Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive656

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

Noticeboard archives

Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome + pending changes[edit]

Would anyone have any problem with me breaking the rules and placing pending changes on this article just for a day or two? As you can see at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, most of the recent edits are poor quality IP edits, yet the most important updates are coming from IPs. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds sensible.--SPhilbrickT 18:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
If the well-meaning but generally unuseful IP edits continue, semi-protection should be considered for a few days. I have not seen much OR, though. Even the poorer edits have not strayed far from the reported facts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright,  Done. I know PC is unpopular in some circles but this seems to be a textbook time to use it, and it shouldn't be more than a few days. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Smith Jones and this page[edit]

Complainant has withdrawn his complaint, it seems Rodhullandemu 00:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When I was an administrator, I first came upon Smith Jones (talk · contribs) when he made several uninformed comments to various issues brought up on this page. I requested on four separate occasions that he stop making these comments ([1], [2], [3], [4]) and it was clear in 2008 to me at least that he does not have the competence to provide any insight in matters that often require administrative assistance. This is not the first time he has been brought up here (see IncidentArchive351#User:Smith Jones and Archive179#User:Smith Jones) so this behavior of his is not new and has persisted over the past two years. A cursory review of his more recent comments brings up things such as this, this, and this.

I honestly have not looked into his article edits, but it is pretty clear that whenever he is on this board, it does not do anyone any good. I believe that Smith Jones should be subject to a ban from any of the noticeboards unless he is directly involved with the issue at hand.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

this thread smacks of retaliation becuase i suggested that you and pmanderson were having problems avoiding edit warring on certain topics. if you want me to stay off your threads, thats fine, but only an administrator and/or the community has the right to tell me where i can and cannot edit and i dont feel as if i have to continue take orders from you. you dredge up old mistakes of mine that i have long since apologized and atoned for repeteadly in order to smear my name (how would you feel if i did that to you??) and you try to use the fact that i disagree with you as some kind of proof of misconduct. if you dont like my edits, you have no obligation to read them. User:Smith Jones 22:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Please close this thread unless we need to discuss a ban on Ryulong for defaming good editors.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. We've been through this before, and no action has ever been deemed worthy of consideration. Smith Jones's mode of communication may be unconventional, but WP:AGF, you know. Rodhullandemu 22:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
i freely admit that ive made dumb comments here before but i feel that the past 2 years i have tried to comment less and comment more substantively. you can check my editing history if you want. User:Smith Jones 23:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with retaliation. I have just been seeing the same questionable edits from Smith Jones on this page and it just so happened that he was doing it in the thread concerning my recent block. I've assumed good faith, but he clearly does not know how to hold himself on this page. He may be fine in the article space, but on WP:AN and WP:ANI he only gets in the way.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Smith Jones came up with a good solution on that page. I fully support his comments there.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
On what page? All I have ever seen him do is get himself involved in disputes that are brought to ANI and provide nothing of worth to the conversations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Overlooking the typos (which he later fixed), I fully support the comments he made here. The only incompetence is reflected from the opening of this inappropriate thread, and the misguided view that your opinions on community matters are superior to Smith Jones'.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User Dogemperor and WikiLubber and MegastarLV[edit]

  1. Dogemperor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. WikiLubber (talk · contribs)
  3. MegastarLV (talk · contribs)

Very inactive and sporadic user, Dogemperor (talk · contribs), shows up to add report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiLubber and to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MegastarLV. With regards to Special:Contributions/Dogemperor, this seems rather curious. Thoughts??? -- Cirt (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad to comment on this (and incidentially, if I've reported it to the wrong place, I do apologise--I have been inactive on Wikipedia for a while, and am trying to contribute usefully; if I did this the wrong way, please feel free to let me know so I don't err again).
I had noticed in a check for files for deletion ( which had no less than 11 images removed from the same user (MegastarLV); a check of the userpage shows that MegastarLV has had rather longterm imagevios of multiple game-show articles (particularly America's Funniest Home Videos since at least 25 April 2010 and apparently ongoing, including with edit wars where nonfree content has been replaced after removal. The evidence on the user's [page] shows no less than 56 separate requests for either speedy deletion of files, removal of orphaned non-free content, or flagging of non-free content from 25 April 2010 to 6 December 2010 (the most recent material being speedily deleted including [and 11 more non-free images flagged for speedy deletion due to imagevio in the same list for Files for Deletion for 6 December 2010]). User has been warned no less than 6 times over imagevios alone, with evidence the user has attempted to pass off nonfree images as Creative Commons licensed[[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]][[9]][[10]].
In addition, there is evidence there is a broader abuse/vandalism issue that makes report simply for longterm copyvios inappropriate (I do realise that it's iffy to list here as the user themselves have (miraculously) NOT yet been blocked to my knowledge, but the amount of various sorts of abuse here are pretty staggering). Among other things, there is evidence the user is engaging in vandalism[[11]], has attempted merges of articles without community consensus and has been warned about this[[12]], changes to various infoboxes without community consensus[[13]][[14]][[15]], randomly changing styles of articles with established style guides[[16]][[17]] (the latter also involving changes in infoboxes), and at least two cases of edit warring[[18]][[19]].
I also did have some concerns based on one of the ANIs of sockpuppetry; an ANI noted below re the edit-warring on The Price Is Right article notes that user WikiLubber has engaged in similar abuse; a view of WikiLubber's talk page and user page indicates the two accounts have engaged in a similar history of tendetious editing of articles on gameshow-related pages, hence the request for checkuser.
According to a check I've done, MegastarLV has been involved in no less than two WP:ANI discussions, the first being [case on 21 September 2010 involving edit-warring and potential talkpage vandalism and wikistalking involving this user], and a second case [recently as 24 November where MegastarLV reported what was apparently an innocent IP address for vandalism of articles he himself had perpetrated].
If I reported this in the wrong place, I apologise; my intent was solely to get admin eyes on what may have been an abuse issue that slipped under the radar, and I do apologise if I was out of place in this. Dogemperor (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Creation of articles from leaked classified documents[edit]

Related discussions:

Because this topic is relevant to almost every noticeboard, I'm posting a brief incident report here. meco (talk · contribs) and Wnt (talk · contribs) have been spearheading the creation of encyclopedia articles based on leaked classified documents from WikiLeaks, using the leaked cables to support the majority of the article. This was recently discussed at Talk:United_States_diplomatic cables leak#List of vital sites, with both meco and Wnt ignoring the points raised in that discussion. Wnt took this a step further, and created a new article, Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, which is primarily based on a classified, February 2009 cable from the U.S. State Department that lists foreign installations and infrastructure considered critical to U.S. interests. U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the information "gives a group like al-Qaeda a targeting list" and British prime minister David Cameron said the list damages the national security of the U.S., the U.K, and other countries. Because this list was uploaded from the classified leaked documents and lacks enough secondary sources for a standalone article, I redirected it to the United States Department of Homeland Security.[20] Wnt restored it soon after,[21] and I once again redirected it.[22] We have a problem that needs to be addressed by the community. Since the WikiLeaks cables are considered "raw data", they are primary sources. The content in question here has been described by the BBC as "one of the most sensitive",[23] and by CNN as "key to U.S. security".[24] According to meco and Wnt, this means Wikipedia must host an article on the subject and include classified content from leaked documents. I leave this matter for the community to decide, as this issue will continue to come up in the coming days as more documents are released. As Wikipedia editors, we need to show self-restraint and self-control when using leaked primary documents, and doubly so when we are dealing with leaked classified documents considered vital to global security. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely this is dealt with by WP:PRIMARY? Physchim62 (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I think Jimbo Wales and the Wikipedia legal team are looking into this. At least that is my reasonable guess. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
e/c The issues of "classified" and "leaked" and so on are irrelevant. For the most part at least, there's little doubt they're authentic. The problem is that they're primary sources -- and often consist only of ephemera (the views of a given foreign service officer, often quite junior, in one place and time). This makes them great stuff to be trolled through and synthesized by historians. Your average wikipedia editor? Not so much. But there's no need to reinvent the wikipedia wheel here. Treat them for what they are -- primary, non-peer reviewed sources. Which is to say, with great caution. Any article built entirely around these kinds of cables should be deleted on site. But judicious use of cables, properly attributed and handled by wikipedia's army of crack researchers, should be ok.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
There's also a COPYVIO problem, at least at Talk:United_States_diplomatic cables leak#List of vital sites: close paraphrasing of the BBC which exceeds acceptable levels (even for me, and I'm usually quite cool about such things). Physchim62 (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The redirect requires deletion. The immediacy of this issue requires further clarification by the community because it is going to keep happening over the next month. Obviously, we are here to write articles based on secondary sources, but Wnt is trying to get around this by briefly quoting a secondary to support the creation of a stub, and then filling the majority of the article up with content directly from the leaked, classified documents. In my opinion, Wnt (and others) are purposefully trying to game the policies and guidelines to write articles based solely on classified documents. That's why this requires administrator attention. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes that sort of thing is a problem and should not be tolerated. However, it's not only tolerated, it's supported, every day here. Wikipedia supports the invention of fake "topics." Go no.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
This isn't "gaming the system", but following the rules. An article has to have sources to meet the general notability guideline. So I came up with several such sources - more are easily available - and used some sources published by the agency that created the CFDI, and used a definitive primary source. This primary source in turn provides numerous search terms to find more secondary sources. Right now, people all over the world are writing news stories about many of the specific sites listed in this cable - about what was meant, whether it was out of date, what it's importance is. The primary source lets us find these sources and compile that expert analysis from secondary sources that people here say they value so highly. Wnt (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The cables are PRIMARY. Articles written from PRIMARY sources are SYNTHESIS and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Warn the editors; Speedy or AFD the articles depending on current deletions policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The leaked documents are leaked! Even if it was Wikipedia's responsibility to safeguard U.S. security (and it isn't), it is too late for that. They are however primary sources however, and should be treated as such - at best as a source for quotes to add a bit of colour to proper reporting of what reliable secondary sources say. Anything else is likely to be OR from people perhaps a little over-enthusiastic with their interpretation. This isn't our job either. Topics need good verifiable secondary sources to justify creation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Writers do have ethical obligations in every field, and in an encyclopedia, the policies and guidelines are based on such obligations: Why should we use reliable sources? Why should we be careful writing about BLP's? Why do we care about a NPOV? These are all ethical problems requiring responsibility, self-control and restraint. As I said in the discussion linked above, we're not here to write articles in the vein of The Anarchist Cookbook. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
As a Brit, I have no more 'ethical problems' with dealing with this in a neutral manner than I would if the leaks came from anywhere else, but this is beside the point. Nothing written in Wikipedia is going to alter the fact that the documents 'have' been leaked. If we report this issue in a responsible manner (i.e. using verifiable secondary sources), nothing will appear that isn't out there already. Even if the odd bit of 'primary' were to be included in an article, this isn't releasing anything that isn't already known. I think it highly likely that anyone intent on using the leaked documents for hostile purposes will acquire their own copies, rather than looking for snippets on Wikipedia. I think are normal policy (properly applied) is quite adequate - though perhaps we need to remind people about BLP policy on naming non-notable people, if for no reason than that is ignored too often anyway. The 'Anarchist Cookbook' issue seems a bit of a red herring to me, as 'articles in the vein of' it would violate WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
In any case WP:HOWTO covers the case of The Anarchist Cookbook! Well, it used to... Physchim62 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, the red herring here is the notion that because "the documents have been leaked", there's nothing we can do. That isn't true. We only write encyclopedia articles based on good secondary sources, and we do so carefully and with good judgment. Just as we don't tell people how to make weapons or hack into the Pentagon, we don't provide them with a classified list of sensitive installations and say, "do with it what you will, it is out of our hands, we're just Wikipedia editors." What you are forgetting is that WikiLeaks provides these documents to journalists, who do have ethical obligations and are supposed to be professionals. The raw data was not meant for use by Wikipedia editors who may not, and who in your case, refuse to recognize and accept this great responsibility because of a refusal to act professionally. We've got the ethical foundation in the policies and guidelines, and nothing in them says we write articles with an attitude of "well, that's that, it is out of my hands, I don't care." Just the opposite, in fact. Why do we care about accuracy? Why do we care about getting BLP's right? Why do we care about copyright? Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Half the pintards out there think Wikileaks and this site are linked; let's not give them any more fuel. HalfShadow 03:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Viriditas: I'll not comment on whether I rate the ethics of the average journalist any higher than the average Wikipedia editor, but I will point out that you are wrong about access to the Wikileaks documents. Anyone can download them. As for your comments about me refusing to recognise responsibilities, I consider it unworthy of response as a gross distortion of what I wrote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The stuff released by WikiLeaks has been vetted to make sure it can't do any damage to lives of people. What is now going on is that the US government is finding herself in the same boat as e.g. the Chinese government is in when issues regarding dissidents/Tibet etc. are raised. They will invoke national security as a real life version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Count Iblis (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I know; funny as hell, innit? HalfShadow 04:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That is 100% not the issue. The issue is that this is basicly a bunch of unfiltered emails (i know, "cables", whatever, same thing). You can't source a Wikipedia article to a bunch of unfiltered emails. The reason we don't allow primary sources like this to be the main source of references for an article is that there is no analysis of those sources. Wikipedia cannot be the first place of analysis. If as person wanted to, they could simply cherrypick specific cables to use as references and build a case to "prove" anything they wanted to in a Wikipedia article. We don't do that here. Its not the role of Wikipedia. It is the role of reliable secondary sources like newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed journals, or respectable book-publishing scholars to weed through these cables and then report on what they find. Only after someone else, outside of Wikipedia, has assigned meaning to these cables should that information be used in a Wikipedia article. Right now, its a bunch of unfiltered communications and none of us has any idea what ANY of it means. So we shouldn't use it in articles, period. When the BBC does a major piece on some aspect of something they found, and researched, and checked into, and confirmed, and THEN reported on; we use the BBC source. But not before that. --Jayron32 04:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Yup. Normal policy applies. No synthesis. Use WP:RS, Work within WP:BLP (for a change...) If some idiot wants to compile a list of 'potential terrorist targets' using the cables, it won't get on Wikipedia, not because it is a 'security threat' (which it is unlikely to be, for the reasons already given), but because it isn't acceptable content. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All of our normal policies should apply here. For there to be individual articles on any of the specific documents leaked by Wikileaks, there needs to be a certain amount of significant coverage in secondary sources about those documents. However, on the other side of the field, if there are enough secondary sources to qualify an article for inclusion as a stand-alone article, arguments based on it being about classified material are irrelevant. Once released by a source, classified material becomes public. The source in this case is Wikileaks. Once released, the material is free to be used by both newspapers and any other group, since it has devolved to public information upon its release.
To summarize: articles need enough secondary sources to qualify under our policies and guidelines. If a topic does qualify, arguments for deletion of said articles because they are classified information should be considered irrelevent. SilverserenC 04:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to note that reprinting any material that is in the "cables" released could be possibly be covered under the Espionage_Act_of_1917 and could lead to repercussions against Wikipedia. All editors should be careful to not jeopardize the project in such a way. No matter who all has done so before it could still be done on a case by case basis and people and organizations fined and/or jailed if it is determined to be. The Espionage Act has already been upheld to not violate First Amendment rights of free speech since it involves the act itself, not necessarily the material. And reproducing classified material wouldnt be justified just by saying "well, they did it too". I dont know where the whole WikiLeaks thing is going to go, but I dont think we should get involved in any way with it. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Ooh! Scary legal threat. Edison (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not how it works. The original releasing agent of the material is liable for the "damage" caused by its release. The releasing agent in this case is Wikileaks. Thus, the government is entirely able to sue and/or prosecute Wikileaks under the Espionage Act. However, since Wikipedia has nothing to do with Wikileaks, we are not in liability with them. Furthermore, like I said above, once information is released by an agent, that material then becomes public and other sources that utilize that material are not liable for holding and/or re-releasing it. This is why newspapers and other news sources are able to discuss and re-release the classified information, because they are a secondary agent that had the information after it was made public. It falls under the First Amendment of the Constitution, namely, freedom of the press. And, because Wikipedia uses news reports to make our article, making us a tertiary source, we also fall under freedom of the press and are that much more removed from the original documents. If the government had the audacity to try and prosecute Wikipedia, it would also have to prosecute every news agency that ever made an in-depth news report on the documents, since it is their information that we are utilizing for our articles. SilverserenC 04:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give legal advice. Please don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I was expecting to argue this issue at AfD, not ANI. We haven't even had time to properly start an edit war! I must strongly object to the continual bait-and-switch between policy issues and legal issues on this topic. There is nothing illegal about discussing "classified" information that has been widely disseminated on web and news sites all over the world. So then we get into arguments about "primary sources" - but those are policy arguments, which at most would be used to try to excuse specific changes within the article. And when those run out, we run into "ethical" arguments. But I'd like to know what kind of ethics it that demands us to pretend that we are protecting secret information, at the expense of actually abandoning WP:NOTCENSORED like it was yesterday's news.
Now as for specifics, I should point out, that in the article I created, I have secondary news sources as well as the primary source; and the secondary sources attest to the apparent authenticity of the primary source. Now some people on Wikipedia, especially when they're trying to promote a point of view, like to disparage primary sources; nonetheless, there is nothing that gives a person a better idea of what is in a list of things than the list itself. And do note that the primary source (the 2008 Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative list) is being used as a source about itself, which is the most kosher use for such a source. Wnt (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's suspend legal and ethical issues for the moment. Please read WP:PRIMARY; it will explain everything. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY would be useful if only primary sources had been used in the article being discussed. However, as can be seen], there were secondary sources involved. Only a few, admittedly, but that means that it should have been taken to AfD. A redirect edit war was not the way to go. SilverserenC 05:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll add that my article is about the "Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative". The primary source that I cite contains text that identifies itself, as confirmed by secondary sources, as the "Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative (CFDI) list". So I am using this primary source as a statement about itself. I fully understand that there are very problematic uses of the cables as primary sources - for example, the widely disseminated news stories that China wouldn't mind if South Korea took over North Korea, based on a leaked cable which quotes a South Korean defense minister stating that opinion. But that's not what I did here. Wnt (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I think one of the other issues is that the secondary coverage isn't really solid enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Of course, like i've been saying, that means that it should have been taken to AfD, not just automatically redirected. SilverserenC 05:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Agenda driven editing is not good, unless the agenda is to create high-quality encyclopedic content. If editors are out to make a WP:POINT by creating lots of original research articles based largely on primary sources, not only should those articles be deleted, but the editors causing massive disruption in that way ought to be blocked. Editing in such a volume as to win a dispute by overwhelming the other side, in contravention of policy, is strictly prohibited. Jehochman Talk 04:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether I'm being addressed by Jehochman above, so I'll specify I don't think that I'm the one trying to "win a dispute by overwhelming the other side" when I make up a new article. I feel like I'm the one being overwhelmed by accusations of policy violations, being unethical, and being threatened that the ancient legal evil that attacked Eugene Debs has crawled out of Lake Totenkopf and is about to start chasing Wikipedia editors. And the agenda foremost on my mind when creating the list section of the article was to take a confusing jumble of unfamiliar terms and convert it into a sea of pretty blue Wikilinks so that you could look up and understand all the sites and networks of pipelines and cables. I should be a poor inclusionist if I did not observe, by the way, that due to unreasonably restrictive standards, Wikipedia's coverage of corporations is so poor that even many corporations identified by the U.S., a foreign country in their lands, as critical to the U.S. economy, have not been deemed worthy to have their own Wikipedia articles. I'll also say there is nothing shameful about an agenda of using the cables to add facts to Wikipedia articles. We've just been handed a treasure trove of inside information such as the world has rarely seen. Yeah, it should have been kept secret, but it wasn't, and now we have new information about all kinds of topics. That's as conventional of an encyclopedic agenda as there is, and it is also as radical as Wikileaks: because the premise of SIPRNet is that 1 in 500 people is entitled to know the truth, and the rest aren't. Wnt (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
To say something about your statement "I'll also say there is nothing shameful about an agenda of using the cables to add facts to Wikipedia articles." What you are doing by adding things straight from the cables to articles is to confuse data with analysis. As they stand right now, the cables are basically raw data. We have no idea what they mean. Random statements taken from those cables, out of context from the entire situation that generated them, serves no purpose at Wikipedia. What needs to be done is someone who knows what they are doing, and is an expert in either investigative journalism or international relations or both needs to sit down with the cables, sort through them and generate a reliable story that lets us know exactly what they mean and can explain why they think that. Wikipedia is not the place to do that. When John Doe in a cable says something, I don't know what he means. I don't know what its in response to, I don't know how it relates to other parts of the world the cable refers to, but is not covered by this current data dump. I don't know shit. I know he said what he said, but I have no means to put it into context such that I can extract meaning from it enough to use it appropriately in a Wikipedia article. THAT is why we need secondary sources. Secondary sources do the hard work necessary to provide the context necessary to extract meaning from primary sources. The cables themselves are useless until they are analyzed. --Jayron32 06:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The primary source was not being used to interpret anything in the article. It was being used to source a list of infrastructures. See my response below. SilverserenC 06:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
However, we're discussing a single article that was created that did have some secondary sourcing. The question I have is why the article wasn't taken to AfD. The efforts by Viriditas to redirect it seem to be against policy. SilverserenC 05:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
People often mistake "Articles for deletion" as a delete/keep only discussion, when there are other options such as redirection. This is probably covered more broadly at ANI. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest we (or rather you - I'm off to bed) stick to discussing the general principle here, rather than getting drawn into debates over specific articles. As I see it, since those advocating 'restraint' are really only suggesting that we don't engage in OR, and the majority of remaining comments are saying much the same thing, we are close to consensus anyway: Work within policy, properly applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem may lie within the interpretation of said policy, rather than the policy itself or the work involved in applying it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with that, but it also stands to reason that policy was not followed by Viriditas. The whole edit war of redirection, unredirection, and redirection should have never happened. I put more blame on Viriditas for this because s/he should have followed policy and taken the article to AfD. SilverserenC 05:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent>My two cents: WP:Primary and WP:BLPPRIMARY could usefully be edited to prevent use of primary sources that could reasonably put people in physical danger, even if those primary sources are available elsewhere. BLPPRIMARY already says: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." So why do that but allow use of secret records that could get people killed?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See my comments above. The reason we don't use primary sources isn't because they are secret or harmful. Its because, without the acompanying analysis provided by secondary sources, we have no way to assign meaning to things that are in primary sources. Secondary sources (news outlets, scholars, things like that) will read through the cables, analyze them, work with other known information to construct a story about what they all mean, verify their story, confirm it independently, and THEN report it. That sort of work is what is needed before we can use information. Raw data (and that's all the leaked cables are) isn't of much use to anyone unless we can put the raw data into context. We can't put them into context ourselves, that's the textbook definition of WP:OR. We wait for someone reliable to do the work to put them into context, then we report what THEY find. That's why we don't use primary sources. It has nothing to do with rights, or privacy, or secrecy, or liability. Its all about the core purpose and values of Wikipedia. This is a WP:5P issue and nothing else. --Jayron32 06:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
However, like i've been saying above, the article did have secondary sources, so this continued throwing around of WP:PRIMARY is unfounded. If you actually look at the article, you'd see that the primary source was only being used to source the list of infrastructures. ALL of the other sources in the article were secondary. SilverserenC 06:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm still talking in the general, not the specific. If your article doesn't meet the problems I laid out, then I'm not talking about you. People, however, keep trying to say that these cables are somehow useful to Wikipedia. They aren't. They are next to worthless until someone else comes along and tells us what they all mean. Insofar as you have found someone that did that, you may be OK. (I am not saying that your secondary sources are good, and I am not saying they are bad, I am just saying, you know!). The problem is that people are expressing the belief that the cables themselves are good sources for Wikipedia articles. --Jayron32 06:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:Primary: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia....."
Jayron32: "we don't use primary sources."
Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, we don't use primary sources to build an article around. Primary sources are useful in limited ways. For example, if we have an article about, say, an important chemical process, while the main text of the article is cited to reliable chemistry texts which discuss the process and its applications, it is quite appropriate to also include the primary publication that introduced the reaction as a supplemental source. Likewise, using the cables as supplemental references in articles which are reliably sourced to good, solid secondary sources may be appropriate. However, the use of the cables as the sole or main source to build an article is a bad idea. You conveniently left out of your quote from WP:PRIMARY above "...but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." and later " Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." (bolding original). The problem is claiming that the cables can be used to write Wikipedia articles. They cannot. They can be used to supplement articles in very limited application. --Jayron32 07:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Some cables are primary sources, essentially telegrams from an individual official back to Washington. But others are "scenesetters" compiled by a group of embassy personnel to brief a visiting high-level official. These seem comparable to a secondary source in nature. Whether primary or secondary, they will often turn out to be useful - for example, a quote from a foreign politician will often be quite informative in itself, without further explanation, simply as an insight into his opinions. Wnt (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, do WP:VALINFO and WP:USEFUL apply here? Whose Your Guy (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Jayron, as I pointed out above, there are certain public record primary sources that Wikipedia currently prohibits BOTH for basing a whole article on, and ALSO for mere supplementation purposes. I'm saying that leaked national security info should be added to the list. Otherwise, clever editors will find a way to use it as supplementation instead of as the core of an article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Leaving out "private data" from an article already risks running into censorship, but the hope is that it is not really encyclopedically relevant anyway. It is a prohibition on specific types of facts of low importance. Your proposal is to ban information according to the route by which it reached us, regardless of its (generally large) overall significance. We should not allow the small errors of one policy to turn into the larger errors of the next until we end up ruling out coverage of major world events. Wnt (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant, adding "national security" to the list of things to exclude is a very bad idea. Many governments around the world use those two words (or one of many commonly-known related terms) to suppress all kinds of information, sometimes for no understandable reasons at all. (Unless you consider "someone with a lot of power doesn't want this known" to be an understandable reason.) If you think we have enough of a headache with ethnic/nationalist squabbles on Wikipedia, allowing "national security" to be a reason not to use a primary source will make those squabbles feel like playful noogies. The best solution in any case which may involve those two words is to continue to use such sources (per our guidelines, of course) unless explicitly told not to by the Foundation: since they're the ones who'd be on the front lines in any tangle involving freedom of speech vs. national security, our best course would be to defer to their decision on the matter, not matter how stupid it is. -- llywrch (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I've raised the issue at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#FollowIng_reliable_sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of the editors above that the classified or leaked status of the cables is not relevant for us (we are not the US government), but their status as primary sources is: they are "accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event", as described at WP:PRIMARY, and have not been subject to editorial oversight. As such, articles should not be based exclusively on them.  Sandstein  07:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
In covering the documents in question, CNN announced that it "is not publishing specific details from the list, which refers to pipelines and undersea telecommunications cables as well as the location of minerals or chemicals critical to U.S. industry."[25] However, this did not stop User:Wnt from citing the CNN article and publishing specific details from WikiLeaks. This is most certainly relevant for us, as this is incredibly poor editorial behavior that is not condoned by Wikipedia. Here we have reliable secondary sources that admittedly refuse to print the details, and yet we also have Wikipedia editors who ignore the secondary sources and decide to publish the details from the primary sources anyway, because they know better than the secondary sources. Furthermore, Silverseren's laughable claim that "the primary source was only being used to source the list of infrastructures. ALL of the other sources in the article were secondary" is highly and purposefully deceptive. Wnt's original article was 24,876 bytes, of which only 3,664 bytes were sourced to one secondary source (CNN), with the rest coming from WikiLeaks. The rest of his sourcing was a combination of original research and misuse of primary sources. A later revision by Wnt added a BBC source and a Times Online source printed by The Australian, expanding the article a little more, but with the majority of the article based on primary sources that CNN refused to publish. So, we have secondary sources that refuse to publish sensitive classified information that a Wikipedia editor feels they can safely ignore. Wnt should be blocked for doing this. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I slept through this part of the debate, but I just want to say that the New York Times is close to the bailiwick of Joseph Lieberman, who has been running around intimidating companies like by various methods. I feel like they've been intimidated rather than educated. When I read the list I see nothing that looks like an ingenious opportunity to do harm that al-Qaida would never have thought of --- to the contrary, I suspect that many of these sites are on the list because they've been the targets of previous terrorist attack. That's a big supposition of course, assuming that things like the Internet cable cuts in previous years were in fact attacks, but in time as the secondary sources are added for each of the items on the list, the truth should become apparent. Wnt (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Here, i'll break down the sources that were used for you. There were the news articles (this, this, this, and this). There was a book (this). There was a website - Army Technology (this). There were two company links, ones that were mentioned in the article (this and this). There were two links to Department of Homeland Security informational pages (this and this). And there was the link to the cable document from Wikileaks (this). That was the entiriety of the sources.
Of these references, the department of homeland security ones were used primarily in the lede as an intro. Then three of the four news articles were used to make the paragraphed content section. The rest of the article was the list of infrastructures. The Wikileaks cable link was attached to the opening sentence of the list, which stated what the list was of. The company links, the other news link, and the website link were all attached to individual things in the list.
Now, can you tell me again what was wrong with this article? If you are going to say not enough secondary coverage, then fine. But that means you should have taken the article to AfD, as any other editor would do when following process. Instead, you started a battle of redirection with the article. For reference, this version was the one I was lookng at while making this comment. SilverserenC 08:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The article itself was created out of process, when its original proposal was rejected on the parent talk page (linked in the first comment). Wnt ignored that consensus and created it anyway, along with a detailed list of sensitive sites -- even after the single, solitary secondary source he relied upon rejected the detailed list.[26] This doesn't require an AfD, it requires a behavioral readjustment. Here, we have Wnt ignoring the discussion which rejected the proposed article in the first place, and ignoring the secondary source he himself relied upon to create the article, which also rejected the detailed list. The sources you refer to above aren't even worth discussing as no article on Wikipedia could ever be created with them. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
If you would actually read my previous comment, you would notice that there were four news articles. Yes, CNN says that it won't disclose any specifics, but the other three (this, this, and this) do specifically discuss the items in the list. Not all of them, of course, but quite a few, including the various pipelines and materials in various countries. Presumably, CNN didn't put any specifics because it is a US paper and its protecting its own interests. The other three are not US-based, so they don't have a problem discussing things. SilverserenC 09:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Which reliable secondary sources support the subject of the article, Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, and which support the existence of the list items in whole or in part? That's right, the answer is none. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Aside from the issues with WP:PRIMARY, I really don't see any problems here. The requirement is that content is verifiable, and – for better or for worse – these cables have been leaked and are now publicly available. I notice that some editors above are making, "Let's not make Wikipedia look too connected with Wikileaks," type comments. These have no relevance to our content policies and should be discounted. WP:CENSOR is the standard which applies here. ╟─TreasuryTagpikuach nefesh─╢ 08:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Synthesis is the relevant policy. While they are editors, Wikipedia editors are not political scientists and political sociologists. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • What exactly is being synthesized in the article, the list? SilverserenC 09:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The WP:AFD process is the appropriate method to deal with assessing community consensus regarding notability and whether Wikipedia should have article(s) on this. -- Cirt (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Except we've already had three discussions on this topic, with the editors above refusing to acknowledge the most basic policies and guidelines supporting article creation and development. Now, we can look forward to a fourth discussion to make it "official"? Sounds like unnecessary bureaucracy. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks 100% fine to me. We have notability established in multiple reliable sources, critical coverage in reliable sources. The classified nature of the primary source is irrelevant. And primary sources are not disallowed, simply to be treated with care. As third party RS's have identified this as the CFDI list then it can be legitimately used to source the contents of the list. There is no issue here. --Errant (chat!) 09:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please name a single reliable secondary source that supports the article subject as found in the current title, as well as a reliable secondary source that supports the contents of the list? I looked and did not find any. This appears to be a serious problem. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
*floods* Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I can go for 100 if you want. Want me to? :) SilverserenC 10:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas, I think you misunderstand the point of WP:PRIMARY. The list is identified as what it puports to be according to reliable sources, the initiative exists as recorded in reliable secondary sources. Now, there is the issue to discuss whether to include the actual list in entirety, and in fact I would tend to agree with not including the list. My thinking there is not to do with primary sourcing (primary sourcing is absolutely fine if no OR is conducted, and notability is already established), but rather to do with having an unwieldy list sourced to a marginally verified document. But the notability of the article topic is, I think, not in question --Errant (chat!) 11:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I have misunderstood nothing. There are no reliable secondary sources about the subject. All of those sources linked above are about WikiLeaks and regional installations that were named on leaked secret cables from the State Department, as well as reactions to the leak from officials. Reliable secondary sources about the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, also referred to as the "Department of Homeland Security list on overseas sites" are simply non-existent. So, my original creation of a redirect to the DHS was entirely supported. What we are seeing are attempts by editors to create new encyclopedia articles with every new classified document released from WikiLeaks, even when the coverage amounts to little to nothing. Per WP:RS, "sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There are no sources on the topic of the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, only passing mentions to it in sources about leaked documents from WikiLeaks. I can't see it being anything more than a redirect to the DHS. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, you may have a point there. Although there is sourcing pre-dating the leaks. So; take it to AFD and make the case. --Errant (chat!) 12:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
There seems also to be a problem also with WP:NOT#NEWS here. Just because WP is not censored, doesn't justify us being used as a dumping ground for material taken straight out of a primary source on the backs of a few news clippings. This 'mass creation' of articles in such a fashion might satisfy a few egos in the competition to create new articles, but it seems to me not to be the route to proper encyclopaedic content. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Because of a considerable amount of good editing done by Silverseren recently, the sourcing of the article has been strengthened considerably. Many thanks. Wnt (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note: In reviewing the sources at Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, there are many good sources, but there is also a large amount of information that is either unsourced or sourced to an inappropriate primary source. I have left a note at that article's talkpage[27] that the primary source should be removed. Anyone who wishes may remove it, along with any other information in the article which is not sourced to a reliable secondary source (such as respected news and journal articles). --Elonka 06:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

  • It didn't work. I tried to carry out the consensus opinion, but have met with tag-team efforts of Selver seren and Meco. I will stand aside and let someone else have a go. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Careful. That source and its use seems to meet the requirements of WP:PRIMARY - people who yell "that is a primary source and must removed immediately" I find usually miss the fact that primary sources can be used :) --Errant (chat!) 11:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I second that - I was surprised and disappointed to read Elonka's comment. I should note by the way that the sum total of people who have want to keep a primary source and happen to be working on an article do not constitute a "tag team". Edits like this are essentially original research. I want to keep the list in full agreement with the source I took it from, not revise it based on personal opinions. Also I should add that since the CFDI list was compiled by DHS working with other government agencies and quoted in an official cable requesting further input, I would suggest it may actually be a secondary source anyway. Wnt (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Primary sources are easy to misuse. In the case of non-controversial information, a primary source is occasionally appropriate. But as soon as information is challenged, the requirement for sourcing becomes more stringent. --Elonka 14:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, see, that is subtely different from what was originally contended :) However, WP:V simply requires a reliable source. Primary sources cand be reliable and useful if used with care purely for factual information; in this case sourcing the content of the list to the list is exactly the sort of careful use allowed. --Errant (chat!) 14:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note: The use of {{adminnote}} should be severely restricted. It should only be used for clearly administrative purposes. In particular, using it in what amounts to a ex cathedra statement in a content dispute is entirely inappropriate. Rainbow trout.png Seriously. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We should edit these articles as we would any other articles and respond to calls for censorship of the content just as we would were the calls coming from a government like PRC. We don't need to carry the water of a government which conflates journalism and treason. The biggest issue I see here is WP:PSTS. We can't build articles on primary sources, but we can add details which other secondary sources skipped over. For instance, if the NYT does a story on the vatican complaining about Irish priests being brought to justice for child abuse but doesn't publish the cable, we can excerpt it. But if nobody writes about some cable between the US ambassador to Luxembourg we can't very well construct an article over it. This is not rocket science. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

On Viriditas and this article[edit]

Viriditas recently placed this notice on Meco's talk page. It seemed a bit houndish to me, but I decided to take a moment to investigate his claims of consensus. The article's talk page doesn't seem to tell much, since there is very little discussion at all and that can hardly be called consensus. But the cable's talk page discussion was quite revealing. It seems to be Viriditas arguing extremely harshly about not having the article exist, with Meco and Cyclopia arguing against him. Furthermore, this discussion is not about making a separate article, but about having a section on the vital lists in that article. Also, Meco perfectly summarized the statements from editors in the discussion here. It seems to me that this entire ANI discussion is him being a bit pointy. I still have no idea why he doesn't just put the article up at AfD. SilverserenC 09:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is my last edit to this thread. Feel free to close. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
But don't leave now. There's more to come! I'm sure your perspective will still be appreciated. __meco (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, there's more to report on the surreptitious machinations of Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in this conflict. Let me serve you a few items:
  1. At the top of of the section to which this section is an addendum, Viriditas begins their "incident report" by asserting that "meco and Wnt have been spearheading the creation of ...". Now, if one checks the edit histories of both United States diplomatic cables leak, its talk page, Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak, and the article which Wnt created, Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, this user's first post on either of the first two was this edit to the article at 18:26 (and this is their only edit to that article) adding a wikilink to the article which they had begun writing at 06.45 on Dec 8. Wnt's first post on the talk page was this post at 23:22 on Dec 8. I.e. by all likelihood Wnt knew nothing of the ongoing conflict and wasn't involved in spearheading anything. Unless Viriditas knows something that isn't immediately apparent, Wnt's role in this is simply a gross misrepresentation of the facts. (correction: according to Talk:Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative Wnt cofirms having had casual knowledge of the ongoing discussion. However, this information was given at 05:14 on Dec 9, so it should not impinge significantly on Viriditas' "spearheading" claim vis-á-vis Wnt. __meco (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC))
  2. On Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak Viriditas repeatedly accuses me of disregarding consensus and making unilateral moves. Viriditas claims that five editors have told me off, but this I'm supposed to ignore in cavalier fashion. In this section I make a summary of the the preceding discussion ("perfectly summarized", according to Silver seren above), where I show that Viriditas' asserted consensus is no such thing, i.e. again a blatant misrepresentation.
  3. Then, finally there's the matter of the redirect and the section which I wrote for United States diplomatic cables leak on the cable detailing facilities worldwide that are critical to US national security. The section I wrote was taken out of the article by Viriditas, who claimed I was violating consensus against having this section [I have copied it to the talk page where it can be easily read on yellow background). Obviously floundering in their frantic attempts at having this information kept out of the article, Viriditas then becomes highly "creative": at 14:42, exactly two hours after I had added the section to the article[28], Viriditas self-appropriates unilateral emergency powers and makes a drastic re-organization of the article—purportedly to reduce its by claimed unmanageable size—moving all discussion of substantive cables content from the article (reducing its size from 166kb to 43kb) to Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak, a page which was originally created on Dec 1, then at the same time reverted to a redirect, but now, in one unilateral, undiscussed (well, there had in fact been discussion, but that turned out to oppose having this fork as a separate page) move recreated, of course, completely bereft of any mention of the sensitive facilities cable. (Now, I immediately went to AfD with this article, however, seeing that whatever shenanigans had caused the recreation of this article at this point in time, having this AfD process ongoing besides all else was not the best strategy going forward, I withdrew the nomination. Viriditas' actions in this, however, are still salient points to be considered in the context of the present discussion.)
In my opinion it is Viriditas, and nobody else, who has been shown attempting to game the system in this case, and I would suggest that their repeated display of inappropriate and disruptive behavior should call for them to be banished from editing on this subject. __meco (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
When Viriditas first redirected the article, I noticed on his user page that he had a userbox saying that he followed a 1RR and preferred to talk through disputes. As I felt that redirection was grossly inappropriate, I put the text back and summarized my position at Talk:Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative. I wish he'd followed his stated preference, because I think he's simply wrong with his idea that one article's talk page can prevent creation of another, sight unseen. Seriously, I think that even if there had been a formal and well-attended !vote at that talk page that said specifically "You, Wnt, shall not start the CFDI article", it still would have no basis in Wikipedia policy. In general I don't think we have a policy that provides a way to ban the creation of an article in advance, even here on ANI; we have WP:SALT, but that's only for repeated creations of bad articles and there's still supposed to be a way around it. Wnt (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The redirect action which Wnt mentions here is not the same one as I'm discussing above, just to avoid any confusion. I didn't mention the inappropriate redirecting of Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, but it is yet another incident that goes to show the M.O. of Viriditas on this subject. __meco (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
All of a sudden, Viriditas's obsession with deleting content in the United States diplomatic cables leak article and people out of the talk page is starting to make a lot of sense. (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • My summary of the situation is:
    • Viriditas should learn WP:NOTCENSORED by heart and take notice of all the cases listed in WP:COMPREHENSIVE to make himself acquainted with the fact that we do not censor sourced information (even primary sourced information) just because it's "sensitive". Our imperative is to give as much as possible full and unbiased coverage to our readers of notable information.
    • To my knowledge, there is no need of having prior consensus to create an article: we invoke consensus to remove them at AfD.
    • WP:PRIMARY does not prohibit to use primary sources, as the leaks are, but requires secondary sources to give them context and interpretation. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." . Now, Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative seems to source to the primary source just the bare list, while all the context comes from secondary sources. It seems roughly fine to me. If anything, this is something that has to be discussed at the talk page as a content issue. But there is absolutely no problem with the existence of the article (notable by any standard) and with exposing the full list (remember, we're not censored, at all). --Cyclopiatalk 16:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
That was a wonderful summary. SilverserenC 20:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
And to update this section, Viriditas again resorts to unacceptable modes of putting their position forward, obviously completely ignoring any and all criticism that has been directed at them. Either that, or this user simply fails to possess the basic community skills required for partaking in a joint project such as this one. __meco (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Viriditas just tried to convince me that since we sometimes remove unimportant people's names for BLP concerns, we should censor all sensitive information, and still wikilawyers about primary sources without getting the gist of WP:PRIMARY. Weird. --Cyclopiatalk 12:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, WP:PSTS does state that our articles should be based on secondary and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. It is generally accepted that an article should not mainly be based on primary sources. Citing a primary source should be an exception, not the main content of an article. In general, we should also reflect the editorial judgment of our sources, rather than substituting our own judgment. --JN466 14:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, but the articles we're talking about -at least, the ones I've seen- are mainly based on secondary sources, and use the primary source only to document the bare, raw list. It's not different than a plot synopsis sourced to the book/movie itself. I strongly disagree about reflecting the editorial judgement: sources are what give us information, but it's up to us and only us, as a community, to decide what to do of their information. We are a free encyclopedia: if sources choose to be censored, this doesn't mean we choose it, too. WP:COMPREHENSIVE, again, is a good read to understand that this is common practice here. --Cyclopiatalk 16:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that Jayen466's idea about using the sources' "editorial judgment" is flawed:
  • Many, many sources chose to mention some specific items from the list within their own region. If they truly believed that "editorial judgment" required them to censor list items, why would they name some? And why wouldn't they at least name items in some other part of the country...?
  • The editorial judgment of a newspaper involves making articles a certain length, for a certain audience, and covering breaking news. We have more space available, a broader audience, and an encyclopedic focus. So how can we possibly base our editorial judgment on theirs?
  • Wikipedia has an educational mission. A newspaper's mission is to maximize its ad revenue by appealing to a broad audience while not offending corporate sponsors. That's why our NOTCENSORED policy trumps their "editorial judgment".
  • The purpose of appealing to sources in general and secondary sources in particular is to get reliable (or more correctly, verifiable) information. It is not to gather votes about what should be published. I base this on the admittedly controversial idea that the purpose of a journalist is to report the news, not to decide how to censor and skew the news. Wnt (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The idea of using a source to document what no other source would print should not be unfamiliar to us --- this is an encyclopedia, so we do that constantly. If a source contained no unique information, you wouldn't actually need to cite it. Wnt (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


Not commenting on the specifics of whether these articles should be on Wikipedia (I haven't looked at them in detail) but I just wanted to note that Wikinews does accept articles based on primary sources and to some extent original reporting. I'm sure more contributions to their Cablegate coverage would be welcome. the wub "?!" 13:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Answer: WP:NOT#NEWS. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Wikinews != Wikipedia. Wikinews is another Wikimedia project. (Or, to explain it at length, The Wub is wisely suggesting that anyone who wants to write articles based on material from WikiLeaks should take it somewhere else -- such as, but not limited to, Wikinews.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Are we still discussing the notability of the page, even after the links I gave in the above section? Fine, have some new ones, here, here, and here. Are we good now? SilverserenC 19:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I was looking to create a stable resource explaining the CFDI, which could be added to over time, rather than a one-time news report that would become locked and unable to integrate further information. Because of this general preference I have very little familiarity with Wikinews. Wnt (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
boxing as per Andy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The censorship brigade[edit]

Let us have no more of this Pentagon-inspired garbage about "lives put at risk", "threats to security", and the like. If WP succumbs to the same self-censorship as imposed on the media and internet sites by the current Chinese regime (and the US administration), we may as well close down today. The leaks were by American citizens, not WikiLeaks, and they are fair game for anyone in the world now. Many wikimedians are very supportive of WikiLeaks's actions, and I, for one, believe Mr Assange deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for his heroic efforts to damage the culture of secrecy that is used to keep a whole political class in power. Information originally released by WL should be subject to no different rules than any other information on WP. 03:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  • You can't stuff the genie back into the bottle. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Endangering American troops would be unforgivable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I think it's already been extensively discussed (by the media even) that there has been no proof that any troops have been endangered by any of the leaks from Wikileaks. In terms of the Afghanistan and Iraq War documents leak, the Pentagon released a statement that they were wrong in their earlier assessment and that none of the documents represented any real danger to our troops. SilverserenC 04:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with Wikipedia content. Put a cork in it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Abusive edit on Jordan and related articles[edit]

There is a person (at least I believe it to be a single person) editing from multiple Jordan Data Communications IPs abusively adding anti-Israel edits (in the latest iteration, a large photo of a pre-Israel British Palestine passport) to Jordan and related articles. I'd like some thoughts about whether Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), at least, should be semi-protected. (I actually don't think the activity level warrants it yet, but I'd like to hear some other thoughts.) --Nlu (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

On further examination, appears to be the same person as Arabmuslim (talk · contribs) and Arabmuslim12 (talk · contribs). I've blocked Arabmuslim12 indefinitely. --Nlu (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There looks like you get some vandalism on that page, good job keeping up on it. What is the point of the passport photo? I remember discussion about things like this a long time ago, but no sure what point their trying to prove. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I must say I don't understand it; my guess is that the person was asserting the passport showed that Palestine was a part of Britain which the UN had no power to partition — or something like that. Whether the point is legitimate or not (and I must say I don't understand the supposed logic), the posting of that large of a graphics file is clearly abusive. --Nlu (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I was just wondering, if its a valid point they want to raise or present if there was a way to peacefully add it. However, if s/he has not made it apparent what it is they are trying to do, then I agree, it would be disruptive. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Viriditas in Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak[edit]

User:Viriditas has been engaging is a wide variety of disruptive editing in Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak. He has breached WP:CIVIL, WP:PA, WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR. Dispite numerous attempts to reason with him, he remains totally unreasonable and belligerent.

Viriditas is frequently engaged in uncivil behaviour towards User:Meco, in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:PA. Diffs: First Second

Viriditas has continually sought to collapse an entire section in Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak, in violation of WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR, where a discussion was taking place regarding the appropriateness of the use of primary sources (diplomatic cables sourced directly from WikiLeaks) vs the use of secondary sources (such as media reporting on leaked diplomatic cables). While part of that section should rightly be collapsed (because it is a petty off-topic tangent), Viriditas has rejected my attempts to limit the collapse to off-topic content and insists on collapsing the entire discussion. Diffs: Third Four Five Six Seven

It appears that numerous other editors are concerned about the recent disruptive behaviour of User:Viriditas, see here.

It must be noted that I cannot notify User:Viriditas in his user talk page because he has locked that page, which effectively blocks all comments (including warnings and notifications).

I am new to Wikipaedia so please excuse any mistakes in this AN/I post. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 13:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Viriditas didn't protect his talk page; the protection was placed by User:Bwilkins. It's only semiprotection, not full protection; anyone can talk with that user on his talk page except for anonymous and brand new users. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I had mistakenly assumed it was locked because I received the message "This page has been locked to prevent editing." when I tried to issue a warning to him and when I tried to notify him about this AN/I. I am a new user. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 13:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
My attempt to notify User:Viriditas about this AN/I has been deleted by Viriditas. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 14:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Enough with the ridiculous trolling. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive654#User: The new account "Uncensored Kiwi" cannot contact me on my user talk page because he was responsible for me having to request page protection when he edited as (talk · contribs). This is beyond silly. This user is a troll by every sense of the definition. Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see the problem with User:Viriditas's edits at Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak. I see a pretty spirited content dispute, but the subject is pretty fresh in the news- give it six months, and I'm sure a reasonable consensus will emerge. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Spirited discussion is one thing, collapsing relevant discussion about reliable sources, in violation of WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR, is another. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 14:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want to talk about the reliable source guideline or a problem with interpreting the guideline, the place to go is WP:RS/N. Viriditas (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
But there really was no need to repeatedly archive that section. The dispute is about using a primary source (Wikileaks' copy of the cables) on that article, so it is an on-topic discussion. Please stop trying to archive it, and we'll not have a problem. Fences&Windows 14:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
There was a need at the time, as the user was solely focused on off-topic personal attacks. I've unarchived it. The particular dispute is not really focused on using a copy of the cables (we aren't using them in that article) but how to understand and interpret the primary source guideline in relation to that problem. The scope exceeds the article talk page, and WP:RS/N is full of past discussion on the topic.[29] I'm not seeing a need to recreate the wheel here. Viriditas (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I haven't followed the entire exchange, but I caught some of it and I thought User:Viriditas was the voice of reason.--SPhilbrickT 18:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, you know what they say about a little knowledge, lol. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 22:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I've been involved in the larger Wikileaks debate, but this looks like a bizarre and unimportant sideshow. I just want to point out that without any evidence that Kiwi is anyone else, we should discount the idea. This is a highly political issue in the U.S. and we'll have new users with strong opinions joining every day - they're not all the same person. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, there are boatloads of evidence demonstrating that Kiwi is, and nobody is questioning this fact except for you. One curious thing about it, however, is that he seems to be very friendly with User:Meco, as if they know each other. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, searching Wikipedia for " checkuser" I didn't find anything. If you have a boatload of evidence, by all means, unload some. Now as for friendliness, in case you haven't been reading the papers, we've officially entered the world's first information war, and that makes us all Comrades (LOL). Wnt (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Will no one rid us of this turbulent sniping?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Odd how the OP says he is a new user (twice here, so far), for all of two days, and is already coming to ANI with diffs and the demeanor of an experienced editor. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
For those who are interested, I was an anonymous WP editor for a short period. I even got into trouble while I was an anonymous user because I spammed warning templates to Viriditas when he deleted all my posts. I registered a username when I realised that my stay in Wikipaedia would be more than transient (I blame WikiLeaks - no one else was doing updates for cables about New Zealand).
PrBeacon, as for my knowing how to do an ANI, all I had to do was search "WP:ANI" (I see editors threatened with an "ANI" all the time in the talk pages - Viriditas himself is constantly telling people to "take it to ANI"). The, I just had to follow the instructions, observe how other editors did ANIs on this page and not be completely stupid, and here I am. The only tricky bit was figuring out what a diff was (solved by searching "WP:DIFF" - see how easy that was?). It seems that anyone can quickly find out anything about Wikipaedia just by doing a search or tying in WP:anything. I'm not sure what you mean by my "demeanor". Are you referring to my choice not to trash-talk back at Viriditas? PrBeacon, am I now to apologise for not being an ill-mannered retard?
As for User:Meco and I being friends, I first encountered that user a few days ago. I like him, if for no other reason than because we appear to share interests and views vis-a-vis WikiLeaks. I have made a couple of posts to his user talk page, about this ANI, because it is readily apparent on the Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak page that he was experiencing the same difficulties with Viriditas that I was (but Viriditas is considerably more hostile towards him). Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 07:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is my first post in this section. I notice that Viriditas is again (see User talk:Cyclopia#We do censor information and we show self-restraint every day) directing personal attacks and innuendos at me asserting I'm part of a conspiracy with Uncensored Kiwi. Now I have already presented concrete evidence in another discussion on this page, WP:ANI#On Viriditas and this article that none of the accidental admins who actually keep abreast of what's being reported on this page seems to have taken any notice of. __meco (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Dear new editors and editors interested in Wikileaks. Glad to see you, hope you stay. We have a big encyclopedia and needs lots of help. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is more civil than {drop in your favorite internet chat forum}. Please be collegial to the other volunteers. Disagreements are expected, as is robust intellectual discussion. Please do try to assume good faith of the regulars if they get a little preachy about policy, and also try to give the newcomers some slack when they make mistakes or fail to understand how things work. Now, this thread should end, and you should all continue editing. Jehochman Talk 12:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Jehochman speaks wisdom, people. A little bit of sniping in the past; the past is the past, nothing further to do here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

could someone review this?[edit]

Resolved: Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please review my block of User talk:Zxoxm? It may be mistaken, or not, I need to sleep and since they've appealed the block, don't want to leave them hanging if I was wrong. Any admin can unblock as they please without asking me. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the unblock request and I am not sure that the behavioral evidence is sufficient for a sock block. Both users are pushing the same fringe POV about water fluoridation, but not in an identical manner. I don't know how widespread these fringe beliefs are. On the other hand, leaving Zxoxm blocked simply on account of the questionable merits of his edits (e.g. [30], [31]) would not be a great loss to Wikipedia.  Sandstein  21:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Zxoxm is an unambiguous sock. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've revoked his talk page access. Creating more socks and then claiming they're not his; he's not fooling any of us. –MuZemike 23:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There is also rouxsd (talk · contribs), who just submitted a false positive report on Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports. I would just respond with a long explanation about why we avoid POV edits, but I looked at the edit history of the article and saw this. I am assuming it's the same person, but would like to post the link here before doing anything. Soap 02:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
There are lots of folks with this particular WP:FRINGE belief; I'd say AGF applies as to suspicions of sockpuppetry. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed there are. The belief is so widespread and strongly held that it could lead to nuclear war. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
No, it's the fact that we are allowing communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the International communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!MuZemike 17:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here; this is the War Room! HalfShadow 18:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. ANI. The socks haven't been blocked for their PoV. One wonders if the user even believes what he claims. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User Allahlovesyou[edit]

Resolved: Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User Allahlovesyou has been deliberately distorting article in bad faith against all other sects. User breached the 3RR rule here[32] with more than 8 edits a day on the same article and accused other editors of falsifying information on Wikipedia. User also identifies other editors as per their belief here [33] and seems to be intolerant by his actions. User warned here [34]. - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

8 edits in a row is not a violation of 3RR if they are consecutive (i.e., the cumulative effect is one edit). This section is redundant to the above section. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not distorting any article, and I didn't violate 3rr for Humaliwaly to put a warning on my talke page. Here is my defense:

  • I have corrected the section on the "Five pillars" in the Islam article by putting "The Five Pillars of Islam are 5 simple rules or 5 obligations that every Muslim (Sunni and Shia) must satisfy.", which is backed by the Central Intelligence Agency, Encyclopedia Britannica, PBS, Washington State University, University of Calgary, BBC, and many many other academic sources.[35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40].
  • User:Aliwiki (who is promoting Shia Islam) opposed this edit and completely removed these sources. [41] [42]
  • Now User:Humaliwalay (who is also promoting Shia Islam) came and began doing the same things what User:Aliwiki was doing, removing well accepted academic sources and replacing it with a (a website to promote Shia Islam) [43]. The current verion is not very clear on Islam#Five Pillars. The Behaviour of Humaliwalay is very aggressive, he/she has no respect for edits made by other knowledgable and neutral editors. I think Humaliway has a personal problem with me because he/she has filled my talk page with strange messages, and now he/she wants to start an edit-war hoping to get me blocked. However, I'm not stupid to fall for this, I will wait until someone who fully understands the situation. In the meantime, can someone please follow Humaliwalay's edits and try to warn him/her to stop behaving this way.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


Individual using this IP has a history of inserting false information into entertainment related articles. See User:Adambro/ent v. I blocked them on November 4 and since that expired they have been active again no doubt inserting more false information. Adambro (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked them again, for longer this time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Danny Way[edit]

An IP has vandalized the article by adding scurrilous claims regarding a nonnotable private person. I've just removed the text from the article, but it should be removed from the history as well. The person is real and is or was recently a high school student. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done see also CAT:RFRD. Rd232 talk 18:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Platonov[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please take edit disputes about living persons to WP:BLPN. No admin intervention required. --TS 20:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

An editor is removing sourced text from the above article as being ' Family problems irrelevant in this article'. The 'family problem' led to an arrest for attempted murder and a resignation from a university. Is the SPA editor User:Amartin1910 right to do this or am I right to restore the material? I have requested the editor to discuss the matter on the article talk page, with no result. User:RadioFan reverted a similar edit from an IP. I have no personal interest in this matter - I just saw section blanking and removal of sourced material. Peridon (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

My quick look determines that none of the statements are sourced. The only reference provided seems to be to support the claim of early retirement which is not in the source provided. The source provided is a statement from the University of Waterloo that they are looking into the matter. It does claim a conviction and charges for serious crimes but a better source should be required for contentious statements like this in a BLP. These claims should be removed and should not be added back until better sourcing is provided. And care should be taken to keep strictly to the sources. WTucker (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The reference provided is a press release from his employer (a public university) and specifically addresses an assault conviction. This seems to be a sufficient source as it provides specifics on the charges in question. The claim of being charged with attempted murder should be removed as the only available reference doesn't support it (only the assault conviction).--RadioFan (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The attempted murder change was mentioned in an earlier reference, and a later one, both from the same source. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The section has been restored with these additional references. No indication that removal of this material was based on WP:BLP concerns, only WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'll place an additional (final) warning on the editor's page. This is technically a WP:SPA but its pretty clear this editor is new and is very unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. If it happens again, this editor should be blocked however.--RadioFan (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
What an amazing amount of license you took. From where are the following facts that you restored sourced? Was an arrest performed? Who performed the arrest? How do you know the wife's name? How do you know the attack was in the home? How do you know they were divorced? How do you know the date of the plea? How do you know there was a plea? How do you know it was a lesser charge? How do you know it was aggravated assault and not just assault? How do you know the name of the judge? How do you know about the conditional sentence and that it was house arrest with specific details? How do you know the sentence was amended and how do you know he took early retirement? Is this restoration truely in keeping with WP:BLP? WTucker (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Continued editing of this section is of course welcomed. What is not welcomed is complete removal (which is what is being discussed here). Your edits apper to be very good ones, thanks for doing that. If there are additional discussions about the content, I'd suggest it be taken to the article's talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
From WP:BLP: "...contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." WTucker (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I did ask the removing editor to go to the talk page, and notified them of this discussion. There doesn't seem to be any result from this. I'm quite happy with the new version - thanks for sorting things out. Peridon (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WTucker, please dont misunderstand. I dont have a problem with your edits, they are great. The problem was with the original editor removing the section entirely, including the well sourced parts. The issue was brought here because of SPA concerns. We all seem to be in agreement that the latest version is quite acceptible and the original editor has chosen not to weigh in on this, I think this issue can be closed. Any objections?--RadioFan (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No objections. I just saw WP:BLP being ignored to keep unsourced contentious material in the article. It was and is contentious material about a living person which was unsourced or poorly sourced. It should have been removed on first sight and not returned to the article until properly sourced. All's well that ends well but the path taken was problematic. WTucker (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
In which case there would have been less confusion if those deleting the text had used different wording for their edit summaries. None of them gave any suggestion that it was the sources which were the point of contention, nor (as pointed out above) did they explain their concerns on the article's talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
You are right about the confusion from the edit summaries; but WP:BLP doesn't require proper edit summaries nor discussion. WTucker (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a content dispute that should be resolved on the talk page and, if necessary, by content RFC. No admin intervention is needed. --TS 20:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the Central Intelligence Agency, Encyclopedia Britannica, PBS, Washington State University, University of Calgary, BBC, and many other academic sources, Islam is based on "Five pillars" (1. shahadah, 2. Salah, 3. Sawm, 4. Zakat, 5. Hajj) [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. User:علی ویکی began an edit-war with me [50], by removing all the sources I've added. User:علی ویکی is making up his own pillars for Islam by using this Shia website, which are not mentioned by any of the above major sources. User:علی ویکی refuses to discuss [51] but rather accuses me of trying to own articles. Can someone please help resolve this matter, I don't want to get into an edit-war.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

First off, the editor you named has NOT refused to discuss this with you, they simply have not replied to your comment. In my book, that does not count as non-discussion. Secondly, I placed an ANI notice on the talk page of the editor as required. Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
After looking at the source he used, I've changed it back. That source seems to agree on the five pillars but it includes additional acts with a different status in Sunni/Shia theology that don't rise to the level of pillars. Sol (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What User Aliwiki has done is just inclusion of 5 Pillars of Islam as per Shiite Beliefs [which was in the article earlier as well, deleted by User Allahlovesyou], Aliwiki did not remove the Sunni faith's 5 pillars of Islam but reinstated the deleted portion. Rather I can see User Allahlovesyou removing entire Shia section here [52] which is the result of this Edit conflict commencement. No one disagrees with sources cited by User Allahlovesyou, nevertheless the act of deleting big portion of an article without any reasoning reflects biased approach. Thanks - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the source Aliwiki had provided which seemed to include the same five pillars of faith. The additional acts he'd included are good info but don't look like they are pillars. I could be reading this incorrectly. Sol (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone here. First of all, I answered user Allahloves you on his talk page [53]. Second I'd like to note this user has an animosity against Shia Islam and if one has a fast look to his talk page [54] and his contribution [55] can easily recognize this undeniable fact. Third point, about especial case of Islam article; about reliability of the source I used see here, also edit of user Allahlovesyou is obvious ownership and s/he wants to confine Islamic articles to Sunni Islam and some minutes after undoing my edit, a third user here undid his edit. As a summary, User Allahloves you must stop ownership of Ismc articles, and let the Islamic pages reflect both Shia/Sunni ideas and if s/he sees somewhere lack some sources, instead of deletion due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, s/he must use the tag CN and in some hours I or other Shia users will provide reliable source for it.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Islam article includes both Sunnis and Shias. According to all the sources, Islam (Sunnis/Shias) follow 5 pillars. If there are some Muslims who follow additional acts then that should come in the end, not in the front. I'm not against Shias, I'm against editors who are trying to twist information in Wikipedia. The way User:Aliwiki presented it in Islam article obviously confuses readers. I've been following some Shia editors who have been falsifying information to mislead Wikipedia readers.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
With articles such as Islam and Christianity, (and a host of other religious and ideological articles), irreconcilable religious in-fighting is all but inevitable. In such cases, perhaps such pages should be disambiguation pages from which the different sects (etc) can be reached. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 14:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
If all users respect others ideas and don't feel ownership of a religion to their sect, there won't be any edit war. Edits wars start when someone tries to impose his/her idea to others.
User Allahlovesyou. Keep you animisity against Shia in your heart, and don't affect wikipedia articles by your idea. What you don't like is not false information. myse ntences are clear, informative, and correct; Even if you believe they are confusing and unclear (which is right of any user), you must put a tag, not to delete the whole information. You must change your behaviour to be able to continue contributing in Wikipedia. Deletion with excuses such as majority in population is strongly rejected according to Wikipedia policies.--Aliwiki (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User Allahlovesyou is completely biased and is known for personal and racial attacks. Earlier also he used such wordings and was also warned by another editor here[56]. He took back his words later nevertheless User's actions at present reflect the same bias. User above has clearly accused all Shias of putting misleading information on Wikipedia as if he is the only one who is an excellent editor. Look here[57] a complete distortion or to some extent can be called vandalism he did, despite of warning he removed Shiite 5 pillars and put it as additional acts with References Tag on it despite being the fact that section was having a citation and was not forcing its views on all Muslims it was confined to Shias only. One thing has to noted this major action was not notified on talk page irrespective of the fact that it was getting discussed here.

User Allahlovesyou says that he keeps an eye on all Shia editors and prevents them from incorporating misleading information on Wikipedia. May I know who are those Shia misleading editors and how he came to know about their identity. rather the user himself can be seen as anti Shia by actions. - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Afd Troll[edit]

Article 1 : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (2nd nomination)) Article 2 : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (2nd nomination)

Note the extra bracket. Forgotpasswordsht (talk · contribs) is nom. User page says he's a sockpuppet. Seems to be only disruptive to me. Outback the koala (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've speedy kept the debated. His first edit (other than to his userpage) was to nominate the articles for deletion. Seems to be rather suspicious. Stickee (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. A good Wikipedian with no reason to hide who loses their password doesn't start a new account that says "Oh shit I forgot my password" and then dare people on their user page to find their old account name, the good Wiki-citizen creates a new account name similar to their old account name so that everyone knows who they are, and then accounces the old identity on their user page. The dynamic is all wrong here, and a block is in order for disruptive bad faith AfD nominations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Block for trolling. (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note that I've reported the user to UAA since the username contains profanity. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 Confirmed that Forgotpasswordsht (talk · contribs) is the same as WikiCopter (talk · contribs). TNXMan 16:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I've {{usernameblock}}ed the for the clearly implied word "shit" in their username. If they continue to edit disruptively under yet another username, this can be escalated. -- The Anome (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
One would have to wonder how, if they really lost their password, WikiCopter (talk · contribs) is still editing as of yesterday. Corvus cornixtalk 21:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I've asked them for an explanation, noting that good-hand-bad-hand accounts are forbidden.— dαlus+ Contribs 08:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikicopter has a template on his userpage claiming to be an alternate account of AirplanePro (talk · contribs). I wonder if this is true? AirplanePro seems to be a really productive editor, although hasn't edited since August. - Burpelson AFB 18:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was a matter of the person changing usernames. From Wikicopter's RFA[58] I got the impression of a maturity problem that will hopefully go away with more experience. This Forgotpasswordsht was inappropriate and annoying, but pretty small potatoes on the scale of things in terms of malevolence and disruption. (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: SPI case has been dealt with. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have discovered a sockmaster with atleast five user accounts and a dynamic IP who is has been actively editing for the past twenty days or so. It started as normal reverting of a new user and after some digging i have found he has been editing with many accounts and IPs. The oldest account goes back to 2006. I opened an SPI, but there is a backlog there and he is editing regularly daily. Also the evidence is very clear that its socking. Can someone take a look and ban the socks and the dynamic IP range

The accounts involved are User:O0I1E3S5, User:Qarub, User:Katheeja, User:Prakashbabu77, and User:Shinas and several dynamic IPs from range is

1) User:O0I1E3S5 is IP (IP started argument that gbooks shouldnt be used as sources [59]) and continued to do after logging in as O0I1E3S5) He created this account for the purpose of edit war. At the end of the day logged out, copied all the discussion in his talk page to mine as the IP)

2) User:Qarub is IP - IP starts edit war in Rajkiran that birthname is to be used [60], couple of days later Qarub comes along and does the same. IP removes description of the image of tomb of Mahmud of Ghazni from Somnath article. Few days later Qarub removes the same image file from Mahmud of Ghazni article and Ghazni article

3) User:Katheeja is User:Qarub - Katheeja uploads a file on 6.05 10 Dec and Qarub uses barely 2 hours later. Katheeja has not used the file anywhere

4) User:Prakashbabu77 is User:Katheeja Katheeja uploads a file on 6.05 10 Dec and Prakashbabu77 uses it 4 minutes later [61]. This account was created to edit Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham article. Katheeja has not used the file anywhere

5) User:Shinas is User:Katheeja. Shinas uploads a file on 16.01 4 Dec and Katheeja adds it to an article 18 minutes later. Shinas has not used the file in any article (Both accounts are old and have become active in November 20010 after long periods of inactivity). They also both uploaded the same image with the same description twice within 30 min of each other

6) User:Shinas edits logged out from range as shown by this diff (IP blanks the criticism section and Shinas starts editing the article four minutes later)

7) All the above users have the habit of using a single "fx" as edit summary without explanation for large content changes

8) Similarity in User pages. The new accounts created in the past week (Qarub, Prakashbabu77 and O0I1E3S5) create their userpages and talkpages as their first edits to make them blue links.

There is a sockmaster operating from the IP range The IP range is from Chennai and belongs to the state isp BSNL which provides dynamic IP's contributions from both IP ranges are overwhelmingly about the same subjects (Islam in India, Islam in Tamil Nadu) [62]. Contributions begin in the middle of Nov 2010. I haven't been able to identify the original sockmaster for sure. But these five accounts are sure his sockpuppets. As this IP range is usually quiet, there is a high chance that most of the new accounts created from it since Nov 20 are sockpuppets of this master. --Sodabottle (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You might just want to wait for the SPI to give conclusive results. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This is why I dislike SPI. It's bureaucratic and slow. Jehochman Talk 12:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll take care of it, give me a minute. Nevermind, I misunderstood Sodabottle's note. - Burpelson AFB 17:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the case and did a bunch of work for it. SPI case is here if you're curious. And if there are other things to address, please list them over there so we have a full record of this editor's history. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For convenience, the SPI is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shinas Ugh... I'm having one of those days. SPI is already linked above. - Burpelson AFB 20:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added material to the SPI, if anyone would like to take a look. TNXMan 20:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Anyway, I've marked the SPI case closed for now, and I've marked this resolved as well. If that was premature then let me know and I'll undo it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


SweetBabyGirl06 has been engaged in disruptive editing concerning articles of actors and musicians, especially the former. What this person likes to do is add personal information about given individuals usually without supplying verification or sources of any type, so the information has significant evidence against it being true. Edits like these are somewhat typical of his or her editing style and the information displayed within. This month, this person has been especially interested in the articles of Jackson Rathbone and Nikki Reed. Also, I reported this person for sockpuppeting; you can see it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SweetBabyGirl06/Archive. There is more evidence on the other side of that link. SweetBabyGirl06 and have noticeable similarities, as some articles have been edited by both accounts in close proximity of each other. This can be noticed in the history log of Ernie Reyes, Jr. for November 6-7, 2010, the history log of Nikki Reed for December 12, 2010, and the history log of Jorge Pallo for September 1, 2010. The sockpuppet case was unsuccesful, because of some reservations User:HelloAnnyong had about the case. Even after both user talk pages had been reminded to log in before editing wikipedia by HelloAnnyong, though, both names continued being used for editing. On December 12, 2010, was blocked for three months due to abusing editing privileges. See User talk: 2010. At one point, SweetBabyGirl06 heavily edited the Michael Raymond-James article (log history), and a person identified himself as Michael Raymond James denied the information posted by SweetBabyGirl06. As of this post, the most recent edit from SweetBabyGirl06 has been this edit done less than an hour beforehand. This person has been adding unverifiable and false information to multiple articles, even after being repeatedly told not to do so; the person has not discussed his or her own changes. SweetBabyGirl06 is a single-purpose account which has received several warnings and will very likely keep up these unencyclopedic practices if a procedure does not take effect to stop this. Thanks. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As you said, (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is currently blocked for three months for continuing to edit that way. That will essentially force SweetBabyGirl06 to log in. As to their actual edits: I think they're violating BLP left and right, but until recently there haven't really been any warnings. Someone issued a level 2, and I just issued a level 3. Maybe I'm being overly cautious here, but I think being diligent about warnings is the way to go. Level 4 is next, and if they continue, they can be blocked. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thank you for the assistance in this situation. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 04:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate discretionary sanction at AE?