Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive468

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

Noticeboard archives


Please delete ...[edit]

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

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

Just a quick question from a n00b admin... Should I unblock account creation and remove the autoblock? I don't know what the standard procedure for compromised accounts is. J.delanoygabsadds 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No, your block was correct. If it was truly compromised, the autoblock will prevent whoever gained control of the account from creating new ones and/or using other compromised accounts. - auburnpilot talk 22:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
BTW J.delanoy ... congrats on being an admin :-) BMW(drive) 22:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
So basically if they have other compromised accounts but can't use them due to autoblock, we don't know or care... — CharlotteWebb 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

High speed serial reverters Rolecourt 456 and Rvt edits forever[edit]

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

Both have been indef blocked by other admins. Socks? Of whom? Edison (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the targeting of Will Beback's edits is a sign of this guy. Deor (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Vague legal threat[edit]

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

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

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

I'd read the rationale section of WP:NLT and assess if that matches the email you have. As you have described it, I can't see it being a direct inhibitor to building the encylopedia and doesn't sound like it's being used to "win" arguments, so perhaps it doesn't meet the rationale. You may of course feel you should forward it on (via email) to OTRS or Arbcom if you think it's a serious issue. -- (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just send the email including the header to an admin via email. In my view, the user has breached NLT and meets the standard for a block. -MBK004 19:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Follow-up. I see that the user has now been blocked indefinitely for legal threats (and socks). Thanks. (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Another organized disruption campaign? (+ offsite harrassment and stalking)[edit]

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

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

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

I fail to see how stating that "you are not the first one to accuse the Jewish people of a conspiracy" is labeling you an anti-semite, however, thanks to the JIDF's efforts [1] there does seem to be some anti-Jewish and anti-Israel leanings in many of your edits and actions. You yourself have stated that you "oppose religious nationalism" yet many Jews, by their very nature, are religious nationalists (as being a Jew means having both a religious and a national identity.) Again, I am not labeling you an anti-Semite.--Einsteindonut (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that a secular, non-Zionist Jew might find your comments offensive. Believe it or not, there's great diversity within the Jewish community on these questions of identity.
Anyway, it's not acceptable to write that I was "accus[ing] the Jewish people of conspiracy", nor is it acceptable to write that there "seem to be some anti-Jewish leanings" in many of my edits and actions. You may not be "labeling me an anti-Semite", but the implication is as clear as day -- and it's completely unacceptable conduct on Wikipedia. I repeat that you owe me an apology. CJCurrie (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this normal WP behavior to demand apologies? If so, you owe me an apology for trying to educate me about my own Jewish community. You owe Dr. Oboler an apology for your actions. You owe the JIDF an apology for trying to create a completely biased page against them[2], pulling reliable sources and citing a Facebook group in their place[3]. You owe the Jewish people and Israel an apology for quoting a Hamas supporter on Wikipedia in your effort to make the article "neutral."[4] Once you do all that, I will apologize for the implication that you might have something against Jews and Israel. Regarding "secular, non-Zionist Jews" they make up a very small minority of the Jewish people, though if they were to deny that being Jewish means to have both a religious identity and a national identity, then the secular non-Zionist nature wouldn't bother me as much as their ignorant nature about their own heritage. --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I will leave it to others to determine which of our complaints is more substantive. (Btw, the "quoting a Hamas supporter" assertion is a misrepresentation.) CJCurrie (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Hey, you seem like you're out of your league here. You seem to have little expertise on the subject matter as your specialty appears to be in Canadian politics. Yet, you seem to show up everywhere editing Israel related pages. There was a list I linked to that showed your work.
I honestly figured you left something out of your page and you should advertise your work in editing pages that deal with Israel. My only apology was doing it not fully within the ways of wiki sourcing to make it more coherent.
You seem to think you can bring a NPOV to a topic that it seems nearly impossible to do. Hamas for example is about killing Jews, not Israelis. That fallacy is what happens when you ignore their charter which is quite clear on what it believes and wants. That was just the microcosm of what goes awry in your edits. It seems like evil doesn't exist nor apply to any group. A group that goes out specifically to perpetrate acts of evil is evil. When we ignore what evil truly is and let it run its course we become complicit in its work. To further emphasize the fallacy of the argument for NPOV it would require balancing Nazi ideology with,"The white people are superior", white supremacist PhD -- --Saxophonemn (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Saxophonemn, this edit was vandalism pure and simple. You owe me a full apology. CJCurrie (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, this demand for an apology, is this normal? (I'm new here.) --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a good way to avoid further sanction for creating and linking to off-wiki attacks. Such actions are a great way to wind up banned. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I had nothing to do with "creating off-wiki attacks" and if you're referring to the link to the JIDF site, are we not discussing the JIDF in general? They seem to have done their own research on CJCurrie which I found helpful in light of his wide variety of questionable attacks and actions for which he does continues to not apologize. --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Just an amazing coincidence that their monitoring and your editing coincide like that. One or both of you are actively involved in that JIDF site, which means your actions here constitute a Conflict of Interest. You clearly have a problem with anythign that makes Jews look bad in any way shape or form, regardless of the facts and history of a situation. As such, I highly recommend you find another hobby, or another website to go after. I'm sure Conservapedia, which reports that Jews killed Jesus, could use your help more. ThuranX (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. If being a reader of the JIDF site constitutes a Conflict of Interest, guilty as charged. It's not very coincidental when one considers the nature of what the JIDF does. If you look at what they do, they seem to be monitoring everything (Facebook, YouTube, Google Earth, and lately, Wikipedia) most of the time. Of course the new article about them in Wikipedia just might be of interest to them, don't you think? --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
At times we like to act as if Wikipedia exists in a vacuum, but that's not always the case. I believe it's obvious that you're a fan of the site, at least; that doesn't mean your views are irrelevant, but it does mean other users are likely to bear in mind you're approaching the situation from that angle. The bigger question, for me, is what you're here for -- if you're here trying in earnest to contribute to a neutral encyclopedia which takes no sides, then I'd say you're welcome to try; if you're here to represent a particular side in any given conflict, then frankly I do think you have a COI (I hope it would go without saying, but I'd tell the same to anyone else if it came up). I'm not accusing you of anything, but hopefully the explanation is useful to you. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I am new here, as I have stated and I am learning Wikipedia. Upon reading some of Dr. Oboler's work and the JIDF site and their interests in the problems on Wikipedia, I have become more interested in the happenings here and have wanted to learn about how to do this. Upon seeing unfair edits to the JIDF article, I wanted to make them more neutral and accurate. As I learn more I hope to be more active in other articles, but this issue is apparently becoming a pretty big deal. I personally feel that everyone clearly represents a side in any conflict, ESPECIALLY those who pretend not to. I am Jewish and I am pro-Israel and I feel I represent an important side in many conflicts which needs to be heard as it is often drowned out by many people who either a) cannot comprehend a Jewish perspective and/or b) do not respect a Jewish perspective. For example, if a non-Jewish person wrote an article about a conflict involving the Jewish people, would I not be remiss in my duty both as a WP editor and as a Jew to not represent a particular side in the conflict? Who can actually pretend to not take sides? Furthermore, can't "not taking a side" be construed as taking a side? It seems to me that you would have a lot of accusing of COI to do. --Einsteindonut (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Some excellent points. :) As I hope I emphasized enough, I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, there. That you're putting earnest thought into neutrality/POV issues is enough for me. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey I didn't see you apologize for going out of your way to "vandalize" a bunch of works. You went out of your way to go out of your specialty or full understanding to delete massive segments of pages. As pointed you're distaste for religious self determinism creates a large bias in your edits. I don't see your work on Tibet nor the Vatican City nor Mecca. Thus it appears you only have a focus one religion's homeland. How do you think Jewish people perceive this partiality? Linking to an offsite page didn't seem to be a problem it was a page that monitored CJCurrie's edits on Israel related sites. Does this make sense to anyone? One would expect that an encyclopedia to depend on content from people knowledgeable in the subject matters. Editing as well would require some expertise as well, otherwise you're playing with a topic you don't fully grasp.
What do others think of the matter?--Saxophonemn (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I've left a note on your talk about the userpage edit specifically; the rest I'm hoping will settle down over time. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

By way of background[edit]

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

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

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

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

Is it so odd that Oboler, the JIDF, and myself would seem supportive of each other in theory, and on the same page about things without you alleging a Jewish conspiracy? Can you not handle the criticism without jumping to such false allegations? I never called you an anti-semite and my qualms with you originally started with your biased and unfair edits to the JIDF article.--Einsteindonut (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not alleging a "Jewish conspiracy" (and that's something else you owe me an apology for). I'm suggesting that there are enough connections between Dr. Andre Oboler and the JIDF to suggest that there may have been some shared activity between them. As regards the JIDF Wikipedia article, I would welcome comments from uninvolved parties on our respective edits. CJCurrie (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you not the same person who earlier tried to educate me about the Jewish people? Are you unaware that all Jews are "connected?" There are many jokes about this within the Jewish community (ie. playing "Jewish geography.") The JIDF shares much of Dr. Oboler's work on their site, therefore would it not seem reasonable that there would be some sort "shared activity" (however minimal) between them? I fail to comprehend the severity of whatever it is you are suggesting. Dr. Oboler was quoted in reference to the JIDF in the JPOST and on his site and the JIDF have referenced him on their site. No one is hiding these facts. If you are not alleging some sort of conspiracy, I'm not sure what it is you are trying to allege or the problems you have. --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think, Einsteindonut, that your definition of Jewishness is (i) not universally agreed upon, and (ii) remarkably inappropriate for the argument you're trying to make. I'm also starting to think that there's little point in continuing this discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you have never heard of the expression "3 Jews, 4 different opinions" either. Not only is there little point in continuing this discussion, there was little point of you starting it. --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I was moved to update the article at Jcom Radio with a newpaper report that they've closed down, unable to pay the damages awarded against them in court. An apology and offer of "right to reply" was not considered adequate for their imputation of antisemism, they needed to categorically state that the allegation was false. PRtalk 19:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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

When I left a note for User:Einsteindonut at Talk:The Jewish Internet Defense Force concerning WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, she/he responded with another attack directed at User:CJCurrie. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Um, yeah. CJCurrie actually linked to an Inspector Gadget cartoon with the simple caption Wikipedia seems non-neutral as if it were evidence of a conspiracy by some group called the Jewish Internet Defense Force. If this is an attempt at humor it's mildly funny, although CJCurrie violates the contributory copyright infringement clause of WP:COPYRIGHT. I don't see a personal attack in Eisendonut's reply, although its general tone doesn't bode well. DurovaCharge! 00:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The JIDF added the Inspector Gadget cartoon after I wrote my initial intervention (see above). I still think that Einsteindonut's comments here (ie. You're not the first to accuse the Jewish people of conspiracy) constitutes a rather serious personal attack. CJCurrie (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Ouch. A good reason to use a stable citation for that sort of thing. DurovaCharge! 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
CJCurrie wrote, "I cannot help but wonder if User:Einsteindonut is effectively acting as Oboler's meatpuppet in this instance."- I find that very interesting, considering I do not have a clue what a "meatpuppet is" but it sounds disgusting and I do not appreciate the personal attack. Regarding the accusation of "WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA" - again, I apologize. I'm new here and I am trying to tone it down and will continue to do so in the future. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
A meatpuppet is Wikipedia site jargon for someone who comes to Wikipedia to back up a friend or acquaintance. It might not be the ideal term for the concept, but it isn't a personal attack--particularly when expressed as a possibility open to speculation. DurovaCharge! 00:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I will admit that I am familiar with some of Dr. Oboler's work and support it, but I have come here on my own volition. Now that I sort of understand what it means, I am surprised that CJCurrie would use this derogatory term and associate it with Dr. Oboler in any capacity.--Einsteindonut (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do not construe the term as inherently offensive. I see other reasons to be concerned here on both sides, and hope you work out your differences in a constructive manner. Suggest dispute resolution? DurovaCharge! 01:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Calling someone a "meatpuppet" is never useful. It is derogatory, it dismisses a person as just being a tool of another editor, and it is so reminiscent of "sockpuppet" that it can make people forget that there are separate people involved. The concept of meatpuppets may be helpful in sorting out some disputes (not necessarily this one), but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to point at someone and say "MEATPUPPET!" Focus on the edits instead of trying to dismiss people with a label. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You have a point: polite wording is helpful. I doubt CJCurrie intended to get vertically challenged with anyone. If you object to an accepted site term that strongly, the place to discuss its replacement is at the relevant policy. Now I'll bow out: this place is turning into a wildlife conservation park. DurovaCharge! 22:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If an investigation is opened into this I'd require that CJCurrie's actions with respect to Zionism On The Web and myself be investigated in full. As a remedy I'd require him to restore ALL the links he removed as they were removed with malitious intent (see below on good faith). True, some of them are could be replaced by links to the original content, but citing where you see something is an acceptable practice - as third partys posted those links that is nothing to do with myself or CJCurrie and this work of his was productive - even if done for the wrong reasons and with bad intentions. This is however only a small part of what he removed. Additionally his objection that a page contains "non notable commentary" in addition to an online version of a historic document is a non argument. As long as the document is there, refering to the original content as seen at X is acceptable. There is further nothing objectionable about the content except it doesn;t meet his POV (or perhaps it does, I doubt he read it... he was after all simply trying to very rapidly remove links to Zionism On The Web under any and every pretext immaginable). In short, I utterly reject his attempt at explaining away what ammounts to vandalism of wikipedia. His characterization of Zionism On The Web as unreliable etc has also been rejected previously on his notice board - IMMEDIATELY before he went on this deletion campaign [17]. The fact that some years earlier when Zionism On The Web was still new an article was created and speedy deleted is entirely irrelevant. At that point it was non-notable and had not been refered to int he press it etc. Now it has. On the notice board at the time people even suggested that a Wikipedia page should now be added for it. The details of what CJCurrie did are here: [18] note that removing ALL references (I mean every single reference!) from Wikipedia is an attack and when we are talking over 200 references, and when those references were added over 3 years and had not been questioned in all that time... the suddenly the whole lot is removed, by an editor who was attacking the owner of the site, throwing accusation at them, etc... (all because he objected politicaly to an op-ed I had published in the press)... that is faily serious and at minimum it suggests assuming good faith about CJCurrie's edits in respect to myself would be out of place.
Further, in the article in question here I was quite open about mentioning that I was adding links to OR material I wrote that is published in a RS. My understanding is that if an editor chooses NOT to be analymous, that shouldn't preclude them from posting relevant links to their own work publish reliably else where. Given I specifically highlighted my connection to the content in my comment another editor replied on talk that it seemed perfectly acceptable. This argument of CJCurrie's insinuating that there is something with me adding a reference to publish work I have produced as an expert in the field is again an attack on me personally and one he needs to appologise for - zgain he has doen so in a thread about conspiracies etc. I asked him on his talk page to stop stalking me and to stop removing references to my work (to be clear these latest references weren't even on my site, one was a widely respected report published by a recognised and well respected think tank, the other was a press article from a well respected paper). He did not reply and continued to make dramatic changes to the article in question. Some form of investigation into CJCurrie's actions (on wikiepdia) would be welcomed. His refusal to engage in dispute resolution (not only with me but in many other cases) should also be noted. Finally trying to squeeze milage out of the CAMERA issue by throwing about conspiracy theories is a rather serious problem in an of itself. If this is motivated by things published outside Wikipedia about CJCurrie's behaviour, perhaps he should alter his behaviour or respond off line? Speaking in general, off line content about Wikipedia editors is simply not a wikipedia matter unless it directly involves a threat to the project. Highlighting abusive behavious of Wikipedia editors off wikipedia is I belive fairly common practice and could arguably be said to help improve Wikipedia. While frowned upon, even publishing the real life identity of a Wikipedia editor at an external site is not really grounds for sanction in Wikipedia. I do find it sad how those of us who are domain experts editing under our real names can be made into targets by anonymous editors who then complain if there is so much as a comment about them off site. CJCurrie's removal of Zionism On The Web content (infact, the SAME report on Antisemitism 2.0 he tried to remove here) is actually already mentioned (without naming him) in a RS [19]. Maybe I should name him in a RS? I mentioned before he got involved in this article that I have a publication being reviewed at the moment on the JIDF situation. If CJCurrie keeps this up he DOES become part o the story and there is no helping that. (Much as he might object). Oboler (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Of the diff links CJC has linked, above, I don't see any I'd strenuously object to at first glance; several of them merely replaced links to ZOTW-copied articles with links to the original articles, which seems like a no-brainer; others suggested that more reliable sources could be found, another claim which seems to be true. Have any of CJC's removals been controversial amongst Wikipedians? I'm aware I'm reading things from his side of the story -- a hand-picked set of diffs -- so figure I should give you a chance to retort. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue was that CJCurrie had a conflict with User:Oboler, who had been published on the ZionismOnTheWeb site, and subsequently went to every single article in which ZionismOnTheWeb had been linked and removed all the links, often citing different reasons for removing the links, but always coming up with some reason. For example, here he sources material to a blog, rather than ZionismOnTheWeb, here he removes a convenience link, then sources to a geocities personal website instead, repeatedly, before insisting that no convenience link is best after all. It seems odd that someone who was complaining about the quality of ZionismOnTheWeb as a source would preferentially source to geocities sites and blogs. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so I see. Thanks, Jay. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Thank you Jayjg. Seeing like that really helps explain more. Looks like we have our answer---seems like solid evidence of a "disruption campaign" and "stalking" in this case at least. And to think that this happened to over 200 links. Seems like quite a blight on the WP project. As someone is new to all this, I'm a bit shocked that just one person could take it upon themselves to do so much damage and not have to apologize or face any sort of "sanctions?" Again, I don't know how it all works, but it's interesting to be accused of things by someone who definitely seems guilty of them himself. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The references kindly provided by User:Jayjg mostly concern the work of Ahad Ha'am, a Zionist who was shocked by the conduct of the immigrants against the natives. I can't vouch for the particular clips used, but Benny Morris quotes him in Righteous Victims p.47-48: "Ahad Ha'Am in 1891 warned that the new settlers must behave "cautiously ... [and] act with love and respect" toward Arabs. But the settlers, he wrote, finding themselves in a land "with limitless freedom," as the Turkish authorities were extremely lax, began to exhibit "a tendency to despotism as happens always when a slave turns into a master."[45. Ro'i, Ya'akov, in Hebrew, "The Relations between Rehovot and Its Arab Neighbours (1890-1914)" In HaTziyonut, edited by David Karpi, 1980, p. 165] Two years later he wrote: "The attitude of the colonists to their tenants and their families is exactly the same as towards their animals".
Sadly, we may be wholly dependent on translations from non-professionals for more of Ahad Ha'am's writings, but then we do that a lot. There is no automatic reason to doubt the integrity of Hebrew-speakers that I know of - subject to the restriction I'm about to remind everyone of.
Another of the references is to the blog "Engage", however it's only a copy of a press release by "The Association of Jewish Sixthformers". If "Engage" is a hate-site, then I'd strongly support taking it out (probably leaving a "citation needed", since the information is hardly "surprising") - but much, much worse mirror sources are used for very, very "surprising" claims, eg "Back to the Moslem terrorist's Page". That particular unpleasant and unreliable source has been repeatedly edit-warred into place into a major article (where it is quoted 3 times). I think we're entitled to see some consistency here from top administrators.
In fact, the more I look at this the more it looks like a gravely abusive on and off-wiki attempt to stalk, harass and muzzle yet another editor for entirely POV reasons.
And yes, to answer an earlier question, it is normal to ask for apologies, otherwise it will appear that an editor, brand new to the project and strongly suspected of linkage to an attack-site, is seeking to pre-emptively damage the AGF that regular editors depend upon and are entitled to expect. If this was a critic of Israel arriving and immediately setting on well-respected editors in this fashion (or indeed any other), there's not the smallest doubt that he'd have been blocked immediately. Lets see some consistency. PRtalk 09:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the PR in your name, it does stand stand for "Palestine Remembered", correct? There was an interesting piece in the Jerusalem Post about "Palestine Remembered" recently. I can see that your initials do, in fact, stand for "Palestine Remembered" according to your User Page. Furthermore, I had a look at your "talk page" and I wish I could say I was a bit shocked to see what appeared to be rationalization of the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations as well as what appeared to be a suggestion that Israel itself was involved with the hijacking with regard to Entebbe. My point here is to not bring up these topics, but to question your own neutrality on the various issues with regard to Israel and the Jewish people. --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie responds[edit]

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

First, a general comment: I'm a bit disappointed, though not surprised, that some editors have chosen to frame Wikipedia's controversies concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict in terms of "Jewish perspectives" vs. "non-Jewish perspectives". I'm disappointed by this, because I don't believe there is any single Jewish (or non-Jewish) perspective on the conflict. It's quite possible to be Jewish (or pro-Jewish) and non-Zionist, even anti-Zionist. For that matter, it's possible to be a Zionist and disapprove of the State of Israel's actions and/or its present constitutional status. The Jewish people and the State of Israel are not the same thing, and we shouldn't pretend that there's an uncomplicated link between the two.
And now to specifics. In response to User:Oboler's comments, let me state that I have never concealed the fact that I removed several links to his own "Zionismontheweb" site a while ago. I make no apology for this, and I'm not about to reverse the process now. I do not believe that ZotW generally meets the standard of a reliable source; moreover, I do not believe that the specific links that I removed were appropriate for Wikipedia (for reasons already explained above). My general motivation for removing the links was fairly simple: another editor (JzG) pointed out that they had been added to a copious number of pages, far more than the site's rather dubious notability could justify. Oboler would be correct to say that I discovered this matter during a dispute with him on another point, but I didn't remove the links out of a personal vendetta.
Let me add that Oboler's math is a bit off. There were several ZotW links on Wikipedia a few months ago, but there's no way the number was over 200, as he has claimed.
Oboler is correct that my characterization of ZotW met with objections before I started deleting links to the site, but he neglects to mention that he himself was the only person to raise these objections (apart from what I've already described as an uncharacteristically tepid response from Jayjg). He also neglects to mention that he's raised this matter in several other forums, generally without receiving much support. Jayjg has more recently objected to the removal of some specific links, but I don't believe he's championed a "right of return" for all.
On another matter, I find these comments from Oboler somewhat troubling ...
Speaking in general, off line content about Wikipedia editors is simply not a wikipedia matter unless it directly involves a threat to the project. Highlighting abusive behavious of Wikipedia editors off wikipedia is I belive fairly common practice and could arguably be said to help improve Wikipedia. While frowned upon, even publishing the real life identity of a Wikipedia editor at an external site is not really grounds for sanction in Wikipedia. I do find it sad how those of us who are domain experts editing under our real names can be made into targets by anonymous editors who then complain if there is so much as a comment about them off site. CJCurrie's removal of Zionism On The Web content (infact, the SAME report on Antisemitism 2.0 he tried to remove here) is actually already mentioned (without naming him) in a RS. Maybe I should name him in a RS? I mentioned before he got involved in this article that I have a publication being reviewed at the moment on the JIDF situation. If CJCurrie keeps this up he DOES become part o the story and there is no helping that. (Much as he might object).
It's possible I'm misreading some nuance or other here, but this almost seems like a threat (possibly to reveal my real-life identity, possibly to do something else). Given that Oboler has recently contacted one of my most frequent on-Wiki opponents about his academic projects, I can't help but wonder if I should be concerned.
It should go without saying that revealing someone's identity is seriously frowned upon, and I believe it could result in on-Wiki consequences depending on the circumstances. (Side note: Odd as this may sound in light of what they've said about me, I'll actually credit the JIDF for removing their "real-life" speculations -- they didn't get the information right in the first place, but it's the thought that counts.)
Let me be clear on this point: Oboler has every right to criticize the on-Wiki actions of "CJCurrie" if he wants to. I'm quite capable of responding in kind, and I won't claim any sort of exemption from criticism. I notice that Oboler referred to me as an "activist" in the newspaper article that he referenced above. That's fine too -- I may or may not agree with his assessment, but it's fair public comment. However, he emphatically does not have the right to reveal my identity (if he knows it), nor does he have the right to make defamatory remarks about me. (I'd also like to think that he's above including personal disputes about his own website in a serious academic paper, but that's another matter.)
In response to Jayjg:
(i) Regarding the Ahad Ha'am situation, let me first say that ZotW has done its readers a useful service by providing an online transcription of "Jewish State, Jewish Problem". The only problem is that they've also tacked on a non-notable and partisan essay at the start of the piece, which is hardly suitable for us to use as an external reference.
Consider for instance the following lines:
However, Achad Ha'am's historical view both of the settlement movement and of the future of political Zionism were incorrect:
It needs not an independent State, but only the creation in its native land of conditions favorable to its development: a good-sized settlement of Jews working without hindrance [1] in every branch of culture, from agriculture and handicrafts to science and literature. This Jewish settlement, which will be a gradual growth, will become in course of time the centre of the nation, wherein its spirit will find pure expression and develop in all its aspects up to the highest degree of perfection of which it is capable.
The British Mandate ban on Jewish immigration and settlement in 1939 was to prove precisely that only an independent state could provide the the Jews with the ability to work without hindrance in Palestine. Herzl too was proven wrong, since the ban on immigration and settlement was imposed despite the very völkerrechtlich, legally recognized mandate to create a Jewish national home. However, it was not Achad Ha'am whose ideas were vindicated but rather the practical Zionists who believed in settling the land, regardless of laws. (source: [20])
This strikes me as a less than neutral, and possibly less than objective overview of Ahad Ha'am contested legacy. For us to give "authoritative" status to this essay is not appropriate.
That being said, it occurs to me that we may be closer to a mutually agreeable compromise than we originally thought. If someone is willing to transcribe ZotW's copy of "Jewish State, Jewish Problem" to Wikisource -- with proper credit, but without the introductory essay -- then I'd have no problem including it as a convenience link.
Would this be agreeable?
(ii) As I've said before, I don't think the AJ6 information is vital to Academic boycotts of Israel. AJ6 are sixth-formers, the proposed boycott was primarily focused on universities, and we're already including a fair bit of criticism from other sources. My decision to link to "Engage" was clearly a mistake, for which I apologize. My intent was to provide an alternate link, that would allow us to focus on the relevance of the AJ6 document and not get caught up in the "ZotW" side issue. I didn't realize the specific nature of the site, and I can guarantee I won't link to it again.
On a related note, I wasn't aware until fairly recently that GeoCities was considered a dubious source. (Not all of us have PhDs in Computer Science, you know.)
To Durova: Unfortunately, there was no stable Google cache that I could link to at the time.
One last comment to Einsteindonut: PR has stated in the past that his name is not taken from the Palestine Remembered website. Also, you still owe me an apology. CJCurrie (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
CJCurrie said, it's quite possible to be Jewish (or pro-Jewish) and non-Zionist, even anti-Zionist. -Yes, this is true, however, it is extremely rare, and those who claim that status (ie. the Neturei Karta) are typically part of a fringe minority. The vast majority of Jews and friends of the Jewish people are strong supporters of Israel in general. It is very common tactic for the enemies of both Israel and the Jewish people to try to say that they have no problem with Jews or Judaism, but just "Zionism." However, "Zionism" is just a relatively new term for a concept which is an inherent part of Judaism itself and has been for thousands of years. Therefore, when people attack the general nature of "Zionism," people are very much attacking Judaism and the Jewish people (whether these are Jews or people who claim to be friends of Jews or not.) You also said, The Jewish people and the State of Israel are not the same thing, and we shouldn't pretend that there's an uncomplicated link between the two. However, no one with knowledge of history with regard to the Jewish people can deny their inherent ties to The Holy Land. Furthermore, anything that happens on the Land has a ripple effect among all Jews (even those of us in the Galut.) This is proven even by non-Jewish obsession with all the activities there. There are many other countries throughout the world doing far more evil than Israel, yet Israel is by far the one which is under the microscope the most. However, it seems to be a malfunctioning microscope--since all these "anti-Zionists" are very quick to exaggerate all in which they feel is wrong with the Holy Land, while completely ignoring all the good (and there is a lot of it.)
Regarding PR's name, I didn't say it was "taken" from that website. I also do not believe in coincidences. Furthermore, I disagree regarding owing you an apology. If the consensus thinks I did something wrong with regard to you, and can explain it to me sufficiently, then I am willing to consider it. However, in light of all that I have seen you do, I cannot assume good faith and feel I owe you nothing and believe that Wikipedia should consider an investigation (if that is what is done) with regard to much of what I have learned about you, as your actions with regard to certain people and topics seem antagonistic to the general spirit of Wikipedia.--Einsteindonut (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keeping score or demanding and refusing apologies back and forth rarely ends well; might it be time to consider a nice cup of tea and a sit down, or perhaps a breather, instead? Not suggesting I want either of you to drop out of the dispute, by any means, but I'm concerned with increasingly stressed tones in the dialogue. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to make a formal complaint against CJCurrie for the following remark which I take as deeply offensive for my own reputation on wiki:

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

If some admin could sanction CJCurrie for this splendide mendax attempt at trumping me, I would be deeply appreciative.
As for Einsteindonut, in his last post he brandishes an appalling ignorance of the complexity of Jewish identity, especially in remarking

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

If this presumption by several posters, representing fringe positions themselves based on ethnically-defined politics, to represent themselves as spokesman for a nigh unanimous community, takes root in wiki, and in the present case, in I/P articles, we are in serious trouble indeed. Please note,Einsteindonut and Dr Oboler, the following, one of several dozen quotes one could provide on the issue of Jewish identity, and one widely shared by Jewish intellectuals otherwise regarded as reliable sources in Wiki.
'What exactly could 'being Jewish' mean in the 1920s to an intelligent Anglo-Viennese boy who suffered no anti-Semitism and was so remote from the practices and beliefs of traditional Judaism that, until after puberty, he was unaware even of being circumcised? Perhaps only this: that sometime around the age of ten I acquired a simple principle from my mother on a now forgotten occasion when I must have reported, or perhaps even repeated, some negative observation of an uncle's behaviour as 'typically Jewish'. She told me very firmly: 'You must never do anything, or seem to do anything that might suggest you are ashamed of being a Jew'.
I have tried to observe it ever since, although the strain of doing so is sometimes almost intolerable, in the light of the behaviour of the government of Israel. . .It has been enough to define my Judaism ever since, and left me free to live as what my friend the late Isaac Deutscher called a non-Jewish Jew, but not what the miscellaneous regiment of religious or nationalist publicists call a 'self-hating Jew'. I have no emotional obligation to the practices of an ancestral religion and even less to the small, militarist, culturally disappointing and politically aggressive nation-state which asks for my solidarity on racial grounds. I do not even have to fit in with the most fashionable posture of the turn of the new century, that of 'the victim', the Jew who, on the strength of the Shoah (and in the era of unique and unprecedented Jewish world achievement, success and public acceptance), asserts unique claims on the world's conscience as a victim of persecution. Right and wrong, justice and injustice, do not wear ethnic badges or wave national flags. I observe that, if there is any justification for the claim that the 0.25 per cent of the global populatioon in the year 2000 which constitute the tribe into which I was born are a 'chosen' or special people, it rests not on what it has done within the ghettos or special territories, self-chosen or imposed by others, past, present or future. It rests on its quite disproportionate and remarkable contribution to humanity in the wider world, mainly in the two centuries or so since the Jews were allowed to leave the ghettos, and chose to do so. We are, to quote the title of the book of my friend Richard Marienstras, Polish Jew, French Resistance fighter, defender of Yiddish culture and his country's chief expert on Shakespeare, un peuple en diaspora. We shall, in all probability, remain so. And if we make the thought experiment of supposing that Herzl's dream came true and all Jews ended up in a small independent territorial state which excluded from full citizenship all who were not the sons of Jewish mothers, it would be a bad day for the rest of humanity - and for the Jews themselves' Eric Hobsbawm,Interesting Times(2002) Abacus Books, London 2003 pp.24-5 Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
not sure what that has to do with the price of beans, but Jewish marxists with no interest in mitzvot is nothing new and empathy for everyone but their own (with whom they foster mostly resentment and disrespect) is nothing new. i'd be very interested to know how much Hobsbawm knows of Judaism itself. if he is considered a "reliable source" on wikipedia, then i'm very happy to be here as i'd imagine this place needs more reliable sources who are not marxists (by the way, Karl Marx is widely regarded as a Jewish anti-semite.)--Einsteindonut (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Would this be the right time to mention that David Ben-Gurion was both a Marxist and a secularist? (For clarity, I should stress that I don't intend either term to be read as an insult.) CJCurrie (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Or that Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism and virulently anti-Marxist, was, if I recall Colin Schindler's words correctly 'wonderfully oblivious' of most of what constituted Judaism. Nishidani
You mean the same Ben Gurion who wouldn't allow Jabotinsky (not a Marxist) to be buried in Israel? Rav Kook wasn't a Marxist either. He knew something about Judaism too. In any event, I thank both CJCurrie and Nishidani as you both prove that the Land of Israel is connected to the Jewish people no matter their political beliefs or religious observance. Therefore, trying to create some sort of separation between "Zionism" or the Land of Israel and the Jewish people in general is impossible. Even the Jews most passionately against Israel are proving their connection to the Land through antagonism toward it. The same thing holds true with Judaism. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on David[edit]

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

I also reverted and put a 3RR warning on his talk page. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Not good. I see four reverts each for (talk · contribs) and for EnduranceRace (talk · contribs), and three reverts each for (talk · contribs) and J.delanoy (talk · contribs). This looks a bit like two users logging in and out to game WP:3RR, one with more success than the other perhaps. Apologies if I'm wrong on that. Either way, 3RR shouldn't be a game of chicken. After one or two reverts, discuss it on the Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You mean an admin socking? That's a pretty harsh accusation there. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
From the page history, I just saw IPs and user names. If I were aware that one of the named editors was an admin, should that have changed my evaluation of their actions? I don't know. I said what it looked like to me and apologised in advance if I was mistaken. I did not accuse anyone of socking, admin or otherwise, and I have no interest in making any such accusation. My concern is that two, three or four people have engaged in fairly rapid edit-warring, which is disruptive and unproductive. If one or two reverts don't solve the problem, why should three or four? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 06:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems to have calmed down, for the time being; David (disambiguation) was also edited (and reverted), but did not have what I would call an edit war. Worth keeping an eye on for a few days, at least. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I've left a 3RR warning at User talk: since there was another revert. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Blocked for 12 hours for taunting. Toddst1 (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Is violating WP:POINT at Green Day. They made this edit, then told me about it. They're angry about my third opinion at Talk:Custom car, where I objected to their version on the basis that it lacked citations and was OR. I reverted Green Day, but they're still posting on the talk (including copying and pasting my message to another user). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And sending me more mesages. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
And having comments deleted by the complainant, I see.
Angry? No. Confused, yes. What standard does Jeremy suggest? Leaving uncited material, or deleting? It's not "my version" or his opinion of it I object to. It's his suggestion that wholesale deletion is preferable. And if it is, why, then, does that only apply when he says so? As for "copying and pasting my message"? Yes, to illustrate it's less his comment on the version than it is on his advocacy of policy in that comment, which leaves me wondering, again, if it only applies to others. Are only some pages to have material "aggressively removed"? Which ones? Do only some editors have the proper security clearances to "aggressively remove"? Which ones? (I'm guessing I don't, or we wouldn't be here.) Do only some editors have the right to comment on the statements/replies of others (Again, I'm guessing I don't, or that wouldn't have raised a complaint.) or have immunity from being quoted? (I'm guessing I don't.)
I'm also guessing an effort to add sources, pix, or material here any time in the forseeable future is a fruitless exercise, since the pix are "redundant" or "unsourced" & I allegedly believe I own the page, or violated WP:V, or something? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 00:59 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked - 12 hours for taunting. Toddst1 (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Aggressive re-adding of spam links/edit warring - Star Trek Online[edit]

Hi! Would a couple admins mind watchlisting Star Trek Online and weighing in at Talk:Star Trek Online#Community Links In MMO Articles. I've demonstrated that other articles of this nature don't have massive lists of fan sites per WP:EL, and I'm getting edit warring, static, and people saying they're admins of fan sites saying they support re-adding them for a dose of WP:COI sprinkled on top. I put a protection request on WP:RPP but nothing yet there. rootology (T) 02:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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

6RR report filed. I'm sorry. rootology (T) 03:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe the absolute arrogance you show by such a thing when I had said I would refrain from putting that section back until this dispute had been resolved. I can only assume that you've taken personal offence at me for arguing a point with you. That's a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The report was filed right when you were doing what you were doing, and it was really nothing personal. I took nothing personal about any of this, at all. I just worked to remove excessive overlinking. I'm sorry if it upset you so much, alright? The report was filed time wise right before I think you posted that agreement. If someone wants to unblock I sure don't mind or care, as long as you don't start breaking over 3RR and fighting or anything. rootology (T) 06:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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

This is just totally unhelpful. You rebooted your modem to come back on a new IP to just slag me? rootology (T) 06:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Jackmantas[edit]

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

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

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

blpinfo template removal[edit]

Resolved (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing {{blpinfo}} from Vanessa Fox. This was their very first edit. I am concerned that this could be somebody trolling, especially because I posted something on my talk page[21] asking lurkers to help with this article. Jehochman Talk 04:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly = twice. I don't feel strongly about it either way, I just never saw it before, looked it up, and found the xfd consensus. No reason for its inclusion was given in the revert, so i removed it again with a link to the xfd *shrug* I've edited here only as an IP, but it changes with the wind. Paranoia often ensues, but frankly I don't care anymore. (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
On second look I saw the link in your edit summary. Your rationale makes sense. It is clear that you are an experienced user, but there are many harmless explanations for that. I have no further issues. Jehochman Talk 04:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Continual irrelevant additions to Radley Balko[edit]

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

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


Resolved: vandalism gone. J.delanoygabsadds 06:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Looks like a sock of similar previous vandals. Open a checkuser? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't think that will work, he's wannabe'ed by many people all the time. OT, all the vandalism is gone. Good work, guys! J.delanoygabsadds 06:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pearl necklace (sexuality)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sure some exhibitionist nerd will make a picture eventually, which will be impossible to remove; remember that no matter how creepy, inappropriate, poor quality or unencyclopedic the image, if it's anything relating to penises or vajayjays, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED!!11!! AND YOU CANNOT REMOVE IT OR YOU ARE CENSORING US11!!!11!LOL PR0N. Neıl 11:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Per my comment above, is Wikipedia becoming a place to host your adult pictures now? I guess that gives users an unlimited storage space. I find this disappointing. :( --eric (mailbox) 11:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(Too cramped up there) continued below: Wikipedia is a trusted site. I can almost guarentee that these images on the articles WILL BE DISPLAYED. Wikipedia should do more to help prevent access of these images, and what way than removing them altogether. Easy fix. --eric (mailbox) 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
"Vajayjays"??? If you're too young or immature to use the word vagina, you need to go find another hobby. No one can take you seriously if you're going to act like that. (not that many of us are really taking your histrionic 'think uv da wittle Kiddiez' excuses. Parents think of their children, we'll think about the encyclopedia. ThuranX (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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

If we lack an image, I can take one this afternoon and upload it under a free license - is there any guidelines I can read on the quality of image you require? -- (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Enough. Wikipedia is not censored. This is a fundamental point. I find these images distasteful also but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we should have an image. They clearly add to the articles. Whether we remove them for copyright issues is a completely separate concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The image was removed for distastefulness. --eric (mailbox) 22:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with deleting an image because it degrades the tone or content of the article / encyclopedia more than it enlightens it. We make content decisions all the time. This image doesn't seem to add to the article in any encyclopedic way. There is no particular aspect to that image that is not fully conveyed in the words, except perhaps that the woman in question seems pretty nonchalant about the whole thing...but that's not very encyclopedic. Wikidemo (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Copyrights and garbage licenses[edit]

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

Also User:Nandesuka is out of line by removing the image on the grounds of Copyvio[44] which the image has not be tagged for deletion and hasn't been deleted and if it's an obvious copyvio then the image should be easy to find. The image should be readded until this matter has been cleared up and if anyone feels that the image is a copyvio then tag it on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking more closely at this image, it's the only contribution (modulo talk pages) of the editor in question, the lighting in the photo is professional-quality (not tungsten, not flash, proper white balance), and the photo has no EXIF metadata. In short, if this is a self-made image and not something taken from the thumbnail gallery of a porn site, I am Marie of Roumania. I'm removing it from the article. Nandesuka (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Yes I agree that there needs to be caution with fake uploaded images but there are some legit images on Wiki and Commons but it also doesn't mean that legit images should be removed. Also as I've said to the other users that if they find the image poor in res, or anything that would be likely for it's deletion then nominate the image for deletion. Bidgee (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
So if an image doesn't have EXIF metadata (Such as Image:Cyclone Helen 3943.jpg) then it's stolen? Well God Save Me if thats the case.Bidgee (talk)
A guy walks into your place of business. He has a three-day growth of scruff and says "Hey, I really need to sell this patent-leather Gucci purse today, because I need bus fare. I'll give it to you for just $10." If you buy that purse, you're doing something wrong, because a reasonable person would recognize that it's probably stolen. Your argument is the equivalent of saying to me "Are you saying that all leather purses are stolen?"
We evaluate images on a multitude of axes. In this case, we have a low-resolution image with professional-quality lighting, featuring the personally identifying facial features of a model (for whom we have no model release) engaging in an activity which most people, and indeed most models, won't let themselves be photographed engaging in, contributed by a user who has no track record of contributing good, properly licensed images, and that has no EXIF metadata backing up this user's claim of ownership. Given all of those factors, accepting the license for this image is self-deception on an incredible scale. Nandesuka (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You're edit warring on a fully protected page, so please revert your edit. The image has been nominated for deletion twice on Commons, and both times consensus was to keep it, so your minority opinion that it is a copyvio is no justification to continue an edit war after page protection. The original image showing the model's face was Image:Sexuality pearl necklace.png which is 640x480 and I see no reason to believe that it is taken from a porn site nor doubt the uploader's statement here. Also, the image is not the user's only contribution to Wikimedia projects. Prolog (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The image is essentially the only contribution to Wikimedia projects that I could find (I checked en.wikipedia, commons, and it.wikipedia. All of this user's edits (there were fewer than 20 in each project) centered around either this image or discussion of this image. Unless this user is a big contributor at some project I didn't check, this is a single purpose account whose main purpose was to upload this image. If that doesn't set off alarm bells for you, then you are way more trusting than I am. Nandesuka (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No special trust is really necessary here, just basic AGF in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the uploader is not lying in his comments about the image. There's nothing odd about an uploader of a sexuality-related image not being a regular editor. If I wanted to upload an image of my semen on my girlfriend's neck, I would certainly register a single purpose Commons account to do that. Prolog (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The image doesn't look that professional to me. It looks well-done but not obviously professional. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Nandesuka, now that's thinking. Let's reconsider when we have an image which is provably PD from an editor whose assurances of status we can actually trust. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Zee lack of metadata is a side effect of the file format. png isn't a conventional choice for photos due to size issues. Photo appears to be uploader's only upload but they have edited on a number of projects. May be related that user:Publicgirluk's Pearl necklace pic was a PNG.Geni 01:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • While I agree that copyright would be an overriding concern, it doesn't appear this is an "obvious" copyvio, and per discussion here may not be one at all. Should Nand's edit be reverted, pending other consensus to the contrary? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Many images have been deleted for less than this image was deleted. Not only would we create a double standard with sexual items, we would be going against legal sense. We need to prove an item is free, not prove an item is not. This item lacks any real evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
But there is no proof that it isn't free. Bidgee (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The way GFDL works, you have to prove that it is free and under a free license. The fact that the image was proven to be altered from another source shows that there is a missing source information, which in itself would force it to be deleted. You seem to be harping on this quite a lot and it seems troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well this isn't commons which is where the image is hosted. "You seem to be harping on this quite a lot and it seems troubling." oooh please. Last time I looked anyone can reply and discuss issues here. 14:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I can point you to some Commons admin who use Wikipedia regularly and have items hosted on Commons removed from articles because of bad copyright tags even though they are still hosted there. I work int he FA area, we deal with image copyright problems quite often. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no issues with the copyright tag on the image so it's still no grounds of removal and we don't know the history about the Commons Admin nor does it have anything to do with this issue. Bidgee (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
"I see no issues with the copyright tag on the image" - No date when it was taken. No date when it was first scanned or uploaded to a computer. No date and author of who cropped the photo. CC 5 would mean it was copyrighted in another source, which needs a link or a statement. 4 major problems, each worthy of deleting the photo. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Image was uploaded in 2006 and there are a few photos from 2005 - 2007 that have no date, Image has a source!, Image is a png format so the image isn't going to have EXIF data. No proof that it's a copyvio. Bidgee (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you know what "uploaded to a computer" meant, as you used the "upload to WikiCommons" date instead. For something to be licensed as a CC image, you have to have this information so you can track the trail of derivative works. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The original image had metadata. The couple who took the pictures supplied it when they created the article. After discussion on the article and attempts to remove and then linkimage it, they offered an elarged and cropped version of the image, which is the image being discussed.[45] When it was cropped, no doubt the Metadata left, as is often the case. I offered diffs to much of this on the article talk page. The image is not a copyvio, and the couple states their ages on his Commons page, Here. Atom (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    With all due respect, I think you are misremembering. I undeleted the original image to examine it. It was a 640x480 png with absolutely no metadata. The editor who uploaded it did assert that he owned copyright in it, but that isn't very surprising, and doesn't help us beyond being a bare assertion. But if you have a version of the photo that does have metadata, by all means point me to it -- perhaps I have the wrong one. Nandesuka (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    So? There are also many photos on Wiki and Commons which don't get deleted just because there is no EXIF data. Such as Image:Cyclone Helen 3919.jpg which lost it's EXIF data and if anyone thinks I stole it then thats there problem not mine. Bidgee (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    No matter how many times you try to frame it this way, I am not claiming that all leather purses are stolen. The lack of metadata is one of the many aspects of this image that make it problematic. The most problematic, of course, is that this image seems to have been contributed by a SPA. For comparison, had David Shankbone (or another editor with a long history of contributions) submitted the same image, I would certainly not suspect it of being a copyright violation. As it stands, however, there are too many oddities about this image, taken as a whole, to simply shrug our shoulders and say "Well, the contributor claims it's self-made. Good enough for me!" Nandesuka (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nandesukas removal of the image was not appropriate, however I understand his sincere concerns about copyvio. The removal should stand for the moment. A survey to gain to attempt to gain consensus for the removal is underway at the article, and it should be allowed to complete. Based on the current count, I would expect there to be a failure to gain consensus for removal, as people who support removal are in the minority with a large number of votes. Atom (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote. WP:Voting is evil. Bidgee (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that in the past day, the image has been nominated for deletion on commons, citing the concerns raised here, and was speedily kept. Consensus does not appear to support the image's removal on any of the provided rationales at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Legality question[edit]

Does the Wikipedia main page need a "over 18 warning"? There are clearly titillating and semi-porn images and articles on wikipedia. What is the value of a pearl necklace article in an encyclopedia.

Why not an article on "white dragon", that's where the man gets oral sex and cums in the woman's (or I suppose another man's) mouth and it drips out of her nose.

Some articles, like this, could simply have a template. The user would click one of two choices. The "under 18 choice" would redirect to either an explanation or the main page. The "over 18 and horny" choice would redirect to "Pearl necklace (over 18)" article. HRCC (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly HRCC. --eric (mailbox) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I bet the WMF's lawyers have thought of this already. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Most of my teenage friends would see such a warning and be more eager to see the article - is anything about this in the WP:General disclaimer? ¡ Dendodge .. TalkContribs! 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It's covered in the Content disclaimer. Resolute 19:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Been looked into the answer is no. Apart from anything else we have no actual photos of people engageing in sexual activity with other people.Geni 19:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In UK jurisdiction, at least, we don't need an adult-content warning, no. Anthøny 19:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
    Neither in the DK one. Maybe i'm prejudiced, but the censoring of sexual images, seems to be mostly a US phenomenon. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Kim, why not create Category:Porn images and Category:Racy articles and Category:Shocking articles. Dirty Sanchez (or whatever that article where feces is apply above one's lip) would be in the shocking articles category. US phenomena? Many countries are far more restrictive. HRCC (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
If your examples had encylopedic value, then i can't see why not. But i can't see the value of those meta-categories, which do not seem to have such. And which countries might this be? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Opinion - wouldn't this topic better be served as an entry on the Wikitionary? It seems that the page does very little beyond defining the term. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The original poster, HRCC appears to be trolling. Take a look at this diff. I recommend erasing this thread per WP:DENY. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Not liking an administrator is not an excuse to "deny" someone for "trolling" or to label them as such. Otherwise, most of us would be trolls at some time or another. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Calling another editor, or group of editors, "Nazis" and recommending punishment is a pretty egregious violation of assume good faith and decorum. Please check this diff. Jehochman Talk 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I've seen it. However, this could be the case of a newbie blowing off steam after having something like losing their user name upset them. I'm sure we can find some far more graphic reactions by respected people of the community. Remember, AGF is a two way street, and BITE was written to ensure that we teach new people how to act and not outright dismiss them. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a nice article template? Or maybe entire deletion of this category? Or perhaps a warning window? Hmm? Especially if you're wanting to keep these damn images. --eric (mailbox) 22:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose that it is not ideal for Wikipedia to cater to exhibitionists. Jtrainor (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

this has been done to death in many many places - broadly, we do not and will not fliter content on the basis of the viewer of the age, their religious beliefs (which is another common call for censorship) or any other such fact. In addition, we do not add disclaimers to articles and in fact, the addition of additional disclaimers is strictly prohibited by the general disclaimer. It's a complete non-starter. If someone finds a good quality free image - it goes in the article - no amount of "think of the children!" will change that. -- (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If we were to find that content warnings or access restrictions were required by law that's a decision to come from Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, and that would come down pretty firm - no consensus or discussion necessary on our part. I'm sure Godwin has thought of this before. I think he knows the field. It wouldn't apply to this image because it's not porn by any legal definition - nothing shown. A partial correction to Geni. Under 18USC2256, the sexual content regulated by the US government (porn, for short) includes not only sexual contact with genitals but also "lascivious display of the genitals or pubic area", a term that is rather broad and hard to pin down, though there is some further commentary in the law and some case law. One interesting result is that not all photos of genitals count, but some pictures of clothed genital areas do count as porn. The photo over at Cameltoe might count, the hands-on-hip pose is suggesting a clinical inspection more than a lewd invitation to sexual conduct (yes, the law gets into this kind of body language). Anyway, there's a bigger concern about underaged photo subjects than underaged viewers, and some pretty serious laws about that. That image comes from the UK, which makes it all the more complicated. Again, a subject for Wikimedia's counsel not us, but we should be on the lookout to porn subjects who are not clearly of age.

Regarding the proposal, anyone who is truly concerned with inappropriate adult content could easily create a tagging system for Wikipedia images and articles so those ones would be blocked or behind an access restriction - and implement it somewhere else, say in a browser plug-in or a mirror site. So they can have their kiddie-safe version of Wikipedia and we can have the uncensored version. Wikidemo (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)



Admin Nandesuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) removed the image when the page is protected claiming the image is a copyvio[46] but the image isn't marked[47] and Nandesuka keeps saying that the image hurts Wikipedia[48] as an questionable image but if the image is an issue why not tag the image for deletion on Commons if they felt it was a copyvio instead of removing it without anything to back-up the claims[49]. It seems the copyvio claim was used as an way of censoring the image. The image should be readded until an consensus can be reached or the image is deleted from Commons with a vaild reason. Bidgee (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to expand on the sentence "It seems the copyvio claim was used as an way of censoring the image." I believe that the image is an obvious copyvio. I believe this because the image has a number of attributes (soft, even lighting that I'd characterize as professional, contributed by (what seems like) a single-purpose account, uploaded during the middle of the User:publicgirluk fiasco, a complete lack of metadata, contains personally identifying features). I removed the image because I believe it hurts no one for us to look for an image with a less suspicious provenance. If you are claiming that I am using the copyright status of the image as a pretext, then I would suggest, politely, that you are making unjustified (and insulting) accusations. I have worked on Wikipedia's sexuality articles for years and years. I have worked hard to make sure that our articles are appropriately illustrated. Sometimes that means adding a photo that other people are offended by. Sometimes it means removing a photo that is crap. No one is hurt by keeping a photo with a provenance as suspicious as this one's off the article for a bit while we find a better one. That's not censorship. That's editing. I removed the photo because, in my administrative judgment it puts en.wikipedia at risk to use it. I am more than willing to accept criticism that I am wrong in my judgment that it is a copyvio. I categorically reject implications that I am acting on a pretext. Nandesuka (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
See Luna Santin's comment] on the bottom of the Pearl necklace (sexuality) section. In your administrative judgment you've jumped the gun (See Atomaton's comments) and just because you maybe an Admin doesn't mean you can remove an image during an dispute in which you're involved in (You're involved since you did support it's removal) and as I said if you think it's an "obvious" copyvio then tag it on Commons but you haven't done that only removing the image which is censoring. I'm in NO way making unjustified and insulting accusations since it's fact. "I am wrong in my judgment that it is a copyvio." then your removal should be reverted. Bidgee (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Nandesuka, if there is an actual claim to there being a copyright violation, then nominate the image for deletion and make a valid claim of how it is. But since its been through the deletion process twice on Commons, I don't think your going to make a successful case that hasn't already been presented. You are involved in this dispute, and editing the content of this protected page is outside the realm of exceptance of using your admin bit when you don't like the content of the image. — Moe ε 12:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As an journalism-trained photog and computer geek, I've taken a lot of pics with nice lighting, and either removed tags, or lost them during photo conversion. The absence of tags and presence of lighting does not represent a copyvio in and of themselves. Please feel free to actually prove copyvio, or you need to AGF. BMW(drive) 11:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that Nandesuka was expressing genuine concerns about copyvio, and not attempting to censor an image that he did not like. I do think that there is clear evidence that it is not a copyvio though, and that he was mistaken. As there is a surveu to gain consensus for the removal of the image on the talk page of the article, we should leave things as they are for the moment until that completes. The image can be returned if that survey fails to gain consensus for removal. Atom (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
A copyviolation is a legal matter and should be addressed first, and if incorrect, restored after proof that there was no copyviolation. I have seen no proof of such, so why is this even being discussed? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. You need hard proof to remove an image and Nandesuka hasn't given hard proof that it's an copyvio other then it having no EXIF data but thats no grounds to call it a copyvio. Bidgee (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to have any accord with the practice so I am unable to believe that you are correct. Pages are deleted at the commons constantly over speculation that they were miss-tagged and without proof. The burden of proof is always on the uploader. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing there to prove that the image is in doubt but the main issue I'm talking about is that the image was removed from the article on the grounds that it's a copyvio but the image isn't tagged. Bidgee (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
T: That issue is easily addressed: I'll tag the image tonight when I get home from work. Nandesuka (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka needs to lose his buttons. He abused his Admin power in an manner that shows obvious disregard for the consensus evinced in this thread and in numerous linked to prior threads, just to get his way and CENSOR the project. Admins who engage in POINTy CENSORship ought to have their button license immediately revoked; his distractions about the licensing are irrelevant, they've been asked and answered numerous times, but he's playing the 'I didn't hear that' game. The Image needs to be restored, pending consensus. What a disgusting example of COI editing by an admin. Pull his buttons now! ThuranX (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to back down from this. Your comments against others are unwarranted. Your comment here is especially troubling to me. Furthermore, you keep saying that this is an encyclopedia and even mentioned breast cancer. There is a clear difference from a sexual act and a non-sexual act. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
And this is my last response to the topic. The above user has made such a claim against me that makes me feel uncomfortable discussing this issue with them present. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I ahve no intention of backing down, and you know full well that your comment placement made it look like I was saying something I hadn't said, specifically that you were requesting proof that I didn't provide, instead using a one word answer to dismiss you. You know how to properly factor your comments into a conversation, but don't. And there's no difference for the context of breasts if censorship rears its head on here, and you're also hopefulyl smart enough to see that. ThuranX (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am actually quite concerned how an editor who is involved in a conflict over an article and/or image would then unilaterally use their admin privileges to "solve the problem" themself. That's not really the way Wikipedia works. Admins are given that privilege because they supposedly know the policies, and are editors first, admins second. They need to recuse themselves from that admin role when necessary, and this appears to be one of those times that it should have happened. Removing admin rights doesn't fix the issue - reversing of single-sided deletes and edits, a little warning, and a nice little bit of mentoring would go a long way. BMW(drive) 17:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Ugh that's absolutely revolting and an offence against good taste. I thought this article was about the "Country Life" frontispiece with a girl in twinset and pearls or something. Disgusting. Delete it now. Peter Damian (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You're kidding, I hope ... BMW(drive) 17:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia: Come for the pearl necklace, stay for the long drawn-out argument. HalfShadow 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No why should I be joking. It's absolutely revolting. Here is a much nicer picture. I thought it was about that. Why would anyone be interested in the other rubbish? Peter Damian (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You click on Pearl necklace (sexuality) and expect something non-sexual? --Conti| 17:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I expected something like this or those pictures they used to have in Country Life. What's this article for? Peter Damian (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] And I first thought this was about deleting the article. Turns out it's only some crappy picture. Again, what are these articles for except to gratify some teenage vandalistic impulse? How does this help people in Africa? Peter Damian (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh shit! That's what we're doing wrong! We're not cleaning our plates at dinner because kids in africa are starving! Stop trolling, Peter Damian. If you really think that a page specifically labelled 'Sexuality' is going to be about some old magazine, then you're in the wrong hobby. Go read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and move on. ThuranX (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, a Pearl necklace (sexuality) is a very very very old term for what happens after you do a "titty-fukk" (not sure if that one is actually in Wikipedia, so I didn't Wikilink or spell it correctly intentionally). A "titty-fukk" is a very common sexual act, just like are many that appear in any Encyclopedia. Since "Leftovers from a post Titty-fukk cum-shot (sexuality)" would be a very long title, its extremely common name, the Pearl necklace (sexuality) is more commonly used. If the term offends you, sorry - it will be around long after you are. If the sex act offends you, then don't do it. If the article offends you, well .. you were warned with the word "sexuality" being in it, and there was no way to mistake it for something non-sexual. BMW(drive) 17:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The article offends me because it is a crap article. We do have policies about crap articles. Peter Damian (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
We have a note about just this sort of issue that you might need to read. Not liking an article, even being disgusted by it (as am I), is not grounds for deleting it. S.D.D.J.Jameson 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't say 'we'. It depends on the reason for not liking it. I don't like articles which have poor spelling, which are unreferenced, which are ungrammatical, which have no thread, which are generally non-encyclopedic. These are all reasons for changing or deleting an article one doesn't like. You catch my drift? Peter Damian (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I say "we" because we're working on a project here. And, no, being ungrammatical (as annoying as that is) does not a deletion rationale make. I would also point out that using the phrase "you catch my drift" is a bit, well, rude. I was simply pointing you toward a link I thought would help you understand why you will garner very little support in an attempt to have an article deleted because you find it disgusting or vulgar. I apologize if you found the link unhelpful in this regard. S.D.D.J.Jameson 18:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Damian, you appear to fundamentally misunderstand the acceptable reasons for deletion. Nevertheless, this conversation, which is supposed to be about alleged misbehaviour by an admin, has gone wildly off-topic. If any of the participants wish to continue the off-topic discussion, they can take it to user talk or email.

Regarding the topic at hand, although I disagree with him my view is that Nandesuka acted in good faith. Rather than reverting at this point I would suggest leaving things as they are until the discussion plays out on the article talk page, and in the meantime, if it hasn't already been listed, list the image itself for deletion to hash out the copyright issues. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note: Users who persist in continuing off-topic discussion in this section will be blocked. Stick to the topic and take off-topic discussion to email or talk pages. See: WP:TALK for further information. This is your final warning. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding! Topic drift is a fact of life online, and you're going to block for it!? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Give me a break, this thread is getting more ridiculous by the second. Nandesuka's rationale is pretty thoughtful and convincing, and since the stakes are low getting rid of the image was the right call. If you're that concerned about having an image on the article, take a photo yourself (use a doll?) or draw one. Calling for a desysop, or a non-admin threatening to block people for not posting on topic... Hysterically funny, but thats probably unintentional right? Avruch T 22:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, Exploding Boy is an admin and is still threatening to block people for off-topic posts (and in this case, he thinks the main topic is the misuse of admin tools, and not the image that is referenced in the highest level header). Avruch T 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I' m fairly serious about the Desysop. Nandesuka abused his buttons to force a change against consensus, and now Exploding Boy is threatening blocks liberally to intimidate other editors. So now I'm all for TWO de-buttonings, Nandesuka's and Exploding Boy's. Exploding Boy for intimidation via button, and Nandesuka for POV pushing with special buttons. Both are explicit no-nos, and both have clearly done so.

Further, I call for a reversion of the page to the status quo, which was image in. ThuranX (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The main topic is the image. The topic in this sub-section is whether Nandesuka abused his admin privileges. The off-topic posts had nothing to do with either issue. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Bullshit. Peter Damian began discussing the image and related article here, This is the furthest section down the page, thus the most recent, and he posted here. I think he's trolling, but if not, we AGF, and accept that sometimes users simply use the most recent section to discuss the topic. In PD's case, he discussed the image and article instead of nandesuka's behavior. Avoid causing a chilling effect with your self-righteous bullying, which is exactly what we're seeing here. ThuranX (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
How about remaining WP:CIVIL for a start? Comments like "how does this help the children in Africa" do not constitute constructive or serious discussion. My intention was to stop the silly conversation that was taking over and disrupting a discussion about a serious accusation, and that's what happened. Nobody was blocked. The users were, and still are, perfectly free to discuss the merits of the article elsewhere, like on the article's talk page. Anyway, I've made my view on Nandesuka's action clear already, and I have no intention of getting into an argument with you. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that wasn't me. that was someone else. If you wanted to stop it, you should've called for him to stop trolling ,instead of throwing around threats. ThuranX (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we all calm down here? Throwing around requests to desysop people rarely makes things calmer. Nandesuka does not have any history of problematic use of the admin tools and it is hard to see a single bad use of the tools as a reason to immediately desysop the individual. And threats of blocks aren't useful either. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I do think it somewhat unbecoming of an admin to close an AfD saying that the "keep arguments presented below are spectacularly unpersuasive." One could say he is not persuaded by the argument without using somewhat insulting hyperbole. I also advise for such AfDs as this when it is a second nomination for which the previous discussion had ten keeps to only five deletes (yes, I know it is not a vote, but still...) and four editors (including two current admins and one previous admin) in the current one arguing to keep (and it doesn't help that one account arguing to delete in the current discussion was determined to be a ban evading sock and another has said it is his mission to delete and would not and has not ever argued to keep) really deserves more of an explanation of its closing. Thus, these are some other at least moderately questionable examples. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I commented about the image as well, am I going to be blocked for such an offense? Can you point me to where such a block is described in policy? I haven't seen it written anywhere that "Posts which do not pertain directly to the sub-topic being discussed in a section can result in a block." I must just not have read that particular page. Avruch T 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm sorry, we deleted the picture that included that information :) (Just a little humour to defuse the tense situation) BMW(drive) 14:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I do see a few questionable decisions here: (1) removing an image from an article based on an unprovable claim that the image is too well done to be amateur - it isn't all that well done; (2) doing so in an arguable case where many or most think otherwise; and (3) inasmuch as #1 and #2 are non-administrative content decisions, protecting an article immediately after editing it to enforce the administrator's personal content opinion. There's every reason to assume good faith on Nandesuka's part - agree or disagree with the action, but it was done to protect Wikipedia. Good faith misuse of tools is still wrong, if indeed it was a mistake, but why chastise? Why not discuss in a supportive way? How about taking this discussion either here or elsewhere to the rather more sober question of when is it okay to remove, or delete, an image that one feels is in bad taste for the article it's in, and/or a possible but unprovable copyvio? Wikidemo (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok to get this clear. I in no way that I'm after Nandesuka to be de-Sysoped only that the image to be reverted until the discussion is over since there has been no consensus to remove it. In no way was it to protect Wikipedia, if it was it would have been mark/tagged before it was removed from the article which it wasn't which makes Nandesuka's edit summary invalid since who can it be a copyvio without a tag and proof? It would be like someone saying to me that I stole my own image without backing up the claim. Another thing that was wrong was Nandesuka was involved since they voted support for it's removal (A third-party Admin should have removed it from an protected page) and also Nandesuka never left a vaild message for the image removed expaining the actions done plus the refusal to revert the removal. Bidgee (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Is it time to unprotect the article? It seems highly unlikely to me that the image will be removed by consensus unless it is in fact a copyvio, a point of contention which many editors have suggested should be addressed on commons rather than here. I would ask Zscout370 directly, but it seems they haven't edited in two days. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Addressing an issue on commons or having to wait for commons to come up with a decision does not mean that Wikipedia is given a pass to display the image or deem it in compliant of a copyright. I can link you to some top admins over at Commons who have stated this same thing at Wikipedia if you wish. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The image has no copyright issues and doesn't mean that the image will have copyright issues here as well though we should wait for an outcome (Even though it looks like a clear keep ATM) to be sorted before we unprotect the article. Bidgee (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Two different images claiming to be the original means that there is a clear copyright issue. It is dishonest to say otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh please. Read whats been said on the Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png 3rd nomination deletion page (Note that the IP who was commenting on that page is blocked). It's not dishonest. Image:3801 Wagga Wagga.jpg is a cropped version of an original I had which doesn't make it a copyvio and the same goes for Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png which was cropped for a reason. Bidgee (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Deletion reviews are not a vote and popular opinion does not override legal concerns. Also, reading over the review, it appears that at least 6 people put reasons for keep that have nothing to do with the topic, suggesting that they are not using the process correctly. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no proof that it's a copyvio there for no legal concerns until someone can back-up the claim with something vaild. Also it's not a vote and those 6 that you say didn't address the issue then the same could be said for those who want the deletion. Bidgee (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Just because you repeat something does not make it true. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't the same be just as true for you, Ottava...? Your repeated attempts to complain the original uploader is somehow violating their own copyright, no matter how many users explain this is impossible, is at best pedantic or misguided. That horse is dead and has been for some time. There are other, better horses you might want to consider beating. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Please stop misquoting me. Wiki Commons holds the document. Wiki Commons needs to acknowledge its a derivative. It doesn't matter if the original owner gives them the derivative, because the Creative Commons 2.5 even has language to say if the original owner gives a derivative. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does matter. You're failing to distinguish between first and third parties, as several users have tried to explain to you. The "requirement" you're citing appears to be your own misunderstanding. I don't mean to be rude, but I can only try to gently explain that you're wrong so many times before coming to the conclusion you don't understand this licensing issue nearly as well as you think you do. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
As everyone can see, ""Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works" does not say "except if the original author does it, then it counts as a new work". This falls under derivative, as the primary work was already uploaded. I don't know why you don't understand this. There is a distinction, and it is an important one - according to CC 2.5, all derivatives must state the original work in order for those who aren't the author to host the derivative. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
To be a little clearer - the owner can do whatever he want as long as he holds it. However, once it passes into Wiki Commons's hands, they have to be compliant. The original owner, while in possession, doesn't have to do anything. However, for Wiki Commons to always have the right to it, they must attribute the original work in order to distinguish this as a derivative. There is no primary party involved. There is only Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Would an option be to follow this suggestion (the nominating IP appears to be okay with this)? Would this get us a step in the right direction? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The steps seem to be laid out in full here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
That image was deleted because of privacy concerns - it showed an identifiable face. It should not be undeleted, even temporarily. If we need someone to view or alter the image, that should be done by an admin who has access to the deleted revisions. And I don't think it's relevant if an anon who was blocked for trolling is 'okay' with any solution. -- Vary | Talk 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Vary, the image would only be restored long enough for someone to copy it, copy the meta data, and then crop it out for a new edition that is compliant. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, given that most of the commons folks agree that the current image is compliant, that doesn't seem to be necessary - it sounds like this may be largely an effort to satisfy the (apparently unwarranted) concerns of the tendentious IP who nominated the picture. But even if it were needed, why undelete the picture even temporarily when there are people who can access it without making it available to the general public? -- Vary | Talk 16:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how this is a copyright issue, mob rule doesn't make a keep. I doubt elcobbola would have bothered posting the above (as he is an admin at Commons) if it was as clear cut as those like Bidgee makes it seem. Now, Vary, about process - can the image be accessed? Nadesuka had to undelete the image to verify its state. Does a Bureaucrat have the ability to look without undeleting? If so, then it doesn't need to be undeleted to get the image, and thats fine. The ability to see deleted images isn't really listed anywhere, so it would be nice to know. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. No, it's not a copyright issue. We have one anon editor who claims it's a copyright issue, and a number of experienced commons editors who have explained that it's not, and why. That's not 'mob rule'. We can't allow consensus to overrule policy, but nor can we allow spurious claims of policy violation to overrule consensus.
I know that here on en admins can look at deleted images without undeleting them, the same as with deleted revisions, or at least we could last time I tried it. I don't know for a fact that the software is implemented in the same way on commons. But, as I said, this should only even be undertaken if there is a legitimate problem. It seems as though there isn't. One user who refuses to listen to editors with a lot more experience than him or her is not a justification for undeleting this image. -- Vary | Talk 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Commons admins can see deleted images without undeleting. I don't really care what happens to this image one way or another, I was just trying to see whether a certain route - even if "unnecessary" - would resolve concerns and let us move on with our lives. Note, also, that privacy isn't really an issue. As we're applying AGF to the uploader, their statement of "we are a couple" (i.e. a statement on behalf of both participants) and the implicit assertion of being "self-made" indicates they are well aware that they uploaded an identifiable image. We blur faces/delete images when the subject is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and no proof of consent. Consent for this image is reasonably implied by the aforementioned remarks. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, ЭLСОВВОLД, I thought I responded to this comment earlier, but I guess I didn't hit save? If it's not a privacy issue, I'm less concerned, but I still don't see the need. Thanks for clarifying that deleted images can in fact be viewed by admins on commons. -- Vary | Talk 19:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Vary, doesn't WP:IANAL automatically discount taking "opinions" as legal certainty? However, I doubt that will matter, and I do not have faith that you will be willing to change your mind on the issue, so I wont bother responding to you anymore. Our first run in was over you attempting to use an uncopyrighted and unauthored source as a reliable source on Wikipedia, and I don't believe that your views on such things have changed since then. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Oh, how nice. Thanks for trying to inflame the situation with a pointless jab, Ottava. As anyone who cares can look into the actual particulars of that situation, I won't bother clarifying your, shall we say, 'slanted' summary here, except to say that the 'disputed' material did stay in the article, so I guess you would have to say that I succeeded in using a (g