Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive194

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov[edit]

Aoganov (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for sockpuppetry but has requested an unblock:

"My username (Aoganov) corresponds to my real name (Artem R. Oganov), with which I sign my edits. Within a short time I have made important contributions to WP. Being a professional scientist (and a good one), I can (and plan to) bring latest scientific discoveries to WP-pages, and correct (quite numerous) inaccuracies, currently existing on WP. Since I use my real name, I am directly responsible for my edits and can be contacted directly. I admit that in the beginning, when I lacked experience and did not know that this is a violation of any policies, I opened several accounts. Trying to correct errors, I edited pages related to sensitive/controversial scientific issues (thus, precipitating a conflict with editor NIMSOffice, the same user as Materialscientist, some of whose edits I found incorrect). With time, I learned more of WP policies. I can assure you that in the future I will use only one account for editing WP. You can already see that since opening of the account “Aoganov” I made no anonymous edits. I hope that my account will be unblocked."

I would like to take his word that he really wants to make positive contributions to Wikipedia and won't engage in sockpuppetry in the future. He is a new user who was drawn to Wikipedia over a conflict related to his area of expertise, a physical form of boron. But I do believe that he is learning and has a good chance of eventually becoming a productive member of the community. But there is the hot button issue of boron. So, I suggest a compromise: keep the block in effect for a week and then probation in the form of a indefinite topic ban on his editing of boron-related topics. This will give him an opportunity to prove he can be a nondistruptive editor by contributing to other articles. If that can be proven, then we can talk about lifting the topic ban. Any edits to boron-related topics or other disruption (such as sockpuppetry) in the probation period would result in immediate indef reblock. What does everybody think? --mav (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment This heavily involves OTRS, I no longer feel like dealing with the case myself but somebody needs to be consulted before action is taken. Tickets: otrs:2009040610066734 and otrs:2009050810050058. BJTalk 15:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Topic ban and unblock works for me. I note from his message that he plans to "bring latest scientific discoveries to WP-pages, and correct (quite numerous) inaccuracies" - it would be best to emphasise the WP:NOR and WP:V in any unblock message. Ironholds (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Topic ban and unblock after a week. When I can look into it more, I think I might support a topic ban for some of the others involved, unless they have clearly stopped with their own problematic editing of the Boron article. (It takes two sides to make a long-term edit war). Anyone thinking of adding their own comment to this thread may be enlightened by a quick look at WP:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy. I am glad to see that Mav has notified several others of this discussion, including User:Materialscientist (formerly NIMSoffice), for whom a topic ban might also be considered since he appears to be a real-life participant in the Gamma Boron controversy. (At least, Aoganov asserts this in the AfD discussion). Aoganov is connected to the use of sockpuppets, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GFZLab/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I struck my suggestion that others should also be topic banned, based on searching the Boron edit history back to May 1. (See my comment below). I have a memory of past edit warring on this article, but that must be farther back in time. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I am the blocking admin for this sockpuppet case, and I have received a couple of emails from Aoganov. In one of the emails, he states "While I do admit that I created accounts Dian_john1, GFZLab and ESRFBeam, the following account has nothing to do with me:". This shows that although he did create sockpuppets ("I created those several accounts only in the beginning (without knowing that this breaks any policies)"), he's admitting to creating them, so maybe willing to change his ways. Another point that he made, in regards to EdJohnston's comment is that "It would be fair to ban Materialscientist from editing those pages too. His edits are highly biased, and in this situation I believe it is better to let WP-community make proper edits, without (at least for the time being) those directly involved in the controversy." If this user (NIMSOffice/Materialscientist) is also causing problems for the Boron article, then I suggest a topic ban on this user too, per EdJohnston's suggestion. In regards to Ironholds' comment, in another email the user stated "As you can find, I am a well known scientist, and my expertise is definitely needed on WP. WP-pages contain many inaccuracies, and I have corrected many of those and added some new scientific information as well." I agree that this means that whichever admin unblocks should tell Aoganov about our policies relating to any edits he makes, to stop original research and ensure the information added is reliable. I can provide copies of the emails if required. Thanks, The Helpful One 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I think preventing him from editing the boron related pages, might me more than enough. His edits are good as long as the disovery of gamma boron is not the topic. Even the boron controversy article was not that bad. The personal involvement of him in the case makes it difficult to have a NPOV. He is highly emotional on the topic, but on wiki there are not banned users, which have a less civil way to comunicate than he does. He is not aware of the complicated and well hidden politics of Wikipedia. It took me quite some time to figure out what a Sockpuppetis and many other things are, so let the time cool his emotions on boron. The sad thing is that the controversy has a good chance to be eternal, because neither of the two sides has a prove of the their wrong and right actions and if all actions had the necessary ethical standart. On the actions of Materialscientist I only say that I liked to work with him here on many articles and that if possible somebody else should look if he has done something wrong on the boron page. --Stone (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support unblock with topic ban. Since all the editor's problem edits have been related to one topic which he is emotionally involved in there is no reason to believe edits on other topics would also be problematic. Also support topic ban for Materialscientist since his edits in this area have also been problematic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • They've been described as problematic, by Aoganov. But that's not the same thing as their actually being problematic, for which you'll have to supply concrete evidence. See below. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned to mav (before this discussion has started), I support this idea. The user has a history of sockpuppetry, WP:harrassment, WP:BLP and WP:COI (i.e. using WP as a vehicle of self-promotion), but that is understood and can be looked after. I would just raise another issue: the user has a tendency to grossly misinterpret facts and statements to his convenience, ranging from yes/no answers to complex scientific arguments. To me, this is one of the most important "not to" for a wikipedian of his area, and the sole reason for my confronting Aoganov. I would encourage everyone not not be blinded by the titles and check this issue whenever appropriate.

    Regarding myself, I have completely refrained from editing the boron topic during most of the conflict. These 2 days, I took a liberty to update boron and allotropes of boron. Everybody is welcome to have a look and comment. I understand that the mere fact of my editing of the gamma-boron topic irritates Aoganov and I shall reduce that to the absolute minimum (of correcting others edits) for the sake of peace. That said, I do not believe that prosecuting on the basis of unsubstantiated rumors is a good example for the future. I trust people and wish to be trusted. If there are concerns about any my action, please raise them and I'll answer as straight and honest as I can. Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I am grateful for the support and trust of WP editors. And I would really appreciate if the boron topic ban could be imposed on Materialscientist. Anyone who has corresponded with me knows that I am very straightforward and, unlike Materialscientist, do not have any tendency to distort facts. Even when facts are tough (like sockpuppetry, which I am still not sure I understand what it is), I face them and admit them. Facts on boron are not tough - not for me. And I've been watching Materialscientist's editing of boron pages, and while his recent edits look much better, I remain suspicious. Now he talks about "independent" structure solution for gamma-B: just looking at submission dates of the two groups' papers (our paper is 2 years earlier), and taking into account that the other group had our results during these two years - what kind of "independent structure solution" is Materialscientist talking about? I suggest a mutual topic ban, only this makes any sense. Edit wars have two sides, as was stated above. Artem R. Oganov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Ahem! Enough! We can point to three places where you have distorted facts here, starting with your claims to have never edited except under your own name and to have never edited prior to 2009-05-08. This sort of attack on Materialscientist and misrepresentation of your own actions is exactly what you should not be doing any more of. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As I said in the AFD discussion, don't take Aoganov's description of Materialscientist's edits as correct, and don't take xyr word for who Materialscientist might be in real life. Materialscientist has, quite rightly, not been drawn into a dispute as to who xe may or may not be outside of Wikipedia, nor claimed any involvement in the external dispute on either side. Xe asserts that xyr only involvement here is as a Wikipedia editor interested in materials science topics. I've yet to see any evidence that the true other party in the external dispute has actually been drawn into editing here. This is a good thing, of course. We don't want that external dispute being brought here, and it is best that we prevent it from doing so now, before we have a Bogdanov-like dispute on our hands.

    I reviewed a lot of the edits when this first came up at the Incidents noticeboard. From what I saw, Materialscientist's actual edits have been misrepresented by Aoganov. For example: Materialscientist's original edits to Boron back in January were actually in good faith, from what I can see. There appears to be no ulterior motive; they were a simple good faith introduction of new information and subsequent attempt to improve that in response to a point made on the talk page. Much of the subsequent fuss and bother has stemmed solely from Aoganov, initially via sockpuppets and eventually via this account. For example: Xe has been claiming for weeks that Materialscientist didn't credit any sources for a diagram that xe uploaded. But, as I pointed out recently at User talk:Mav#Re:Boron, Materialscientist in fact did credit Oganov's paper (and others), within 15 minutes of the original upload — which is a fairly reasonable time for filling in the relevant fields of 7 {{cite journal}} templates, I'm sure everyone will agree — with a further update that same day. It's not good that people are taking the accusations at face value, without comparing them to the actual edit histories.

    Thehelpfulone and EdJohnston (and possibly ThaddeusB too), you are basing your decision on what Aoganov says to have happened. Don't. Reality is somewhat different. And it has been like this all along, alas. Look at the actual edits. I leave Mav and Stone to speak to the nature of Materialscientist's edits in general, but as far as what I've reviewed of this specific dispute, xyr behaviour has been quite different to that of Aoganov, with no sockpuppetry, no repeated denials of sockpuppetry, and no outing. Any notion that the two editors warrant a single blanket remedy for both is not justified by the actual edits that each has made.

    As to Aoganov's block, I think that the solution is simple: Thehelpfulone, you've just been a hair too helpful. You blocked all of the accounts for the sockpuppetry, rather than blocking all bar one. I suggest that you simply unblock the one, making that one Aoganov, which is both the seemingly best choice on name grounds and the account that the editor xyrself clearly wishes to use. You didn't block xem for something other than the sockpuppetry, after all. As Mav suggests, and as I think no-one will disagree with, if harrassment of other editors, or attempts to introduce personal off-wiki disputes into Wikipedia, resume in any way, editing privileges will be revoked again. And that includes any further contributions like the one immediately above. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

    • I have striken my comment about Materialscientist, which was based on what the other involved editors (not Aoganov) said and not personal experience. It does take two to edit war, but that doesn't mean he was not being rational about the topic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Uncle G, I agree with you with regards to unbanning Aoganov, as he seems that he might be able to make some positive contributions, and has admitted to all his sock accounts, which is why I agreed to this idea in the first place (of a topic ban + unblock). The Helpful One 09:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I have been notified, must be because I blocked a sock of this guy or something. I don't really care what happens as far as block/unblock is concerned, but all commenting are advised to read over Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GFZLab/Archive which contains the full case history and make a determination from that. —— nixeagleemail me 03:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked the recent edits of Boron and Allotropes of boron by User:Materialscientist and did not see any problems. So I'm withdrawing my suggestion that he also be considered for a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I also looked at the edits of Boron and Allotropes of boron, Materialscientist seemed to be making positive contributions, so I am also withdrawing my suggestion that he be placed under a topic ban. The Helpful One 09:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I like to here that edits of Materialscientist look also OK to others. The problem with the discovery of gamma boron will not go away so we should watch the pages and try to get all informations on priority out of the articles. If in sometime from now a book is written about this case, or a journal article is published I have no problem to add the controversy. --Stone (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Artículo bueno.svg

Request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Provisional unblock and indefinite topic ban on boron-related articles per consensus reached at WP:AN.

  • Violations of Wikipedia Policies or guidelines, especially policies relating to sockpuppetry, outing, and guidelines about conflict of interest and disruptive editing may, depending on severity, result in reimplementation of the block by any administrator.
    • Any edits to boron-related articles before topic ban is lifted will result in automatic re-implementation of the block.
    • Suspected use of sockpuppets or meatpuppets displaying similar editing behavior in boron-related articles will be promptly investigated. Any affirmative findings of such an investigation will result in re-implementation of the block.
    • Instances of outing the identity of another user against that user's wishes will result in re-implementation of the block.

Topic ban extends to article space only but edits to all talk pages must be civil and non-disruptive. The duration of the topic ban is indefinite and lifting of the ban is subject to a new consensus at WP:AN per accumulated evidence of non-disruptive editing during the ban period.

Request handled by: mav (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Eyes on Thrikkunnathu Seminary, please[edit]

There's a lot of reverting going on there.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is the place for this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Public BLP watchlist[edit]

There is now a bot running to compile a list of articles reported to the BLP noticeboard to make a problem-BLP watchlist. The list is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Watchlist and the watchlist is here. Mr.Z-man 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration required due to 3RR[edit]

Resolved: Page semi-protected for 24 hours and both users warned. hmwithτ 21:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, A while back I added a cited bit on the Fonejacker article. It has been deleted by another IP user, and I have reinstated it; however, this has now happened three times and I don't want to violate the Three Revert Rule. Consequently may I ask another user to arbitrate as they see fit? The content in question is currently not there since the IP user performed the last edit; you'll find it one down in the history and it refers to Kayvan Novaks' comment that he may not be doing any more of the show. Thanks, -- (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope some action can be taken on this as a matter of urgency. -- (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, you can post these issues to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. hmwithτ 21:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Need an admin's opinion and intervention[edit]

Hi, would someone please take a look at my editing on Hatch Park and Evelyn Dunbar, and the conversation about them at User talk:MasterVerbosity? I came across the first article randomly, found some material that seemed to be lifted directly from this website and elminated it and cleaned up the article. This lead me to the second article, which also had the same material in it, and was, frankly, in terrible condition. I cleaned it up, removed the copyvio and some other material that seemed irrelevant, and left a note on the talk page of the user who I determined had added the material to both articles.

Comes today, and the editor responds, rather tartly. It turns out he is the foster-son of Evelyn Dunbar, and is incensed that an "ignoramus" such as myself had "insulted" his mother and father through my editing of his domain. I pointed out the COI problem and NPA policy but neglected to mention rules about "ownership" of articles. He claims to have writen the material I thought was a copyright violation for the publication where I found it. I pointed out the problems with this, but he wants the article on Dunbar deleted. I've pointed out that once posted, his contributions are no longer his to control, and that an article has to go through a process to be deleted, etc.

Now, rather than continue to get in deeper with this editor, whose response was clearly emotional, I'd like to disengage from my discussion with him, and let someone neutral determine if I went too far in my editing, if my interaction with him was perhaps too brusque, and to provide him with whatever answers he needs from this point on. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I originally posted this at AN/I, but moved it here as there is no real "incident" at this point, and no particular hurry. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll be happy to weigh in. When talking to potential infringers, I almost always use the templates for copyright problems just because they have been engineered in a rather velvet glove/iron fist kind of way. The "no thanks" template generated by the {{copyvio}} is better (if long) because it allows for the possibility that the contributor is the copyright owner. (It's inappropriate, though, when the material can be easily removed.) {{uw-copyright}} does not explicitly allow for that, or link to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, but it does rather straightforwardly note that the material has the appearance of a copyright violation with necessary links and explanations. (And the requisite block advisory. Very compact. :)) Removal of the text was the right thing to do. Until permission is verified, we can't published it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
(With coffee before me :) User:MasterVerbosity didn't understand much about Wikipedia and was editing the article(s) with his own notions about how things were/should be. Hopefully he's learning that personal attacks are not on here. The COI is not a big worry so long as he follows policy. Likewise his having mistakenly put text he'd written elsewhere into the article. His sharp comebacks at the outset of learning about Wikipedia are understandable and can be wholly forgiven if he settles down within a few days. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I have enough caffeine to be safely unleashed on the world now. :D It took me a while to finish my note. I agree that he may settle down. I addressed him also on the civility issue, hopefully in a tactful enough manner not to escalate tensions. I'd welcome review: User talk:MasterVerbosity#Donating copyrighted materials. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, I think both you and Ed Fitzgerald have dealt with this wonderfully. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
My thanks to you as well for stepping in and calming things down. I generally think that a personal note is better than a template, but you're probably right that I would have been better off using one of the copyright violation template - I'll do my best to remember that in the future.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Certainly no one can fault you for leaving a personal note. :) I usually do, too, with most matters, but sometimes I think the impersonal copyright template may be a little easier to take for some contributors. I've been known to leave two notes with the one that {{copyvio}} generates (can never remember what that's called): a personal note saying something like, "Hi. Noticed this issue. Apologies for the "form letter", but it's got some useful links that might help you address this concern" and then turning the template into a subsection. The template by itself has met with some objections from experienced contributors, but that combo (so far) has not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Certainly sounds like a good strategy to me. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Formal community ban request for Nimbley6[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Per obvious consensus here, Nimbley6 (talk · contribs) is now community-banned. — Aitias // discussion 22:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nimbley6 (talk · contribs) is an indefinitely blocked user, blocked, I believe, for disruptive editing largely around Scotland and Scottish topics (Nimbley6 may have been known historically as Bennet556 (talk · contribs)). Since being blocked Nimbley6 has continued to edit using a vast array of sock puppets, using both registered usernames and dynamic IP addresses in the 78.*.*.* and 91.*.*.* ranges. Numerous editors have tried unsuccessfully to engage with Nimbley6; some have elicited promises that any disruptive editing was inadvertent, some have received promises that the sock puppetry will stop, others have simply received denials that there is any socking occurring.

Various approaches have been attempted to mitigate the continuing disruption: Scotland has been semi-protected several times to prevent disruption; several other articles have likewise been semi-ed for the same reason - a number today alone, with (and this may surprise those of you who recognise me from WP:ANI!) no request from me; registered socks have been reported at WP:SSP and - more recently - at WP:SPI; registered socks have been reported at WP:ANI; range-blocks have been considered (and rejected as impractical - there would be too much collateral damage); articles created have been sent to WP:AFD; and other edits have been reverted.

Following a discussion on my talk page, I believe that Nimbley6 is effectively community banned. I would, however, like to request that this ban is made more formal, i.e. that it is confirmed here. This is so that all future edits by Nimbley6 socks can be reverted on sight, in order to deny the sock master any gratification. Alternatively, I for one am at my wits' end, and would welcome any and all suggestions for handling this serial sock puppeteer.

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  • If no administrator is willing to unlock the pillory, in it he shall remain. Endorse, albeit as a formality at this point because he's de-facto banned. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse, as someone who only recently got in touch with a small part of this user's problematic behavior. Uncommunicative, persistent editing against consensus, abusive socking. Effectively banned already, I support making it official. Amalthea 20:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I have seen enough reports at AIV to conclude that this is a persistent and unrepentant user of socks designed to evade the ban and to continue disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support As mentioned, the user is already effectively banned. It should be official. hmwithτ 21:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I counted 55-60 socks between those two accounts. If you've got that many socks and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be. Blueboy96 21:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Ban for life. The level of disruption is tremendous – egregious sockpuppetry, egregious vandalism, you name it. Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 22:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support strongly. All previous attempts where getting nowhere other than produce a lot of(unneeded) work for other editors, especially for User:This flag once was red who kept more than just an eye on this on a daily bases. It's time to give him/her at least some rest (so s/he can enjoy the cookies I placed on his/her page).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

my user page[edit]


please delete all the history of my user page. thanks.--Behzad123 (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't appear to have one. Dayewalker (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Because I had already deleted it :) ÷seresin 07:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Man, you're quick. Dayewalker (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Same request: user page deletion[edit]


Hello, could you do the same with my user page (only the user page not the discussion)? I marked it for speedy deletion 2 days ago, but it's still there, thanks and best regards, --Poco a poco...¡adelante! 10:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you marked it for speedy deletion, then a minute later unmarked it and put a plain request for deletion in its place, so it didn't turn up in any categories, so no admin would know you wanted it deleting. I've gone ahead and deleted it. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 10:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I got a bit confused about your deletion templates, I am used to the Spanish way. I have created the page again (my motivation was deleting the history), thanks a lot, --Poco a poco...¡adelante! 10:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder banned[edit]

Guido has been banned by arbcom by a vote of 10-0 for editing incompatible with the project. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#User:Guido_den_Broeder_banned.RlevseTalk 11:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review[edit]

Rorschach test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been home to a content dispute that has been in progress since 2005 regarding the display of File:Rorschach1.jpg (an inkblot used in the test) in the article. It is claimed by some that the viewing of the inkblot could damage the results of a test the viewer might one day take, and as such, Wikipedia should protect the reader from the image somehow. Based on the above linked review, I have determined that community consensus rejects this notion and supports the display of the image in the lead section of the article. I submit the report for review and ask for neutral eyes on the article and dispute. –xenotalk 03:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely approve of the image in the lead. Wikipedia is not censored for any reason as long as the image represents the subject. We also do not disclaim spoilers. While I can appreciate the sentiment of the argument, it does not apply to our standards. Keegantalk 05:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Echo Keegan's statement, and also props to Xeno for working that summary out. I appreciate a lot of work must have gone into preparing that. Ironholds (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you add me to the supporters of including the image in the lead? Verbal chat 08:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
That's quite a lot of effort, by the looks of it. I hope this moves us toward a resolution, one way or another. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Impressive work on that compilation! I briefly stepped into the middle of that a year ago (already?!) to enforce consensus after one of the debates, which you have presented in your review. My opinion then was simply to try and gauge consensus. I do fully side with that consensus, and believe the image should stay right where it is. I am not surprised that the debate rages on, however. Like the Muhammad images, it is going to be a controversy here until Wikimedia shuts down the servers for good. Resolute 23:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I would just like to note that the report has been refined after some requests for clarification were were made. See Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum for details. –xenotalk 23:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • An interesting argument for the suppression of an image, but really, now, content disputes lasting years over a few ink blots? Sigh... props I guess Xeno for not walking away and finding something better to do :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      • What makes the intensity of this dispute so puzzling is (1) that it's not very difficult to get ahold of these images -- I found a book containing the entire set at my local public library, & (2) even though I examined these images when I first saw them, I found myself reacting to this image as if I never saw it before. -- llywrch (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Noting here for transparency that I have contacted the 60 users upon whose talk page comments this conclusion was based. Example of message left: [1]. –xenotalk 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Bukubku accepts continued topicban. //roux   15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was topic banned by Administrator Fut.Perf. on 21 January 2009. So I expressed my opinion here (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Topic ban). Then Administrator Shell_Kinney ordered me like that spend some time working in other areas and show you can properly handle disputes; after a few months of that, ask for the ban to be removed.[2] I obeyed her order for months, and I have not edit the areas from 20 January 2009. Certainly, I made mistakes, and I caused people problem, sorry.

I asked her to release the ban on 26 May 2009.[3] Then she recommend me to ask Future Perfect at Sunrise. So I asked Future Perfect at Sunrise to release the ban. Future Perfect at Sunrise replied like that Sorry, I am currently too preoccupied with other issues to give further attention to your issue. If you want to have your ban lifted, I recommend to take it to the wider community (best post an appeal at WP:AN); if admins there agree to lift it, they are welcome to do so as far as I am concerned.[4]

Please release my ban. Because my edition[5] remains on Comfort women for months until now, it tells us my edition is not bad faith. And I tryed to talk at Talk:Comfort women when I was banned. However, I admit that I have tended to revert editions before the ban done, sorry. I mend my rough behavior. I keep promise, trust me. Please release.--Bukubku (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Per AGF? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason why not, but if a POV returns then consider a longer, or permanent, topic ban if the community decides it's necessary. Until then, they've been a good editor, no real issues, I see no reason not to AGF. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Given the level of sniping and finger pointing that's going on here makes it a bit difficult to sort, but the comments from my talk page still stand. While Bukubku did wait several months before requesting to remove the ban, I don't see anything that he did during those few months that would allow me to evaluate whether or not his behavior has changed. I think the responses to Caspian blue in this thread are an indication that Bukubku has not learned how to handle disputes and its likely that removing the ban would lead us right back here. And on that topic, Caspian blue really ought to consider that his comments in this thread reflect very poorly on him as well. The two of you either need to handle your dispute like grown-ups or find a way to avoid each other. Shell babelfish 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for cool judgment. I need more time and more contributions. I accept your comment, because you formerly told me I need months. But you think I need more time. If you think so, that right. Thank you. Please give me advice.
In addition, my Internet access provider is not the one which Caspin's claim of cherry blossom. I don't use socks.--Bukubku (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Shell, as your comment, I may have toned down my wording a bit. However if you had been falsely and constantly accused of "racist" (such verbal attacks are immediately blockable by any admin) and various nasty things by Bukubku, I don't think you can be much patient of such user. He has a history of harassing me and tried to justify his unwarranted blanking. Instead, he inserted many original research and distorted "history" and "facts". As you noted, his first response to my opposition was making personal attacks. Thus his behavior even confirmed you not to unban him. Checkuer said there is a chance to proceed for Checkuser on him. Similarly, when a checkuer looked into a notorious block-evading long-term vandal whom Bukubku helped, the result was inconclusive. However the vandal in the end turned out to be the same sockpuppeter that I've known for a long time. The vandal used various sock ISPs including "internet cafe's" and behavioral evidences were more plausible for the case. If Bukubku wants more investigation, I could formally request for Checkuser on behalf of him.--Caspian blue 16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been called many inappropriate things, including a racist during my time here. The difference is in dealing with it. The both of you should seriously consider finding a way to avoid each other completely. Shell babelfish 13:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't use socks OK? And I never use internet cafe. What is the racist? How many times, do you want to say me racist. Please don't say others racist.--Bukubku (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You first accused me of racist and then authors that I used for references as such. If you need diffs, I'm happy to provide evidences to fresh up your memory. Moreover, you're requesting Rlevse to checkuser on you so far even via Email. I do not understand your contradiction. Regards.--Caspian blue 00:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you as racist. I said Japanese is not racist. I am not Racist. How many times, do you want to say me racist? Please don't say so.--Bukubku (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, since you're strongly denied what you attacked to me, I feel obliged to provide diffs. I have not got any apology from you for that either. Regards.--Caspian blue 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't racist. I didn't say racist. Do you understand? DO NOT SAY OTHERS as RACIST, please.--Bukubku (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Caspian blue you also wrote in Edit summary menory can be withered, but records are not.[6] What is menory? Please don't say others racist.--Bukubku (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
GTBacchus told me calm down in my page. It is right. I don't say more. My edit summary comment is not good. Sorry.--Bukubku (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to evaludate my typo, please check your first sentence. Here are your attacks; Your horrendous attack and forum shopping 1,attack 2 that I inserted racist contents based on anti-sentiment to bash ; thus that is a "racist" (You mentioned the now-gone stalking/harassing site in your diff[7]) and Your various attack including my ethnicity ->A 3rd editor criticized your false allegations and attacks Your attacked authors of racist. I just found these from two pages, but I recall you accused me as such on other places too. If you want more diffs, I can fulfill your request. Regards.
p.s You seem to think your such activity here is helpful for your unban. --Caspian blue 01:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Bukubku should not be unbanned from his indef.topic ban[edit]

Bukubku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Topic_ban
  • Strongest possible oppose for the unban' See these are "some" of disruptions that Bukubku has caused to the community. His indef-topic ban is a very much generous decision by Future given his falsehood to Korean related articles. He not only harassed me by calling me "racist" several times because I restored his massive blanking of referenced contents that he dislike, but also by forum shopping to admins (including emailing), so he tried to make my reputation bad. His "bogus ANI" and "horrendous attacks" can be seen in his reports. Bukubku knows Future has no time taking care of Bukubku's recent edits and activities because of the Macedonian ArbCom case. I'll show why Bukubku should not be free but be sanctioned more. His insistent and false usages of primary sources that scholars define "unreliable" are all disruptive. His habitual lying to attack me such as accusing me of a liar (his lies were revealed, he never apologized to me), and harassed me whenever I corrected his misuse of primary sources. He admitted him doing wrong so deleted some of the sources that he used, but he deceived me as if he deleted all sources as if he uses two different types of primary sources. See below;
Talk:Imo_Incident#Massacre and No Original research
Talk:Korea_under_Japanese_rule#Togo Shigenori
  • Reminder One of the topic-ban conditions is that if Bukubku evades his ban by using "socks", he should be indefinitely blocked. And I have a suspicion that Bukubku broked the restrict. So I request Checkuser on him. Before Bukubku had disrupts Korean related articles especially Empress Myeongseong, some anon with Mesh Isp appeared to insert "unreliable sources" to the article. See the edit summaries. After the anon's insertion, Bukubku created his account and and then his wiki-knowledge was way beyond newbies'.
Comparison between edits by Ip user and Bukubku to Empress Myeongseong
Mesh Ip user Official Gazette of Korea[8][9][10]
Bukubkju's edit Korean Official Gazette[11]
  • Request for Checkuser Recently there are tendentious edit warring going on Cherry blossom. Bukubku appeared to edit the article, and his edit does not breach the ban (not to edit any Korean subject or mentions and not to leave to such articles' talk pages)[12]. However, a Mesh Ip user (talk · contribs) appeared to edit and gave this insulting agenda 6 days after Bukubku appeared.[13][14] "South Korean's lie", that is what Bukubku has used to attack me and Korean editors. Given the previous appearance at Cherry blossom and the similar edit summary, and agenda, and Ip, I'm pretty sure the anon is Bukubku.

Besides, after he has got topic-banned, his edit to English Wiki is hugely decreased, so we do not examine how he has been improved himself. All his noticiable behaviors is to complain about his ban to Future, or protest somebody's breach of a Arbcom probation. Moreover, if the anon saying "South Korean's lie", indef.block is what Bukubku would deserve, not his freedom.--Caspian blue 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue and me had some troubles. I'm sorry. I apologize to everyone. Sometimes I made mistakes. Sorry. I regret what I has done beyond my translation skill. Sorry. However..Cherry blossom? I only insert picture explanation.[15] Is it wrong? Talk:Imo_Incident#Massacre and No Original research is not my OR. Do you know Boston Massacre? The casualties were less than Imo Incident. But I don't know correctly massacre mean how many casualties. Someone teach me. My talk inTalk:Korea_under_Japanese_rule#Togo Shigenori is wrong? Certainly, my words was not polite for Caspian blue. So I mend my attitude. What is the racist? What is the socks? I don't want to take advantage of Fut.Perf.'s busyness. If Fut.Perf. want me to wait his time, I would wait him for months. I am not cowardice. Please, don't insult people. Well, Caspian blue was blocked as his harrassment of other users in April 1, 2009. I don't want to create with your new drama, sorry.--Bukubku (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Your harassment and disruption led your "indef.topic ban" and I can back up your racist attacks with diffs. As for my block, another user was blocked for the same case, and you intentionally forgot to mention about it. You're the ONLY ONE that has been INDEFINITELY BANNED in the history Future's banning editors because of your massive disruption. He has either banned 2 or 3 months, not indefinite time. I request the checkuser, so if you're innocent, you don't need to worry about. However even if you're not the Mesh anon who insulted Koreans on Cherry blossom, there are plenty of evidences that should not endorse your unban. However, you falsely accused me of a sock without any evidence because you wanted me to ruin my name. B'crat warned you for your insults to me. I gave the valid evidence in which is of course no insult to people nor you. You mislead this thread as if you're editing constructively. Since you're requesting for unban to the community, as I'm also one of the community members, I do not approve your unban. So behave nice. Moreover why your activity is hugely decreased since your ban? --Caspian blue 15:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
In the interests of transparency it should be noted that Caspian Blue has been blocked by Future in the past for edit warring on the same article on Comfort women, and harassment of other users. Plus has been blocked by other admins for 3RR and edit warring on Korean and Japanese articles. Canterbury Tail talk 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Well my blocks by Future are related sockpuppets from 2channel and I shot my feet by requesting Future to look into cases. He blocked me together with socks and others for making noise. In the interests of transparency it should be noted that Canterbury Tail has edited Japanese related articles. Canterbury Tail's first comment shows that he did not do research at all.--Caspian blue 15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes I have edited Japanese related articles, but not edit warred and not gotten blocks on it. My original comments still stand. What IPs did before the OPs account was created is not the subject of this. Canterbury Tail talk 15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have not revert more than 2 times per day even thought I was blocked for edit warring. You're entitled to your comment so does mine. Please respect my opinion. The diffs of a Mesh anon's edit are to show that Bukubku may evade his ban by using a sock ip. He is not allowed to edit anything Korean subject. So my checkuser request is valid.--Caspian blue 15:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is Shell Kinney's comment about your unban request.[16] I'm concerned that you seem to have mostly stopped editing since this discussion in February and I don't see anything in your editing since then that would indicate that you've learned to handle disputes. I'm not sure that you're going to get the outcome you're looking for here, but as I said, please bring it up with the person who placed the ban. Thanks. Shell babelfish 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You're misrepresenting her comment too.--Caspian blue 15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Caspian, are you Fut.Perf.? And I have already been checked by Checkuser Rlevse when Caspian blue asked Rlevse. Don't forget your action. You are be rude to Rlevse. Everyone ask Rlevse, please.--Bukubku (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is Shell Kinney's comment. So I asked Fut.Perf.. Is it wrong?--Bukubku (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I highly respect Rlevse unlike your numerous rudeness to him User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_12#Unfair, and my request for checkuser is regarding the mesh anon on Cherry blossom. And you meatpuppeted the notorious sockpuppeter, Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) back then when I requested a RFCU on you. Since you're requesting the Community's approval, as I say, I don't allow as such. --Caspian blue 15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's good idea!! I edit Cherry blossom, only one time. I don't use socks. It's good. Please check Cherry blossom. And please stop insult others.--Bukubku (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I ask Rlevse to checkuser on you and the sock Ip on Cherry blossom since you're requesting it.--Caspian blue 15:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, both of you have made your case, please stop now. Let people look over the material and come to a decision. Canterbury Tail talk 15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. This does not look like it will end cleanly or amicably. Taking a first look at the evidence (& AGF), each side is a bit sloppy in how they present it. On one hand, Caspian Blue's cite puts Shell's opinion in better context than Bukubku's. On the other, Bukubku did edit the article in question only once under this user name. Pending useful comments from Rlevse &/or Shell, is there any objection to Bukubku being allowed to contribute to the articles in this area by contributions to the Talk pages? (By that, I mean other than by Caspian Blue, whom we can assume will object?) -- llywrch (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue and Bukubku should both know that CU can't be used to prove innocence. CU is also not warranted here based on the evidence in this thread, but perhaps with more evidence it would be. The issue at hand is "Do we un-topic ban Bukubku?". The ban was "I am therefore banning you from all topic areas dealing with Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies". I'd have to say "No" because of these reasons: 1) few edits since Feb and even fewer outside his "home turf" of Japanese articles 2) it is readily apparent his combative nature has not waned and 3) I see no effort resolve disputes on the Korea-Japan articles but rather a lurking desire to "correct" the articles.RlevseTalk 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for comments.
Llywrch, I don't intend to colorize Shell_Kinney's comment. OK look her comment, this is the link User talk:Shell Kinney#Hello
Rlevse, 1) I edited mainly "home turf" since I have participated Wikipedia. Is it wrong? Now Caspin claim my edition of Cherry blossom. I don't use socks. And If Cherry blossom is related Korea-Japan, many article about Japan become relate Japan-Korea. Because most Japanese and Korean culture or history are overlaped. 2) My attitude was not good, I admit my former tendency. 3) I want to use talk page rather than revert. 4) Canterbury Tail's comment I see no reason why not, but if a POV returns then consider a longer, or permanent, topic ban if the community decides it's necessary. Until then, they've been a good editor, no real issues, I see no reason not to AGF.[17] If community think my POV returns, community should topic ban me. 5) Why only my ban is indefinite period? Caspian blue's ban is 6 month. And I didn't personal attack like.
My opinion is not match Rlevse's. However I respect Rlevse. Rlevse dealt with me fair all times. So what should I do? Please, guide me.--Bukubku (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Bukubku, this is about YOUR UNBAN request from the indefinite topic-ban, but you're quick to attack me again. That has nothing to do with me. However such behavior just prevents you from releasing your indefinite ban. Your edits back then were all disruptive, so you're banned by Future accordingly for your disruptive editing to Korean articles with selectively chosen sources to shift the war blame to Koreans. Future said that your edit and intention are "cheap" and "disruptive". You also edited Korean articles unrelated to Japan and your countless edit warring with various editors are all vivid in my memory. There are many good topics unrelated to Korea that needs editing and expansion. However what did you do during the 4 months? Moreover, you have abused AGF and if you're changed, why you have posted the image on user box? (diff)
Namdaemun in the Joseon Period.JPG
This user is interested in History of Korea
WP:IncidentArchive383#Request for checkuser on Opoona (talk · contribs) (See the gallery too and the socks's edits)
Rlevse saw the image once when socks from 2channel disrupted the Namdaemun to bash Koreans with the image over multiple language Wikipedias when a fire incident occurred to the Gate. Unlike other history userboxes on your page, you created the userbox instead of using existent ones that shows those who are interested in Korean history such as User:Historiographer/Userboxes/History of Korea and User:Mizunoryu/Userboxes/Korean history

I wonder why you use the image? You have nothing to show your improvement, but BATTLE ground attitude here and engages in NPA. You need to wait more after you can show you're improved by editing constructively.--Caspian blue 01:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, stop machine gun. I like old picture, so I used old picture. I am very careful about using the picture. The picture was photographed in Joseon Dynasty period. If I had hostility, I would use burned picture. And there is other old good picture, but the one is Japanse period, so I didn't use the picture. Please, don't tell me bad.
Japanese Period Namdaemun
Present Period Namdaemun

--Bukubku (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think your above personal attacks could help your unban, keep continuing. You're very good at it so far. Why do you think that the burn-down Namdaemun image has to do with the one that has been used on your user page and socks from 2ch used to vandalise the article of Namdaenum? You also inserted the poorest image to the article of Joseon Dynasty regardless of the fact that there are obviously much better images taken before 1910 out there. Your introduction of the new image here shows that you have no interest in editing Korean related articles with neutral view. --Caspian blue 14:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
FriedC upped new clear image on 19:07, 28 May 2009. I haven't known until now. I changed my user page image now. I don't have any intention. Please, don't accuse me.
New image upped on 19:07,28 May 2009
--Bukubku (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Back on track: support/oppose lifting Bukubku's topicban[edit]

I do not wish to put words in anyone's mouth so I am not summarising the predictably tangled mess above. This bickering has gone on long enough, so without making this a poll, please indicate support for or opposition to lifting the topicban, as asked by Bukubku. To make it easier for admins to gauge consensus, please keep statements short. //roux   04:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Redundant. Already three editors (if counting Future's comment, 4 editors) disagree with Bukubku's unban because he has nothing to show for improvement. Sometimes, "disengagement" is helpful for making less drama.--Caspian blue 04:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I accept dismissal, because 2 Admins told premature. Future Perfect at Sunrise entrust other Admins. Caspian blue is not Admin. Thank you everyone's comment.--Bukubku (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


Do these qualify as G4s even though it's userfied? It looks like "material moved or copied to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy", given the user's edit history (re-creating the article after it was deleted, plus this). The pages were accessible through categories, but I've removed them. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 05:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI is the first impression, one can prewrite articles in user space it is common pre election to write a up likely candidates that dont meet notabitlity unless they win. It wouldnt IMHO be a speedy candidate Gnangarra 06:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
They're new, COI writing is not forbidden but COI editors must take the greatest care in what they do, putting the encyclopedia first, these look like good faith, policy and guideline-abiding drafts in userspace, not speedies. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
He's certainly guilty of being annoying, but any editor who's never been can't have been around for long. With the categories now removed, I'd treat the text as an userspace draft.
More importantly, how is he to know when the draft can be moved into article space? --Kizor 15:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


This user has posted a...slightly disturbing message. As a new admin, I was hoping to get another opinion: is this a straight delete/block for attacks? I don't want to WP:BITE, but I don't anyone mounting the soapbox with a message that suggests bad things should happen.-RunningOnBrains(talk page) 01:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider this vandalism or trolling, but it does not aid in collaboration and is likely to offend other editors (incitements to terrorism I can appreciate, but the grammar and spacing are atrocious). I would blank the page and leave the editor a good faith-laden note. Their subsequent edits should show whether or not further measures are necessary.  Skomorokh  02:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, a good blanking per WP:SOAPBOX and a small warning is all that seems necessary. Icestorm815Talk 06:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Are they really trying to claim that the US and France fought a war against each other, or are they just so incoherent that their meaning is too obtuse? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie[edit]

Could an admin restore Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie? It's being discussed at DRV and the Article Rescue Squadron is going to expand its focus onto DRV so the rescue is tag for there. -- POVbattler (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that this is a new user, given that his first edit was to create a WP:RFA page for "reconfirmation" of an admin. Faking that admin's acceptance of the reconfirmation RfA, as he then did in this edit, is unacceptable behaviour. Leaving a message such as this one is a breach of WP:CIVIL. I am minded to block this account indefinitely, and require him to go back to editing from his main account, whatever that is. Any thoughts? BencherliteTalk 23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Never mind; whilst I was composing this message, user:PMDrive1061 blocked indef. Block appeal will be declined shortly. BencherliteTalk 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
That's some thorough detective work, but in the future you can block indefinitely on that username alone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, better safe than sorry - it was the username that made me check out what he was up to, unsurprisingly... BencherliteTalk 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2009 June 2[edit]

My posts for today so far were:

  • Pakistan’s army is winning against the Taliban's army in Swat Valley.(The Manila Times)
  • On the 30th anniversity of John Paul II's visit to Poland, the country prepares for the 20th anniversiy of the two-party electons of June 4, 1989.(NZ Herald)
  • France asks the U.S. to use its spy satellites and listening posts to hunt for the lost Air France jet.(

However, ZimZalaBim on my talk page called them vandalism and threatened to block me. I hope nobody blocks me for working on Current events because working on Wikipedia is something to do. All of my edits have been as high quality as I have been able to do. ZimZalaBim removed the above posts, called them vandalism on my talk page, and threatened to block me. I don't believe administrator's should act that way. Chuck Marean 23:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I left an annotated level 3 warning regarding CM's continued insertion of trivial/inappropriate news items in Portal:Current events, despite numerous suggestions from numerous editors that he pause and think about whether his contributions to that part of the project are constructive. See related discussion here and here, and comments on his talk page [18]. I consider his actions increasingly disruptive. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does M. Marean seem to be pushing the envelope of assume good faith lately?Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
On the one hand, I agree with ZimZalaBim that those events don't need to be in current events, as I'm unsure of their importance. But, on the other, adding them is not vandalism in any sense of the word. Wrong, maybe; bad faith, I hope not. But either way, still not vandalism. CM, you might consider going over to Wikinews, as current events isn't a big part of Wikipedia. Unless of course there're other things you do here (and forgive me for not checking myself if there are). Just, guys, don't do drahmahz. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll concede that my characterization of CM's edits as "vandalism" was over-reaching. I've adjusted my note on his page to reflect my greater concern about disruption. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, disruptive is a good fallback, and has the added bonus of appearing to be true as well. Please be careful of how you phrase things, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Autofellatio image battle part umpteenth[edit]

Autofellatio is sadly well-known to many of you here for the legendary issues of displaying an image of someone fellating themself on the article. I'm afraid I'm getting a bit stressed out dealing with the same circular discussion over the past several months and several RfC's. I'm going to take a break but would appreciate anyone who feels up to it looking through the current talkpage and maybe the most recent archives to see if I'm misreading this. Any suggestions to put an end to this would be welcome, I'm afraid it feels a lot like quibbling semantics when the spirit of Wikipedia is not censored seems pretty clear to me. Any help or advice appreciated. -- Banjeboi 03:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You document your unhappiness, but not what the issues are with respect to creating a fine encyclopedia consistent with our policies and guidelines. What is the issue? Difs, please. Common, suck it up and give us the details, no matter how much back ache it causes. Sorry to be a pain in the neck. Edison (talk)
OK, break was helpful. Autofellatio is the ability to give oneself a blowjob as it were. Since early 2005, possibly a record, there has been various ethical issues applied that have undoubtably resulted in our current policies on what is or is not censored. I'll leave it for others to decide for themselves if there are any implications of the heteronormative mainstream culture or WP:CSB concerns.
As Wikipedia has grown so have policies evolved including the implementation of the MediaWiki:Bad image list, which really should be moved to the MediaWiki:Restricted image list, but I digress. Currently there seems to be support for at least one photo of someone autofellating themself without any masking, hide boxes, links to commons, etc. This is in part to confirm that what would seem physically impossible is, in fact, do-able. There is also a strong and broad community consensus against censorship. Previous efforts to hide the image were to use a template image link, the template has since been deleted. Over the last month an effort to find new ways to hide the image or otherwise make our readers take extra steps to see the image have been suggested and generally rejected with similar, IMHO, circular discussion. It's disgusting, Sorry, we don't censor with various nuances.
Two RfCs, the second needed because the first RfC didn't add "and don't put the image at the bottom of the page", supported that generally ... wait for it ... we still don't censor. Since then we have had more theoretical and rather pointy threads all rehashing the same issue that has been recently resolved via community dispute resolution. I started a FAQ to help ease these issues but I feel this is starting to boil. I stepped back to avoid a 3rr myself. I hope some univolved folks could look at this and see if there is some obvious steps that should be considered, a projectwide ban of all naked photos?, a policy that any image seem as objectionable should be put in a click-to-see box?, something else? I feel there is an effort to disregard both the letter and spirit of the previous RfCs but I'm in the middle of it so would appreciate some outside perspective. -- Banjeboi 08:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Short answer? RfC's are a method of determining consensus; if they were closed with a consensus that the image should remain (and remain as the primary one in the article) then removing it is against consensus and is therefore disruptive. While, of course, consensus may change it needs to be demonstrated to have changed and therefore another RfC (or other method of polling consensus) needs to be held to certify that change of consensus. I suggest that it would need to be those who disagree with the existing consensus to put such a new RfC in place. Until there is another consensus reaching process that finds in favour of removing the image, the image should not be removed/substituted/hidden or in any way displayed other than as per the current consensus.
If you wish for someone to assist you in trying to convey that consensus is to be adhered to, and that the existing consensus is that the image stays as is, and violations of consensus is disruptive and may attract warnings and then sanctions should the disruption continue, then I shall do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I initially made a few comments at Talk:Autofellatio (I am adding this link in part for my personal convenience. A few minutes ago I unthinkingly clicked the link at the beginning of this section in order to get to the talk page, and was quite shocked when I realised that my 4-year-old daughter was almost watching. This might have led to her mentioning that "this man has the same thing at his butty as you, only much bigger" and asking why it is so much bigger and why he puts it into his mouth. Which wouldn't be a big problem so long as she doesn't ask at the nursery for further information. The nursery staff might decide to err on the side of caution and inform the relevant authorities what this little girl, who is living only with her father is talking about.) Then I stopped, because in my line of work there is only a handful of potential employers, and I can't risk one of them checking what my most edited Wikipedia pages are and coming up with Talk:Autofellatio!

It is being repeated ever and ever and ever and ever again what the consensus is: That the article absolutely must have the most drastic photograph possible, at the very top, and (latest detail) not even an option to hide it after first seeing it, to allow reading of the actual article without distraction. In fact, the reason I have heard it so often now is that each time someone says they don't agree with showing the photo, they are told there is a consensus to do so. I think it's safe to say that this is indeed the consensus of the regular editors of that article. It's also safe to say that there is a certain self-selection bias at work. And there are massive assumptions of bad faith and unfounded accusations of disruption against anybody who dares to disagree with the local consensus. There were no less than two "RfCs", but it seems that WP:Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex is not all that frequented, and apparently there were no efforts to advertise this further. There is also some inconsistency here between the treatment of sexual taboos on one hand and defecatory taboos on the other hand:

The editor who did this was blocked indefinitely soon afterwards.
Whereas this is simply handling disruption???

Incidentally, I can't help feeling there must have been some secret canvassing going on. It is my impression that both RfCs had short bursts of "anti-censorship" votes followed by premature closure, against a steady trickle of commenters opposing the photo. Perhaps I am wrong, but the correct way to dispel such feelings is by going out of one's way to ensure the issues are discussed widely and in an orderly fashion, not by stifling discussion and making grotesque accusations of censorship against one's opponents. I wish Benjiboi and Allstarecho would learn this. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Grotesque? Let's not go overboard, and let's not accuse people of canvassing either. What we've had in the last week on this page is a previously uninvolved editor who began a discussion about removing the image without having read the archives, and was told that we've already achieved consensus on the issue, and another editor who seems to have previously been involved coming up with yet another way to allow people to hide the image, seemingly circumventing both this article's consensus and general practice on Wikipedia. No one has accused anyone of censorship; people have stated that Wikipedia is not censored. There have been, as this section's title suggests, umpteen discussions regarding this issue. Wikipedia is consensus-based, and consensus can change, but revisiting the same issues over and over again ad nauseam is neither useful nor practical. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean the consensus of 44 editors (against 75) in Archive 1? This is the only discussion in the archives that looks like a community-wide discussion to me.
As to "censorship", there were numerous RfC votes based only on WP:NOT#CENSORED, as if this was an obligation to break each and every taboo that we can legally break:
  • "Oppose - We are not censored, that's the end of the matter. If you have a problem with Wikipedias policy on censorship, take it to the appropriate venue. [...] No it's not. These individual disputes on each controversial page have got us nowhere. If there is going to be change to the censorship policy it will have to take place at a central point. Not an obscure article about men who can live without girlfriends (or boyfriends) because of their unique ability to self pleasure." (Realist2)
  • "Srong oppose. WP:NOTCENSORED is pretty clear and fair. Personally I may be offended at seeing people who aren't engaged in autofellatio - does that open the door for these convenient masking tools to be employed on every photo I can rally a group for? No, this will only lead to more arguments and splitting hairs and the community has somewhat reasonably sided to avoid images that are more pornographic for ones that are encyclopedic and prefer images of real people than the, IMHO, usually inferior graphics created. Apologies to the editor(s) who work on them but many are, inferior. There also may be some accessibility issues here but the policy of not censoring renders almost every other concern moot." (Benjiboi)
  • "Oppose: The users who 'accidentally' reach this page from Google can presumably speak for themselves. We should not censor a page to humour the sensibilities of certain editors." (Rōnin)
  • "Strong oppose: If we sacrifice the basic WP:NOTCENSORED principle here, what next? Slippery slope down which we should not slide." (ukexpat)
  • "Oppose WP:CENSORED." (Dlabtot)
  • "Strong oppose: we don't remove images just because someone finds them offensive, even if they were created to offend. NOT#CENSORED is clear on this: censorship of material runs against our mission of becoming a free encyclopedia that includes the sum of human knowledge. I should point out that Template:Linkimage was deleted because it was ultimately used for page 'sanitation'." (Sceptre)
  • "Oppose. Why are we still talking about this? [...] No, it's because certain people fail to understand basic ideas like "not censored." This debate has been going in circles for years; it's become ridiculous." (Exploding Boy)
Each of these !votes made an implicit assumption that there is opposition against the photo only for the sake of censoring – as if that made any sense. When people censor something they do it for a reason, and that reason is rarely a general desire to censor. We don't show everything. We don't show every single photo from commons:Category:Sunflower in sunflower, even though this would be feasible. Decapitation doesn't have a photo of a severed head, and won't get one even if one becomes freely available. There are obvious tradeoffs between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANITY. I could find no proper, community-wide discussion of this issue in the archives (except for the one in 2005 that started with Jimbo deleting a photo and in which there was a majority against the photo). And a large number of users including some of the owners of the article are refusing to discuss anything other than whether WP:NOTCENSORED is valid and worth defending. That's exactly as constructive as if the other side would refuse to discuss anything other than whether WP:PROFANITY is valid and worth defending. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that while Decapitation doesn't have a photo of a severed head, it does have a photo of several decapitated bodies. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, this isn't something for Admins to deal with. Start a new RfC. I understand you're upset with that process but, unless you want to try an ArbCom (which I seriously doubt would be accepted), RfC is your best route for gauging consensus. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
As an academic with a real name account, I am not going to edit that talk page any more for the reason explained above. And the massive, counterfactual claims of consensus that are going on at this talk page are a matter for administrator intervention. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Vaguely waving WP:PROFANITY around isn't going to help you, either. To quote that page - "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers..." - so good luck on defining typical Wikipedia readers. The only comment I'd make on the Autofellatio article is that the drawing is a bit redundant given the photo. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The idea that WP:PROFANITY can't apply because there is no typical WP reader is only slightly more intelligent than the idea that WP:NOTCENSORED can't apply because the photo isn't obscene in the first place. Of course it is, for almost all readers. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's clearly obscene for almost all readers, then surely it would have consensus to be removed? Or are you insinuating that the average Wikipedia editor has a higher-than-average obscenity tolerance level? Or are you insinuating something else? I can't tell, to be honest, except that your argument appears to contravene NOTCENSORED (which is policy) whilst promoting PROFANITY (which is a Manual of Style guideline). So, er ...? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's very likely that the average Wikipedian has a higher-than-average obscenity tolerance level. We're mostly young, male, a bit geeky, and familiar with the Internet. That adds up to a high tolerance level for sexual content. Yeah. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As a general comment, I simply don't understand what's going on at this article. My best guess is that there must be either a severe cultural/generational gap between me and some of the defenders of that photo, or a bunch of people are trying to change the world by changing Wikipedia first, showing no respect for the encyclopedia's reputation and integrity. Or is it a failure to distinguish WP from Encyclopedia Dramatica? It just doesn't make any sense, and is completely indefensible, to insist that the photo must be in the most prominent position possible. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely it's only in a prominent position if you're actually viewing the Autofellatio page in the first place? And if you're viewing that page, I'd guess that it's unlikely you've arrived there by accident (barring a 3,000,000-1 chance that you got there by hitting Random Article). A prominent position would be, say, on the Main Page, or on one of the Portals. Not there. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about native speakers of English, but a non-native speaker can easily come across this word in a novel with only a very vague idea of what it means. "Oh, no problem, I have internet in the office so I can look it up in Wikipedia." But this goes beyond what we should discuss here. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
...they then see the image and in a microsecond they are educated as to what autofellation is, job done and in a very efficient way. --WebHamster 16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, a picture paints a thousand words! --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a very simple concept. The image that most accurately describes that which is in the article is placed in the top right position. It works well for thousands of other articles, so why should it not work well here? Or are you suggesting that the image doesn't accurately reflect the article's subject matter? The fact that it's a guy blowing himself is irrelevant from an encyclopaedic standpoint. --WebHamster 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I think an ogg audiovideo would more fully and accurately reflect the article's subject matter. Oh wait --- that would be porn.17:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It might say something about Wikipedia's reputation and integrity that our policy structure allows such an article in the first place. But we do have it, so other applicable policies apply as much here as anywhere else. That includes image use. Surprisingly enough, it's quite a popular article. More so than bread and circuses combined, and slightly more than quantum mechanics. DurovaCharge! 17:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The moustache makes me feel ill. I'd rather the drawing was in the lead (it fits the criteria given for lead image above), and any photo, a better one hopefully, could come later (no pun intended) - if it was agreed it should be included at all, after an RFC perhaps (with a choice of images or no image presented, perhaps). Verbal chat 17:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
(Resp to Hans Adler) WP:Consensus is not that which is decided upon by the regular editors of a particular page - but which is decided upon by the community by means of discussion and reflected in policy. The fact that a majority of editors within a particular prefer something does not negate consensus generally - you cannot take an article and agree between the current editors that WP:NPA, WP:Civil, and WP:OUTING does not apply within those pages and say you have consensus (well, you can try and take the consequences). Consensus is that WP:NOT#Censored applies generally across WP articles, and images that illustrate the article subject are allowed.
I find your mentions of your daughter and father relationship, and the potential of employers finding out your editing habits, bewildering and not to the point - Wikipedia is certainly not going to be edited around your lifestyle and career choices. When you choose to edit a subject you should be aware that you are doing so to the existing consensus, and if you are unable to change the consensus to reflect how you feel is appropriate then you have the choice of abiding by that consensus or not editing the article. Your choices are not Wikipedia's "problem", but something between yourself, your principles, and your interests. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
In your first paragraph you seem to agree with my point – which is precisely that global consensus breaks local consensus. The problem is that as far as I can tell there was no attempt to find a global consensus since the 75–44 result against a specific photo in 2005. Yet the mantra that there is a consensus for a photo is being used whenever someone brings the topic up. If there is such a consensus, I want to see it. Otherwise I suspect that this is simply a case of the autofellatist's new clothes.
As to your second paragraph, I reserve the right to edit articles that are not related to my interests. Normally this is considered a good thing hereabouts. In this case I didn't even edit; I responded to an RfC that was derailed by supporters of the photo, apparently in order to avoid the determination of global consensus. Personally I think the photo is unnecessary, but I wouldn't complain about its existence. What makes me furious is the insistence that the photo must under all circumstances be at the very top of the article. That seems to be motivated only by assumptions of bad faith or the desire to break taboos. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to echo LHVU's points, our "personal" issues or views with morality, ethics, sexuality, nationality, politics, race, religion, pornography, etc. are required to 100% of the time to take a back seat to policy and the way of this website. Sometimes this can be bad, but it's the only way to keep things sane on a global website edited by 10,000+ active users at any given time. If one of us doesn't like a nasty image, then change policy to get them removed. Attempting to enforce our own views on taste and discretion are inappropriate if they go against the general tone and tenor of the website. You find the image of autofellatio repulsive or inappropriate, perhaps. What about the millions who find images of Mohammed the same, according to their religious views? Or perhaps Piss Christ? Our tastes have to stay logged out when we log in. rootology/equality 17:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Rootology. Writing and editing a Wikipedia article often involves choices of style and taste. Moreover, Wikipedia policy forbids unnecessary offensiveness in articles: "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
If the whole article was filled with photos, all-but-one could be removed under the WP:PROFANITY guideline. We always try and indicate the topic of the article with as clearer image as possible, including this photo. The whole discussion is about censorship, because some people (or even many people) will find it (maybe highly) offensive or inappropriate. Luckily, WP:NOTCENSORED deals with this issue - and makes it a non-issue. Wikipedia is not censored. We don't censor religious images, we don't censor nudity and we don't censor this. If you want to censor this, you'll need to get consensus to change NOTCENSORED. And seriously - you probably won't get it. Ale_Jrbtalk 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTCENSORED; "some articles may include text, images, or links that some people may find objectionable when they are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." Is an image of autofellatio offensive? Irrelevant. Is an image of autofellatio relevant to an article on autofellatio? Yes. Does an illustration of the act of self fellatio improve understanding of the subject? Yes (this picture shows that it is both possible and also difficult to achieve, and one does not need to read any text to understand the subject - while reading the text without the visual aid may not inform the reader to the full extent of the practice.) What are your encyclopedic objections to the image? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not irrelevant. WP:NOTCENSORED says: "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only ...." Do you agree that policy says that?
If there were an automatic, reflexive need to illustrate everything at Wikipedia with a photograph, then please let's get right to work at necrophilia, anal sex, abortion, and thousand of other articles that currently have no illustrative photograph, and then we can get to work on Disembowelment, Execution by burning and the like.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it says that - which is why I gave the breakdown on why that image was appropriate for that article. As for the other subjects, I am not certain that there are free use images available (I am surprised if there isn't for anal sex or disembowlment, and equally if there are ones for abortion or necrophilia) but there is also the matter of how the illustration or lack of same effects the understanding of the subject. The photograph fulfills the requirement in a way that a drawing or other representation cannot, yet in the sister (sic) article of fellatio a drawing suffices because of an acceptance of the common frequency of the practice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
As I have said, many people would find the image offensive. It is extremely obvious that the article would be no less accurate or informative if the image were at a less prominent spot in the article. Therefore, the present format violates WP:NOTCENSORED which bars use of images in a way that is needlessly offensive. It's very simple.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) ... not to forget that both photos (it keeps oscillating between the guy with the silly moustache and the guy with the vibrator) also seem to demonstrate that it's a niche subject. Granted. I can accept the position that a photo should be there, because it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is denying the obvious fact that this is in the area of tension between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANITY, and categorically rejecting the slightest compromise such as putting the drawing first. It's hard to assume good faith when confronted with this stubbornness, rather than the desire to spite editors with a different background. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't we have a picture for anal sex? If you give me a couple of hours, I can make one. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you could get to work on those last couple that I mentioned?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
We have featured pictures for public indecency, guano, and circumcision. DurovaCharge! 18:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
And am working mostly on text content this week, but will keep the suggestions in mind.[19][20] DurovaCharge! 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Those two images would be fine. The latter is not a photo, and the former is not a close-up of a live tortured person being disemboweled, which is the primary meaning of the term.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Well they happen to be the best resolution versions of the respective subjects that the Library of Congress makes available. In order to get a photograph of burning at the stake it would be difficult to locate something other than a theatrical stage depiction. Could certainly get hangings, though. DurovaCharge! 18:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
If I go out and burn someone at the stake (in keeping with my image), and upload a close-up photo of it to the corresponding Wikipedia article, I somehow doubt it will be greeted with the same glee found at the Autofellatio talk page. Anyway, I wasn't simply suggesting removing the image at the Autofellatio article. It obviously doesn't have to be at the top of the article to keep the article accurate and informative. In that sense, the current format of that article is blatantly contradictory to Wikipedia policy.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed we have had photos of hangings; the one I'm thinking of was removed not because of "obscenity/profanity/shock" issues, but because it as a copyvio. Just wondering, what term primarily means "a live tortured person being disemboweled"? I see that definition below a comment that mentions anal sex, guano and circumcision. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's below a comment that says: "And am working mostly on text content this week, but will keep the suggestions in mind." See the links at the end of that sentence.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Exploding Boy, I have contributed over 200 featured pictures, most of which are restorations of historic material. They cover a wide range of subjects and approximately 2% deal with hot-button subjects. Overall that's probably about the right balance. This happens to be a thread about another sensitive issue, and (at least theoretically) I would indeed support a featured picture candidate if the resolution, composition, photographic quality, etc. were of featured picture standards. Every now and then we get a low quality 'shock' image nomination, which quickly fails: FP standards are strict. But the nature of the material itself is irrelevant so long as its use is encyclopedic. DurovaCharge! 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You don't have to convince me, Durova; I support the use of a photo in the Autofellatio article, and have supported other explicit photos (and opposed some too). Exploding Boy (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) It might surprise you what Wikipedia does use, and even features. This video, for instance, was taken just a few years ago. Due to the circumstances it is not a close-up, but three human beings die in it. It ran on the main page and received only one complaint. DurovaCharge! 19:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, Durova. The video you point to would not have been considered obscene by a majority of people anywhere in the world during the Victorian era or any other era. In contrast, there are photos available on the internet which --- even today --- a majority of people would consider extremely offensive.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Basically this: at FPC one of our criteria is whether the image is encyclopedic at the article it illustrates. With regard to the subject of this thread, yes, the image there is highly encyclopedic. It would be hard to imagine anywhere else on the project where it would be suitable, but at that page it does an excellent job of illustrating the subject. The value of having the article itself is more debatable than the illustration. But that would be a different discussion. DurovaCharge! 19:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a by the by, we have a photo of a decapitated body: (File:KetchumDecapitated.jpg), and it's used in an article. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the example. I was thinking of that but couldn't remember the name. DurovaCharge! 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Not offensive at all. You can barely make out what's depicted in the photo. Here's a quote from Jimbo Wales: "In general, I will simply restate the obvious: imagery in articles is often one of the most attractive points for POV-pushing of all kinds, for a couple of reasons. (1) Images can have a strong emotional impact, thus making implicitly a point that would not be possible to make in the text. (2) Images are often 'either/or' with no easy way to work for consensus. My own perspective is that many of our articles have needlessly graphic photos inserted either by POV-pushers or by people who are borderline trolling... seeing what they can get away with."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
So explicit photos are fine as long as "you can barely make out what's depicted" in them? Interesting--but non-policy-conforming--approach. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. A vivid close-up photo of Daniel Pearl's death (or anything similar) would be completely revolting at Wikipedia, and would never last a minute here. Maybe a year or two from now, though, at the rate things are going.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
"It's completely revolting" is not a valid reason to remove, or not to include, an image, according to our policies. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure it is. If there's an "equally suitable alternative" then the image can be excluded.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
We've already established that there is no suitable alternative, and being objectionable is not grounds for removing an image. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
No, we've established that you don't think there's a suitable alternative to having a graphic, vivid close-up at the top of the article. But perhaps a more reasonable attitude might be: of course putting the image lower in the article and putting the drawing at the top would be equally suitable, OR of course it would be equally suitable to leave the image at the top but give readers the ability to hide it while they read the article, OR of course it would be equally suitable to use only the drawing in conjunction with a link to the gallery at Wikimedia Commons, et cetera, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
First of all, there's no need to get personal: I'm not the only one who thinks that. We've had pages of discussion and RFCs on that point. Second, the current consensus is for the image to be at the top; again, not just what I think. Finally, it's been explained to you by several other users why having a "hide" option isn't acceptable. Once again, not simply what I think. Your very language ("graphic, vivid close-up") shows how much the image offends you; that's unfortunate for you, but, based on our own policies, not grounds to remove it from a Wikipedia article. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You say "the image offends you." Whether the image offends me or not is irrelevant. I have urged that we keep the image in the article, but in an equally suitable way that will likely be just as informative but less offensive to people generally. I don't go around editing Wikipedia articles so that I personally will enjoy reading them more, and it's not helpful for you to personalize this by attributing motives to me that I do not have.
In Wikipedia's abortion article, for example, I suggested to include an image of what is aborted in an induced abortion without proposing the kind of graphic photo that I personally might prefer; I never proposed a graphic photo of a dismembered fetus, and instead suggested a much less offensive black and white drawing (that I even offered to hide in a toggle box). Of course, that proposal of mine was rejected, and the abortion article still does not have any image of what is aborted in an induced abortion of a fetus. Since Wikipedians generally have grotesque double-standards, the status quo will likely remain in that article, as well as the article that we have been discussing here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't find WP:APPEALTOAUTHORITY OR WP:THEGODKINGSAIDIT on the policy list. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Nonono, I was simply quoting an average doofus who once in a long while says something sensible.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Why the fuck is this being argued both here and on the article's talk page? I wish someone would make their minds up where they are going to spout their conservative philosophies. --WebHamster 21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Ohhhhh, it's some kind of political thing.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Who said that? You did notice the lower-case "c" didn't you? --WebHamster 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • WebHamster, would you consider withdrawing that four-letter epithet? Its use is not necessary here. Let's discuss autofellatio in as dignified and genteel? terms as possible. DurovaCharge! 21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I wrote what I meant to write, it didn't appear by accident. --WebHamster 21:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster block review[edit]

Resolved: Unblocked by blocking admin
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

 Note: WebHamster is blocked 24 hours for some combination of WP:CIVIL, WP:DE, WP:TROLL WP:BAIT and WP:NPA for the above discourse, and their comments on my talk page. Jehochman Talk 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Personally I consider the word "fuck" above totally acceptable. But there is something really offensive on the article talk page:

"This is just another bible-belter tactic to get the world to come round to their narrow-minded thinking."

WebHamster, if you feel the need to engage in personal attacks against those who support moving the picture down a bit or other, similar "censorship", could you please make sure that you use formulations that can also be applied to open-minded European atheists like me? Thank you. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Using profanity is not a huge problem. However, profanity coupled with personal attacks against other editors reveal that the words are being used to cause hostility and disruption. It's the hostility and disruption that are the problems. Jehochman Talk 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
WebHamster has requested a review of their block. I'd request that there be no unblock without consulting me. I have posted diffs to User talk:WebHamster below the block notification. Before commenting, I'd ask editors to please review things thoroughly. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 22:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck? The block should be lifted immediately. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck indeed. I am in complete agreement with Cameron Scott here. As is iridescent, who said as much on WH's page, and she's pretty much always right. //roux   22:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The block wasn't for saying "fuck". Notice how we're all saying it? It was for being personally uncivil, repeatedly. Characterizing ones opponents as "spouters of bullshit" is not conducive to collaboration. WebHamster should know that. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Good block, I say. I would never cite WP:TROLL for any reason (unless I wanted to feed trolls), but otherwise I agree that WebHamster has been uncivil well beyond the use of the word "fuck", and responded aggressively to those who suggested he tone it down. Characterizing anyone who suggests moving the image a "bible-belter", and talking about people spouting their conservative philosophies... ever hear of "comment on the edit, not the editor"? It's quite possible to dispute someone's arguments without insulting their person. In fact, it's more than possible - it's expected. Take a collaborative tone, and you get blocked a lot less. Big surprise. Twenty-four hours isn't long. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Due to the edit conflict with the block notice and the subsequently added heading it now looks as if I am opposing the block. I am not. It's appropriate for "conservative philosophies", "bible-belter", and not withdrawing the former on request. These were all completely unwarranted personal attacks. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This block is ok, I read these as personal attacks along with some unencyclopedic pointiness as to the kerfluffle over the image. The f word has nothing to do with it. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor block. we don't block people for their language. A warning would've been enough. Black Kite 23:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he was blocked for saying fuck. He was blocked for snarkish comments about editors rather than about content. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Since when do we block people for snarky comments? (apart from Giano, of course). Black Kite 23:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) That's correct, Gwen. The language issue is negligible. Repeatedly characterizing those who disagree with him as "bible-belters," who are "spouting bullshit," after being asked to tone it down... that's a problem. Black Kite, is it your position that such rhetoric is appropriate, in a content dispute? I'd be surprised. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Whereas Hans Adler was so much more civil in his insults (i.e. "a bunch of people are trying to change the world by changing Wikipedia first, showing no respect for the encyclopedia's reputation and integrity" and "The idea that WP:PROFANITY can't apply because there is no typical WP reader is only slightly more intelligent than the idea that WP:NOTCENSORED can't apply"). Are you going to block him as well, or is the use of language the only thing that matters here? Black Kite 23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Am I going to block him? No, I don't tend to block people, except for simple vandals. I prefer using other tools, and there are plenty of other admins willing to push the block buttons.

I agree that "a bunch of people are trying to change the world by changing Wikipedia first," etc., is inappropriately personal, and Hans would do well to avoid such rhetoric. It's not conducive to collaboration. He managed to avoid upsetting any admin who was willing to block; WebHamster didn't.

Hans also didn't engage in an interaction where someone asked him to cut out the personal rhetoric and he reacted aggressively. Reacting that way is a pretty good way to make a situation much worse, and to get blocked. WebHamster should have known that when he woke up this morning. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So our definition of "blockable" is "upsetting an admin" now? I can't see that in WP:BLOCK anywhere. Black Kite 23:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
No, and I didn't say that. Read again. It turns out I'm not "defining terms" at all; I'm talking. I know what the policy pages say. You and I both know that in reality, nobody gets blocked until some admin sees them do something that they consider block-worthy. In actual practice, admins are not robots, and blocks are more likely when you manage to piss off people with blocking buttons. I'm not saying that's ideal; I'm saying it happens. People who don't upset admins get blocked less, de facto. Do you disagree?

This is part of why I seldom block anyone besides a simple vandal. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree with you actually; I'm just pointing out that an admin ought to be able to point to a very clear reason for blocking someone apart from a few mildly pointy comments. If you're going to block people for claiming that pro-censorship views might be construed as "bible-belt", then our block buttons are going to be very busy indeed; and as I mentioned, I could easily block Hans for the same reason (not that I will be, of course). Black Kite 23:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
First you'd have to convince me that any view being espoused is "pro-censorship". I know what the word "censorship" means, and that's not what anybody here is suggesting. That's beside the point.

I think that, in a perfect world, Jehochman would have found another admin to push the button, and they would have cited different diffs for it. However, I think WebHamster was far enough across the line, enough times, that the block makes sense.

One can take a combative tone, and some of the time, this is where it leads. One can refrain from taking a combative tone, and one's life will be better. If you don't wanna hit the pavement, don't step off the edge of the roof. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, people don't get tickets for speeding. People get tickets for getting caught speeding. Millions of people speed without getting tickets. Also, people who know how to talk to the cop, get out of tickets.

Is that "good"? I wouldn't make that claim, but I'd say it's real. If you try to live in a perfect world, you'll run into a lot of posts in this imperfect one. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This block is ridiculous. Jehochman took offence and lashed out; he ought to be blocked himself. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the sequence (which is spread over at least 4 pages), WH was blocked for disruptive editing, WP:CIVIL, WP:TROLL and WP:BAIT (both of which are only essays, not policy), and WP:NPA based on the following 3 edits plus their comments on the blocking admin's talk page:

While some of their edits weren't civil, I'm not sure this user's edits really fall under disruptive editing. The second diff (re: small c) in particular doesn't strike me as problematic at all. So what we're left with is comments that some are reading as personal attacks, plus 2 posts to Jehochman's talk page, here and here, which personally don't strike me as problematic. In addition, most people are saying that the use of the word "fuck" wasn't a problem. I'll reserve judgement on whether the 2 comments constitute personal attacks, but I do think the blocking admin should probably have requested another admin do the blocking. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's at Talk:Autofellatio where I've been seeing the "spouting bullshit" language. Refraining from that kind of language is easy, constructive, and a Good Idea. I agree that it is generally better to get another admin to block, if one is oneself the target of personal attacks. It makes everything much cleaner. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I based my comment on what the blocking admin gave as their reasons for blocking, which were the above 3 diffs plus the posts on their talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. I think that citing WP:TROLL while doing anything is a terrible idea (and I just noticed that he struck that here - sorry if I seem to harp on it). Nevertheless, I think WebHamster was acting in a combative manner, insulting other editors, and will do well to cool his heels for a day. It's a lot better here when people refrain from acting that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I never cite WP:TROLL, the whole notion is too flaming for me. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd say The Naked Ape's one thing, pornography's another, WebHamster canny fucking knows what I mean and calling good faith editors bible belters is a wanton personal attack, so unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Gwen, but I really don't understand that comment. Can you explain? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The pith is, I guess WebHamster is being pointy about nudity on en.wikipedia and slipped over the edge today with personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that bible belters is an awful insult, it's a bit uncivil at the most, at least in England it wouldn't be. It's often used here (in a neutral way) to describe Christian fundamentalists. I'm a bit 50 / 50 with this, Webhamster seemed to be looking for a fight and Jehochman said if your lookin for a fight then have this, and blocked him. It was an easy way out, it would I think have been better if Jehochman had got another uninvolved admin to take action. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC))
For starters, who says anyone's a Christian fundamentalist? Comment on content, not editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify Gwen, I was commenting on the expression bible belters and its status as an insult, and I was in no way associating the expression to any editor. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC))
Yes. The worries are a) it's still a put down, b) how does he know those editors are fundamentalists and c) his opinions about fundamentalists have no sway on the topic at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree that he had crossed the line and was incivil, my point was only that he was not so wanton...An editor got away with the edit summary the other day of...Eat shit and die!..Which I would say was far worse than Webhamster's comments. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC))
Stuff gets missed all the time here. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Stuff gets ignored here all the time, most particularly the poor behaviour of administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
An admin left an edit summary which said "Eat shit and die!"? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
An ex-administrator, who was neither censured or blocked for the outburst.[21] --Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks go to Jehochman for starting this subthread. The specific sequence that I sought review of is as follows:

  1. Jehochman edits the f-word out of WebHamster's post to this noticeboard.[22]
  2. WebHamster restores his original post.[23]
  3. WebHamster follows up at Jehochman's user talk with a request that Jehochman refrain from altering WebHamster's comments.[24]
  4. Jehochman replies "Would you prefer that I block you for disruption and incivility?"[25]
  5. WebHamster replies "I would prefer that you left my comments the fuck alone, but I will remain civil and not tell you where you can stick your threat".[26]
  6. Four minutes after WebHamster's reply, Jehochman posts a block warning to WebHamster's user talk.[27]
  7. The same minute as the warning, without further action by WebHamster, Jehochman blocks WebHamster for 24 hours.[28]
  8. One minute afterward, Jehochman notifies WebHamster of the block with the post: "Since you asked for it, you are blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing."[29] The diff Jehochman cites in the initial block notice is the insult that WebHamster had posted to Jehochman's own user talk.

Now although I don't subscribe to the notion that difficult editors can force recusal by insulting administrators, it isn't best practice to give a warning and then an immediate block after the warned editor's most recent post. Shouldn't an administrator wait for a reaction first, in the hope that warning would suffice? And whatever other actions WebHamster may have taken, it is unlikely to deescalate the situation by posting "you asked for it" with a link to the an insult that was directed against the blocking administrator. Plenty of eyes were already on the main thread; surely it would have been better for Jehochman to have posted the objectionable diffs to the noticeboard for review by other administrators, rather than by acting in a manner that raises reasonable doubts upon his objectivity. If Jehochman is in fact dispassionate then please excuse any appearance of slighting his conduct: the important thing here is to uphold best practices. DurovaCharge! 00:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that WebHamster has given up for the night (it's after 1am here in the UK), but given Durova's sensible summary of the situation, if he did post an unblock request based on the above, I'd probably grant it. In fact I'm thinking about unblocking anyway, and am only hesitating because of a few good points made by others above. Black Kite 00:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I did cringe when I read you asked for it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I ran across WebHamster a few days ago, and after attempting a more-or-less civil discourse I became the target of some pretty gross incivility from him and his cohorts (at least one of whom spoke on his behalf in this thread). If you zoom out and take a macro view of WebHamster (and pals), a pattern of incivility and misleading statements becomes clear. While I haven't investigated the entirety of the circumstances surrounding this block, the attitude and comments leading to his block seems entirely consistent with what I'd expect given my experience. //Blaxthos ( t / c )
I think, Blaxthos, that your talk page gives the lie to your sanctimonious claptrap. How many people now is it who've complained about your prissy behaviour? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I dislike controversial blocks, and though this one had some support, there are enough concerns that I have decided to unblock. Please read my comment here to WebHamster. Thank you all for your feedback. Jehochman Talk 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Would someone remove the autoblock on WebHamster's IP please? He still can't edit. DurovaCharge! 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's taken care of now, thanks. DurovaCharge! 16:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, think it's disgusting that someone would take a picture of themselves sucking themselves off just so they can put it in a wikipedia article. Scholarly diagrams are a better choice for this kind of thing.

I consider this kind of pic to be right up there with the many, many, many pictures of penises that are continually uploaded to commons. Jtrainor (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How to handle "secret evidence" on SPI[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Based on on-wiki evidences and CU result, it was determined by Avraham that Gwinndeith is a sockpuppet of Molobo. The conclusion was not determined on the basis of secret evidences, thus there is no need to publish it. Full stop. Those evidences were collected by Sciurinæ; if anyone wants to see the secret evidences, please ask Sciurinæ. This case is over; there is no point in wasting time here. AdjustShift (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

At this SPI case several editors have referred to secret evidence (just search through the case and its talk page for the word secret). This has raised various questions and criticism (ex. [30]), as editors who have not seen the evidence are in the dark and not considered competent for full discussion (