfectly legitimate concern; your comment can indeed be read as a threat to revert back to your disambig version of the page if the AfD results in a keep. I don't believe you would do this though, as I'm sure you're well aware of the consequences of disruptive editing, so perhaps we can all assume good faith, both with your post and user:J's concerns, and let this drop? EyeSerenetalk 20:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I don't know what your motives are, I can only address your actions. You deleted the entirety of the content of the article while an AfD was ongoing. You promised you will do so again should the deletion discussion be closed as keep. To say nothing of your motives, your actions were disruptive, were reverted, and were discouraged by others.   user:j    (aka justen)   20:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC) You're right, you don't know what my motives are, and your assumption that I was trying to "circumvent AfD," besides being completely and obviously false, is a violation of WP:AGF. So stop it now, please. csloat (talk ) 20:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC) (ec) csloat, user:J raised a perfectly legitimate concern; your comment can indeed be read as a threat to revert back to your disambig version of the page if the AfD results in a keep. I don't believe you would do this though, as I'm sure you're well aware of the consequences of disruptive editing, so perhaps we can all assume good faith, both with your post and user:J's concerns, and let this drop? EyeSerenetalk 20:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Sure, if you assume bad faith, you can also read my comment as a threat on somebody's life. But it is no such thing, and I didn't threaten to do anything! Is J seriously proposing I should be punished for future actions based on a tortured misreading of a comment I made? And are you actually supporting this proposition in some way? It's very odd. I am not being disruptive, I am trying to help out here! csloat (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Your page edit and comment, taken together, could give the impression of an intent to remove the article no matter what. You claim that was not your intent, and I'm happy to accept that. All I'm suggesting is that you try to understand how it appeared to J, based on the concerns he raised. I understand that it's a hotly-contested AfD debate, and with you both being of opposite views, misunderstandings happen all to easily. No-one is going to be sanctioned for something that might never happen, but neither is it helpful to prolong this dispute and entrench positions by bringing more policies to the fight ;) EyeSerenetalk 20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC) The only way one could get that impression is through a tortured misreading of my words that begins with an assumption of bad faith. Other than that, I agree with you - there is no need to prolong this nonsense. csloat (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive468&oldid=1144621899"