Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:50, 23 August 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Deletion of edit history required

Namely at the article on the German actor Walter Sedlmayr. He had been murdered back in 1990, and the two perpetrators, that were sentenced in 1993, have been released by now on probation. THEY EVOKED A COURT DECISION THAT THEIR NAMES ARE NOT TO BE MENTIONED in the coverage of the murder. (see: , found linked at , both in German) I still found an German Nwepsaper article that gives their first names , so I only removed their last names. We probably need to see if some further edits are required, but the previous two revisions that give their full names need to be deleted, definitely. Zara1709 (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That raises an interesting legal question, i.e. can a German court order Misplaced Pages to remove information? I suggest no one other than Mike Godwin etc. try to answer that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it can does not really matter. No German court has ordered Misplaced Pages to do anything. The Regional Court decision that Sara cites was apparently issued against a German newspaper and has no binding force with respect to anyone else. It might conceivably set a precedent if the issue were to be raised in another German court or against someone else. But even that is not too likely, since the decision was issued by a Landgericht, a regional court of first instance. Decisions of lower courts are not generally precedential. Ringelblume (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find too much in the way of public sources that reveal the perps' last names; as such, I've deleted the history of the article as a purely precautionary measure while we sort this out. east718 // talk // email // 22:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever tactic we do, it is going to be similar in nature of what we did with the article on the German hacker "Tron." User:Zscout370 22:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully request the undeletion of the deleted revisions. There is no legal or policy reason to omit these names. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and particularly not for the benefit of criminals. The full real names of the perpetrators remain available in numerous German online sources; see this Google search. Two reliable German mainstream media articles were cited for these names in the now-deleted version of the article, so WP:BLP is not an issue. Also, even if a German court has decided that the perpetrators have a right not to be named under German law, that verdict does not bind Misplaced Pages, whose operations are covered by US law. Ringelblume (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a policy reason. These are living individuals of marginal to zero notability. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: the last names aren't banned as far as we know; and we have not received orders to remove them. So what's the debate about? Calvin 1998  00:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:V? Corvus cornix_talk 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability concerns the suitability of a topic for an article of its own, not the content of articles. But the two perpetrators would probably be notable for an article of their own, due to the substantial publicity given to their trial and now to their efforts to have their names removed from online archives. Ringelblume (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a moral question rather than a legal one. If someone who was convicted wrongly of a murder, served a decade of their life in prison, and then were released and now wants no press or reminder of what happened - should we still include their names if they just want to get it over with? I'm not taking a position. --mboverload@ 00:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

First, the article does not assert that the two were wrongly convicted. While that may be the case, the article does not argue this, and considering the sources are in German, I am unable to verify such a claim. Second, by making a decision to omit who the convicted murderers were, we are effectively, as you said, making a moral decision. This is quite dangerous, and begins to stray from adherence to NPOV and verifiability. When reading the WP:NPOV page, the first three bulleted points are: Verifiability, NPOV, and No Original Research. If the source is verifiable, if it is relevant, and if it is notable, I posit that we are bound to cover the fact in the interest of an unbiased encyclopedia. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Lazulilasher. Well put. --mboverload@ 02:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that de:Walter Sedlmayr (from which our article was translated) specifically excludes the names, and has for several months. One source linked in the deleted revision identifies them by first name and last initial only; the other does not appear to include their names at all. The Google search provided by Ringelblume does not appear to find the names in high results, except on Misplaced Pages and its mirrors. Obviously I cannot perform an exhaustive search of German media, but currently these last names do not appear to be reliably sourced. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm...That is worth noting. I checked as well and, aside from mirrors, the sources didn't seem to have last names. There are other hits, however my German is at a lower level, thus I cannot determine. However, if there is not a reliable source I would imagine we should keep it removed until if/when a reliable source is found. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

At the time of my translation of the article, the two cited online versions of the articles did contain the full names of the perpetrators. They seem to have been removed by now, presumably in response to legal action in Germany. But the names remain verifiable, because the names cannot be removed from the print versions of the two newspaper articles that are cited. As citations to these print versions, the references fulfil the requirements of WP:V and WP:BLP. Ringelblume (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah! The malleable nature of online sourcing, eh? Discussion below seems to adequately address the question of sourcing. Thanks for the clarification. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I remain puzzled why we should be willing to censor this encyclopedia for the sake of the privacy of two verifiably convicted murderers, which we have no legal or moral obligation to do, and which is at odds with our practice in all other articles that concern notable crimes. Ringelblume (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking only as an editor and as already noted above, the content easily meets WP:RS and WP:BLP. I would tend not to see any reason to omit these names unless word came that the foundation said it had to be done. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be cultural difference between Germany and the English-speaking world, in a way. Being accustomed to how the press handles things here in Germany, I feel myself intuitievely agreeing that we don't really need those names – they are, essentially, non-notable people. But then, I'll acknowledge standards here are different. About the legal issue of whether the German court rulings have any effect on us, I can't say (my guess would be probably not). But the initial issue brought up here, that we ought to not only remove the names from the text but also purge the article history, seems like an over-reaction to me. I mean, it's not as if those names are actually secret or anything. The old newspaper reports from the time of the trial, where they were published quite legally, remain in existence; anybody can go to a library to look them up, just like anybody can click on our edit history. The intention of the ruling is just that they shouldn't be unnecessarily trumpeted out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We're not subject to German law, and invoking some moral concern is a serious violation NPOV when we have the names in reliable sources. If not for the German court order we wouldn't even thinking about this issue; the standard is to give the names of relevant individuals. There's no BLP concern since the matter is reported in multiple reliable sources. We should both undelete the revisions and put the last names back in. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, I agree 100%--see my arguments above. However, the question has now become: can we reliably source the convicted men's last name? I looked in the sources provided and in the Google Search. The last names are only in Misplaced Pages mirrors as far as I can tell (sources are in German and my German is not great). Lazulilasher (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My German isn't very good either but from all descriptions people agree that the paper versions contain the names. That meets RS/V. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to the deleted sources, however if they are reliable and do cite the full name, then I agree with you. As a note, this news page seems to use the names: . It appears reliable, but I am unable to tell. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If I had known that some people would object here, I would have discussed it on the talk page of the article first. But I personally considered the situation as simple. Two people, that had been convicted for murder, are now released on parole and to move back into a normal live, the don't want their names mentioned in relation to the murder, what they made clear by obtaining a court decision. There is a legal side to this, but I could say anything on it with a significant degree of accuracy. When I first stumbled across the court decision, my first reaction was to add something about it at Misplaced Pages:Notability (criminal acts). Because the issue we have here is precisely that of notability (criminals). The two murderers are not notable for anything else than the murder; they are, as far as I see it, also not notable enough on WP for the murder. (Exactly when this is the case would be the issue that the guideline should solve.) Now, since they are not notable, respect for their privacy would demand that their full names are left out. Since they went to court with this, the perpetrators have made clear that they would like to keep their privacy. Since Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, and not a forum for public shaming, their full names should be removed (and consequently also be removed from the edit history). Further discussion on the notability of criminals would probably be useful, but we could also do this at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (criminal acts). Zara1709 (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Simply put, an NPOV article about an individual would name who killed the individual. There's no way to get around that. You can make an argument that they are not notable enough for articles of their own and this is true. But that's not the issue here. This is easily obtainable, reliably sourced info. So it goes in. Frankly, to do anything else is to let our own personal POV about effect things just as much as if we took out pictures of Muhammad. We don't censor. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

These two convicted murderers don't want their names published? I expect that ALMOST NO convicted murderers want their names published! If their names were published in printed newspapers, then WP:V is certainly satisfied. If a murder is notable enough for an article in Misplaced Pages, then the names of those convicted for it are certainly to be included in the article, unless a court with competent jurisdiction has ordered the English Misplaced Pages to remove the names. Determining that is a job for Mike Godwin and no one else. Edison (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Zara, I understand your concern. However, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, hence we do not make value judgments. By definition, our articles concern notable subjects, are written with verifiable information, and utlize reliable sources. It is not our charge to make judgements on the content, merely to succinctly compile the facts. In the absence of a consensus to do so, removing the names of those convicted for the murders would effectively mean Misplaced Pages making a value judgement, which is an action an encylopedia cannot do. If a legal question is raised, there exists a foundation team to handle that query. Lazulilasher (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG, guys, even if they are criminals they still got rights. Regardless of whether they were convicted rightly or wrongly for murder (it was a difficult case), they have now been released from prison and are legally free men, except for the point that the are required to regularly check back with the police and if they commit another crime they could be back in their life-long sentence. They are faced with the same common challenges as we, like renting a flat, whith is already difficult enough for them since they were present with full name and picture in the tabloids, but shouldn't be made harder with their names linked to that murder in any Google search. By the current legal/moral/cultural standards of (western) civilization, criminals, too, have a right of privacy, and this right is included definitely in wp:blp: Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. The only thing you'd have to do is to weight the persons right of privacy against the publics right to be informed, which has already been done by a German court. This is not an issue of NPOV, this is not an issue of Verifiability, and this is not an issue a value judgement, unless you want to call the standpoint that criminals have rights, too, a value judgement. Zara1709 (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Court sentences are public. Nobody can ban a piece of public justice. NVO (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have a clear consensus that WP:NPOV requires that the article about Walter Sedlmayr include the names of Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber, who were convicted of murdering Sedlmayr. I have therefore reintroduced the names into the article, and have added this additional source – a regional newspaper who does not yet appear to have gotten around to removing the full names from its online archives. I ask Zara to abide by that consensus.

In reply to Zara, I am aware of the reasons why a German court (a lower court only, it must be said) has ordered the names to be removed from online archives. They are reasons peculiar to German law, though, and are not compatible with the guiding principles of this international project, which is to produce a neutral, uncensored encyclopedia. The English Misplaced Pages in particular is inspired by Anglo-American notions of freedom of speech, for which I am thankful, and which mean we do not yield easily with attempts at censorship on the part of the German authorities.

As a matter of law and morals, I certainly agree that convicted criminals have rights, including a right to privacy, but I strongly disagree with the German court's appreciation of the interests at issue. The court has held that the convicted murderers' right to privacy outweighs the right of the public to information, and the right of individuals to disseminate that information. These two men who are now free on probation were convicted of brutally murdering Sedlmayr, their close business associate, for profit. I, for one, think that any future business associates of theirs should have the chance to look up what happened to their previous business associate before deciding whether or not to enter into a business relationship with them. The interests of the public to be informed clearly outweigh the two men's right to privacy. That would be my opinion even if I were to agree with the notion – which I do not – that in a free society a court should be able to order, Stalin-like, the entire archives of newspapers to be censored for any reason.

Finally, it should be noted that the names as such are common in Germany. If searched for individually, they yield hundreds of Google hits about unrelated men, and nothing about the Sedlmayr murder. Only if the two names are searched together or in conjunction with "Sedlymayr" do we get any search results about the murder. This should limit any exposure to their past that the two men may face in their life on probation. Ringelblume (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't have a clear consensus here. We neither have a NPOV issue, since there aren't divergent POVs here on the question whether those two persons have full names. Furthermore, thanks to your mentioning of their full names on this talk page here in the unlikely but possible case that a German court would enforce that their names are to be removed from the English WP, too, ALL INTERMEDIATE REVISIONS OF THIS TALK PAGE WOULD HAVE TO BE DELETED. This is not about a Stalin-type editing of archives. The newspaper archives in Germany are to be left unchanged, as the court specifically pointed out, but WP is an online encyclopaedia and instantly accessible from Germany. You are also confusing Misplaced Pages:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored with wp:tabloid. Their full names are not of any relevance for an encyclopaedia, but those persons have a right of privacy, too. That two people who were convicted to have murdered their business associate are to be listed on WP to give their possible future business associates the option to check their criminal conviction is you personal sense of justice. There is no consensus on this here. Zara1709 (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Censorship is censorship. We have reliably sourced information and you are removing it because of a POV, the POV that criminals have a right to privacy after having been released (it is a POV I strongly agree with but it is a POV). No one calls it censorship when they are in favor of it. Moreover, your use of all-caps is uncivil and unproductive (and incidentally it is highly unlikely that a German court would ever make such a ruling about the English Misplaced Pages and moreover we don't need to worry about unlikely legal issues. That's the job of the Foundation). And Ringelblume's comment makes perfect sense; this encyclopedia exists to serve the public if you forgot so if we are going to take into account peoples desires then the the interest of the public to know is just the same. We have no policy of removing the names of criminals when they have committed notable acts, and there is no consensus for this removal. We wouldn't even be discussing this if the murder had occurred in the United States. It is only due to the high levels of censorship that German culture allows that we are even discussing this. (To everyone involved- I don't think comparisons to Stalin are really that helpful so it might be good for everyone to calm down). JoshuaZ (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Joshua. I'll keep Uncle Joe in the closet from now on :-)

Zara has removed (against the clear consensus here) the names that I have added back. I have reverted this. To avoid sterile editwarring, I'll endeavour to continue this discussion at the article talk page, where I am now listing a number of reliable online sources that (still) include the names. It would probably help, though, if a few other editors would watchlist Walter Sedlmayr. Thanks, Ringelblume (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now added a thorough list of sources to Talk:Walter Sedlmayr, and one more to the article itself. Ringelblume (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You can bring in Stalin if you want: Denying someone his rights (in this case the one of privacy) because he is a criminal is the "friend or foe" scheme that was developed by Carl Schmitt. There is no encyclopaedia relevance that would mandate to have their full names listed here, but their privacy would mandate that their full names are left out. This has to be weighted against each other in every singe case, but it is not even attempted here; Instead people cry "CENSORSHIP", which considering that WP:NOT explicitly states: Content that is judged to violate Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Misplaced Pages policies ... will also be removed, is kind of ridiculous. You can't get around a discussion about the applicability of wp:blp by calling the application of wp:blp 'censorship'. Seriously, this is just another discussion at WP that I don't need and I won't put up with it. Now, that you got all those sources listed, I wonder how many of them will get into another lawsuit, since the lawyers of those two persons are known to go around and sue EVERYONE, which I, frankly, wouldn't consider necessary if it wasn't for the tabloids and some other people that don't respect other's right of privacy. Zara1709 (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Zara, this has nothing to do with Carl Schmitt or his philosophy and invoking it comes perilously close to triggering Godwin's law. Moreover, we have no need to worry about lawsuits; as we've tried to explain to you; if the Wikimedia Foundation is worried about a lawsuit they can intervene. Again, it would help if you stopped using the call caps. And you seem to be ignoring the fact that many editors disagree with you that there is a BLP issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me about Godwin's law, if I hadn't mentioned Carl Schmitt you wouldn't even have noticed. And anyway, he is a respectable jurist who had quite some influence on the after-WWII-juridical discourse in Germany.

I never insisted that this was a legal issue (although it might become one); If this isn't a BLP issue, well, why does wp:BLP say that articles need to be written , "with regard for the subject's privacy?" What encyclopaedic value is gained by mentioning the full names of two otherwise non-notable persons when their first names and the first letter of their last names would suffice? (No one here has tried to answer that question, and as long as this is not answered, obviously I am still in disagreement and we don't have a clear consensus. Please note at least my minority view.) What really prompted me to consider this as "friend or foe" scheme was this statement: "I, for one, think that any future business associates of theirs should have the chance to look up what happened to their previous business associate before deciding whether or not to enter into a business relationship with them." These two people were judged, convinced and sentenced for murder. They have served the time of their punishment, and are legally free (with some restrictions, since they are on parole). If they were still considered to be dangerous criminals, they would not have been released. But apparently WP should still list their names as a warning to "future business associates". And of course I strongly disagree here. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia; It is not one of the aims of an encyclopaedia to punish former criminals by crippling them socially when they have done their sentence. I only get the impression that Misplaced Pages is abused here for this purpose. Zara1709 (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Zara, you seem to be ignoring most of what people are saying. First, standard practice (and normal practice in most of the civilized world) is when mentioning names to mention the entire name that is relevant. In no other article about a murder do we mention merely the first names. Moreover, your obsession with the notion that this is a "punishment" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the arguments that people are attemtping to explain to you. Finally, you are right that if you hadn't mentioned Schmitt I wouldn't have noticed- because Schmitt is only relevant in your warped interpretation of what people are saying to you. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not sure I understand the concern about future business associates and punishment. A court conviction is generally public record, no? And as an encyclopedia we are merely providing an article covering a notable actor's murder. Part of this coverage includes who was convicted of the murder. This is not punishment, this is merely done in the interest of an unbiased, NPOV, verifiable encyclopedia. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if I am ignoring most of what people are saying on this talk page: Does Misplaced Pages:BLP include a POLICY on privacy? IS there any NECESSARY REASON to give the full names here? Let's take the opposite case: Assume that the family of a murder victim would not want their full family name to be given to the public, but the tabloids to it anyway. Should Misplaced Pages here follow the practice of the tabloids or should it remove the full name in this case? We would need to answer that if we ever want to propose a guideline Misplaced Pages:Notability (criminal acts), which was the reason why I turned to this case in the first place. Now I'd say, after some consideration, that any person who is non-notable as such, but only for a certain event, should not be mentioned with full name on Misplaced Pages. And I can't make a distinction here between murder victims and murderers. To exclude some from a right, because they are 'enemies of society' and society can't allow them that right, is what I perceive a Carl Schmitt line of argument. You can say criminals don't have a right to keep their names private because they are dangerous. In the next step you can also work towards having the full names of criminals included in Misplaced Pages, so that Misplaced Pages, in connection with Internet search engines, also serves as a database of dangerous criminals; In the future everyone will be able to know the criminal record of his neighbour using Google. Now, I am saying that this is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages, and that it is also against the right of personality (Persönlichkeitsrecht) that is included in the modern (western) legal system. Of course, this right has been under attack and it is currently under attack, and at this point we could start a long juridical debate. (So much for the relevance of certain jurists...) Zara1709 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The notion of Persönlichkeitsrecht exists in some but not all of the West ("right of personality" as I understand it as a slightly different meaning in English but IANAL). The US for example has very little of that sort of notion and any strong idea of Persönlichkeitsrecht is inherently POV. And again, there's no one claiming that some rights have been lost. If these individuals had been acquitted we'd likely include their names. You are taking this topic from a very narrow POV and are forcing what other people are saying into interpretations that make sense in that POV's context. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) Indeed. Persönlichkeitsrecht is a rather novel Continental European concept, and one that not much of the rest of the Western world (let alone the rest of the world) shares. U.S. law, for instance, knows only of a much weaker tort of public disclosure according to which a disclosure of truthful facts is tortuous only, inter alia, if the facts disclosed are "non-newsworthy, not part of public records public proceedings". That, the names of Werlé and Lauber are certainly not.

(And now back to my regularly scheduled comment:) I won't belabour the point of policy, as others have done so better than I could, and you are at any rate not arguing on the basis of policy. But you are mistaken, Zara, in bringing up Schmitt. The Feindstrafrecht does not originate with Schmitt, effective legal bogeyman though he may be. As Günther Jacobs has persuasively shown, the notion of some criminals as enemies to be destroyed has always been an inextricable part of all systems of criminal law, Western or otherwise, and we benefit from recognising that. Werlé and Lauber, by the way, have not been made subject to Feindstrafrecht, as they are – unlike Walter Sedlmayr – alive and free. (And, no, this does not have no longer anything to do with an incident requiring the intervention of administrators, so may I suggest that this thread be archived?) Ringelblume (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I now have the answer to something that puzzled me: a German Misplaced Pages article on a sensational crime which is still under investigation never mentions the last name of the prime suspect, instead replacing it with the initial. Anyone reading that article could simply click over to the English Misplaced Pages version and find the true name, so it seems pointless. Vegasprof (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is done during investigations to help prevent injustices like that done to Steven Hatfill, who was for a long time reported as the leading suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks – and who proved to be innocent of any involvement in them, the real culprit apparently being Bruce Edwards Ivins. The matter at issue here is post-facto. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Since these people are notable for one thing only, what encyclopaedic value is gained from naming them? The harm, on the other hand, is clear. These are people who have paid their debt to society and are presumably trying to rebuild lives as ordinary citizens, which is their right. Including their full names can only harm them, and it does not do Misplaced Pages any appreciable good. I haven't seen any strong arguments for inclusion of the men's full names, as distinct from arguments against their removal. Speaking of censorship, I hate to argue ad Jimbonem but "It is not censorship to exercise mature and responsible editorial judgment." What we have here isn't really a question of policy but of what's the right thing to do. Just my opinion; I've been wrong before. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 01:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, SheffieldSteel. So I am right when I don't see any encyclopaedic reason to give the full names here. So this isn't really a question of policy. People have a right of privacy (as mentioned in wp:BLP; their are conflicting legal/cultural/moral standards to what extend they have this right; The German legal notion of Persönlichkeitsrecht going further than the US notion of tort of public disclosure. Now we could have to discuss to what extend WP wants to keep the right of privacy here, if there was anything to gain from mentioning their full names. That would not be an issue of NPOV, by the way. There are different POVs on this, but they don't need to be weighted in the article, WP needs to decide which view it itself should follow. We would have to have a longer discussion about policy. The only question I am asking myself at this point, though, is whether I should push this through now, or whether it would suffice to make a note of this at Misplaced Pages:Notability (criminal acts) and discuss it sometime later, when this or a similar issue attracts more controversy. (Image the layers in this case releasing a press statement that they have looked into the question whether they could sue the English WP because it doesn't respect their clients privacy; regardless of whether such a lawsuit would be possible, if such an issue goes public, it will not be good for WP's publicity, which is, concerning BLP, not that good, anyway.) Zara1709 (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense. We should instead write articles saying 'Bob was murdered." and end there? or what. two unnamable men were convicted, served time, and were later released? Pshh. Smacks of Big Brother and 1984, constantly revising history to meet modern notions. By that logic, The Charles Lindbergh article, the baby's article, and Lady Lindy's article all should be without mention of that carpenter guy, and we should nominate that carpenter guy's article for deletion, since he's only notable for killing the kid (or being the victim of a vast (left and right wing (on a plane)) conspiracy). Likewise, we don't need to name the mastermind of the Tate-laBianca murders, nor the assassin of Robert Kennedy, as they are only notable for those things. This sort of thing is completely alien to the American mindset, and ought to be alien to the mind of any creature capable of grasping the concepts of linear time and long-term memory. redacting names to make murderers feel good... only a moron would insist on that, and yes, I mean Germany as a whole. After all, they do love David Hasselhoff. /ranting. It's the only way to respond to lunacy. ThuranX (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you don' get it. If you look at the WP articles on Bruno Hauptmann, Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan, you will see that there is AT LEAST ONE biography of them linked or listed there. Concerning those two German murderers there isn't anything like that: We don't know where they grew up, we don't know their family situations, we don't even now their birth dates. Ok, there is one German documentary on the murder, which I haven't seen. If this documentary devotes only 15 of its 45 minutes to the life of these murderers before their crime, I am willing to grant that they may be notable (we should then make their names into redlinks). But there would still be a HUGE difference between those criminals you mentioned, that became famous because they murdered someone and these two guys. If a world famous aviator, the family of a world renown cinema director or a politician and the brother of a former US president is murdered, there will be someone who writes a biography of the murderer, making him notable. Concerning these two persons, there apparently isn't a biography. If there isn't anything to be said on them, aside from what would have to be said in the article of their victim, then we don't need to give their full names. And btw., German courts might be more restrictive against the media when it comes to a persons privacy, but OF COURSE they make certain distinctions. When the former RAF-terrorist Brigitte Mohnhaupt was relased on parole last year, a court denied the largest German tabloid to publish NEW photos of her; the old pictures could of course be used as historical documents.

Neither does the court decision in this case amount to a "Stalin-type editing of archives" as it has been hinted in this discussion. The court explicitly left archives out in his decision: "Die Beklagte trifft nicht die Verpflichtung, ihre Archive ständig daraufhin zu kontrollieren, ob ggf. ein sich im Archiv befindlicher Beitrag entfernt oder geändert werden müsste. Insofern besteht kein Unterschied zu einem Archiv, das Printmedien aufbewahrt. Eine derartige Kontrollpflicht würde die öffentliche Aufgabe, die der Presse im Hinblick auf die Information der Öffentlichkeit über aktuelle Ereignisse zukommt, über Gebühr beeinträchtigen. Sie würde zudem (…) dem Informationsbedürfnis der Öffentlichkeit zuwiderlaufen, das auch eine Recherche nach Berichten aus vergangenen Zeiten umfasst." Of course, you could try to argue that WP should be considered an archive, then. I would then hold that WP is not an archive, because it constantly is edited. But we are nowhere near a discussion that would sort out these points. Zara1709 (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia. Translation, please. Baseball Bugs 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

INSERTION: Translation by machine via Google Translate "The defendant is not the obligation, its archives will constantly check to get a contribution in the archives located removed or have to be changed. In this respect, there is no difference to an archive, the print media kept. Such a requirement would control the public function of the press in terms of informing the public about current events given to unduly prejudice. It would also (…) the information needs of public run, including a search for reports from the past." - Thats about the best you are gonna get for now. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no valid reason for censoring the names of the perpetrators. This is the English wikipedia, it is not censored for content, and German "political correctness" is irrelevant. As another editor said, the "notability" factor only enters into it if someone wants to write an article about the perpetrators separately. It is perfectly valid to include their names in the article about the guy they murdered, assuming the guy they murdered is notable. To exclude the names lowers wikipedia to the level of totalitarian states trying to filter the news. It's shameful, it's offensive, and must be resisted. Baseball Bugs 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is NO valid reason to include their names, either. And there is is a valid reason to leave their names out, wp:blp (privacy), as I have repeatedly stated above. This is not censorship, but the application of a WP policy, as I have also pointed out several times. And I already summarized the German court decision when I wrote that the court explicitly excluded archives, the quote was merely indented as convince for the German speaking editors here. It would take me about 30 minutes to translate the legal phrasing... Time which I have already spent at this discussion. Zara1709 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Every few months we have to have this debate, from Nevada-tan to Crystal Gail Magnum, and seemingly chase in circles around the connection of internet law, local law, vengeance and uncensorship at all costs. For what it's worth I have always objected to the censorship of any material that can be reliably sourced, and in this case I believe no different but not on some ridiculous argument such as "don't protect murderers" but simply for neutrality, consistancy and comprehensiveness of the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia can not be consistant, neutral or comprehensive if facts would be ommitted by an order anywhere in the world (you can't enforce a German gag order, then ignore a Zimbabwean gag order on anti-Mugabe dissent, or a Chinese gag order on Tibetan protestors because you don't agree with what it is gagging). –– Lid 08:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that the article should be censored because a German court decided that. I am saying that the two people who are named in this article have a right of privacy, which is not only a legal right, but also included in wp:BLP. And condisring that Baseball Bugs just brought in totalitarism again: Censorship is totalitarian (or at least tyranic;) But also is disrespecting the citizen's right of privacy. Totalitarian regimes are known for their tendency to persecute people for something they said in private. That the state might try to censor the public discourse is one of the dangers in a democracy. But another danger - considering that this specific German legislation developed in the time of the German Autumn- is that a sensationalist media makes the public percieve certain people as 'enemies of society'. But even if the are terrorists and criminals, this kind of 'news coverage' does not in any way help the public discourse. In this specific case the court found that it is more importent to give the criminals a second chance (to renew the 'civil contract', if you want to get into a debate on the philosophy of law) than to tell everyone the full names of the criminals, which are not needed to report about the old case anyway (the first name and the first letter of the last name should suffice.) I am not saying that WP should be censored because a German court ordered this. I am only saying that the privacy of two persons should be taken into account; I though that this was not only a legal policy in Germany, but also common sense and part of Misplaced Pages's BLP policy anyway. Obviously am was mistaken that it was common sense, but I still want to insinst that this is not simply filed under 'censorship'. Zara1709 (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but your last line of it being "common sense" is simply not factually correct. Misplaced Pages's view on the privacy of identities has always been in a state of flux, for a long period it did not exist and then for a really harsh it was near "no one is a public individual" (which lead to about four ArbCom cases, a dozen DRVs, and who knows how many AfDs and threads on ANI) and is now trying to find a happy medium between the two. I'll ignore your refutation of the totalitarian argument, as I ignored the totlaitarian implication to begin with as it's usefulness in this debate is only to drive negative emotion against the opposing view rather than weighing it on its merits, and will instead focus on your argument about "right to privacy". Right to privacy, on wikipedia, is an entity which can not exist if it acts in overpowering WP:Notability. An odd argument, I know, as WP:N is used as the standard of keeping articles and bringing it up as being overruled seems to be a non-existant issue but if you clean down your argument to its core it comes to read as "people are not notable if they do not wish to be", which is an article standard that can not possibly work on wikipedia and has, literally, thousands of examples that show that this can not (and will not) be the case. The counterpoint to this is the usage of WP:BLP1E however that counterpoint ignores that BLP1E states that the event is notable, not the individual as a person, which is the case in this regard. The event, the murder, makes the murderers notable individuals. Notable enough for their own arguments? Probably not, but ommitting their existance is a misuse of the policies we abide by. –– Lid 10:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

They can have a right to privacy only when the guy they murdered comes back to life. Baseball Bugs 10:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not for vengeance (soapboxing), arguing people foreit being people because of their acts isn't a compelling argument for their names inclusion. Please refrain from using pleas to emotion that ignore any opposition argument as being put forward by "murderer protectors", it helps no one and only acts to make the sides splinter and isolate their views as the opposition is not actively discussing the argument and it becomes a "who yells longest and loudest is the victor". –– Lid 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And you should take your own advice. Misplaced Pages is for information, and the readers have the right to know who the murderers were, in this or any other murder case. The arguments against it, all amount to censorship, and must not be tolerated. Baseball Bugs 11:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You do realise I agree with you in including the information, just not you're going about arguing it right? This isn't some childish "if you're not with me you're against me" thing where everything is black and white and your opponents are the devil incarnate and anyone who hasn't outright ignored the arguments and gone straight to referring to them as fascist censorship happy dictators is in league with them. Should censorship be tolerated? No, but there are far better ways of stating it. –– Lid 12:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not called anyone a fascist. I understand their sympathetic arguments, even if I think they amount to bleeding-heart liberalism taken to an extreme. But this section began with someone censoring something because some idiot judge in Germany decided to protect the so-called "rights" of murderers. Deleting it amounted to censorship - it was out of line and should have been reversed immediately. If these guys were innocent, that would be a whole other matter. But if they were correctly convicted and simply don't want that fact public - sorry, too bad. The people at large have the right know who the murderers are. The needs of the many outweigh the selfish interests of the murderers. Baseball Bugs 12:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, if they were innocent it would be the same matter, because being innocent or guilty has absolutely no bearing on its inclusion or uninclusion. Trying to argue they have forfeited something because of their actions is the wrong way to go about fighting against the removal of the names as it is a conviction of the individuals in question, when this topic should be as far removed from the individuals as possible and be a question of wikipedia article content. Forget everything to do with the case, who they are, what they have done - it is entirely meaningless in this debate and that people keep brining it up is the reason this is going in circles. –– Lid 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We have two individuals who have performed a notable act against a notable individual, their names can be sourced reliably and it is known information. That is all there is to it and that is all there is to see as to why the information should be included. –– Lid 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Baseball Bugs 13:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) My main fear is what precedent would be set by removal. If in this instance we cater to a local law, what would happen in the future? There are huge variations in interpretations of privacy/censorship throughout the world. In order for us to truly not have a POV, we shuold adhere strictly to RS/V/NPOV/notability. In this case, the action was notable, the murdered man was notable, and the sources are reliable. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Misplaced Pages does not censor facts, but it does adhere to notability guidelines. It also does not originate information. If this info was not publicly available, then it should not be here, for the OR reason as well as, potentially, the BLP reason. But if it's publicly available, and the fact itself is non-controversial (which this appears to be), then the BLP argument does not figure into it. Baseball Bugs 13:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the totalitarism argument, what do you expect? If I am confronted with an argument: "This is censorship, this is totalitarian!", why shouldn't I react with an argument: "This is disrespect of privacy, this is totalitarian!" It would be more interesting to take a look at German history to explain why such a legal policy (Persönlichkeitsrecht) did develop in Germany and why I think that it is justified. But this discussion would hardly be worth the effort. After a lot of consideration I am willing to grant that there is a little encyclopaedic value in giving their full names. One could image that someone recalls this incident, but doesn't remember the name of the victim, only of the perpetrators. The only question is whether it wouldn't be the case more often, that someone conducts a google search on one of these persons, when they have just applied for a job, etc. These two aspects still have to be weigthed against each other, and I still hold that privacy overrules notabilty (if you allow me to call it that) here. However, this is a subjective value judgment. I don't see any objective way to justify it, so understandably this discussion is leading nowhere. And for the last time: This is not an issue of censorship. And if you want to deny criminals their rights because they are criminals, you are not a liberal. Not any more than Carl Schmitt or Thomas Hobbes, that is. Zara1709 (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If I'm an employer looking at hiring one of these guys, I have the right to know that he has a felony conviction in his past, and especially in this case. Someone who murders once could murder again, and it would be unfair to subject my other employees to that potential risk. Their practical rights to safety outweigh the theoretical "rights" of killers. Baseball Bugs 13:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but it is censorship. Censorship is the hiding of facts, and that's exactly what these arguments amount to. If a guy applies for a job and says, "I was convicted of murder, and I have changed my ways," then the facts are out in the open. If he applies for a job and does not tell the potential employer about this heinous act, he is being dishonest from the beginning. There is no right to a specific job. If someone is willing to hire him, knowing the facts, then there is honesty and openness all around. Baseball Bugs 13:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not employers' right alone, employers are frequently obligated by law to do background checks. Isn't it odd that someone who was caught smoking pot in grade school is disqualified for decades, while convicted murderers enjoy a code of silence? NVO (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That they are convicted murderers is entirely irrelevant, please stop bringing it up to try and claim a non-existent moral high ground. –– Lid 13:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant for an employer who must comply with regulation. The employer who legally obtains this info must keep it locked, but he has to have it in first place. NVO (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it. After these two persons had spent 15 or 17 years in prison, a court hearing came to the conclusion that they aren't a danger to society and can be released - otherwise they would still be locked up. Execpt for the fact that they are on parole and shouldn't even dodge the fare on the bus, they are normal citizens again, their life only being made difficult by that fact that people are scared by them, since anyone can look up their name on Google and see that they are murderers. Zara1709 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Parole or full term does not matter. I would repeat the question, what makes these two model gentlemen different from millions of others former convicts? Why these two enjoy a regal treatment while others wear radio bracelets? If it was a general treatment I wouldn't object; so far it seems like an isolated, irrational glitch of justice. NVO (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Examples: Rolf Clemens Wagner. Paroled 2003, maybe still needs time to adjust. Brigitte Mohnhaupt, paroled in 2007. Should we extend the code of silence to him too? Take a closer look at Category:German criminals, what's your take on this? NVO (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the article on the German Misplaced Pages it seems there's a chance these guys are convicted but maybe not guilty, there have been several calls for resumption of proceedings (!)

I think no matter the circumstances and question of guilt social rehabilitation should be a keyword here. It is already hard enough as is to make a new start after prison.

Also, as already mentioned by others, besides their involvement in this court case either as victims or as offenders both have little to no notability.

The claim to start an article on these guys because they "try to hide their names" is absurd, as is this constant white noise about censorship without any further ethical reflection.

I think it goes without explanation that posting and preserving their names on what is the world largest reference source has a different quality to it than "looking up names in a library" or reading years old newspaper headlines. And it is this very difference one has to keep in mind when working with BLPs. (there's a German court ruling called Lebach-Urteil which elaborates on that)

to sum it up: one should not endanger rehabilitation or prolong harm by blaring out their names as a repeated social sanction completely uncalled for.

(As for legal impact, I'd assume German jurisdiction is effective for any editor that could be traced back to Germany, whether it is a registered user or not.) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, if they were wrongly convicted, that's a different story. And if there is some legal action on that point, then that could also be in the article about the murder. There appears to be no reason for them to have individual articles, though. The story is about the crime and its followup. And the previous editor makes an excellent point about background checks being required by law. That's to prevent, for example, child molesters from getting jobs as grade school teachers. The rehab of one person is not as important as the safety of the public at large. If the guy is truly reformed, he should be open about it and not be trying to hide it. Baseball Bugs 13:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For employers to do a background check there is the polizeiliches Führungszeugnis (criminal record) in Germany. If they have a good probation officer they probably have a gotten a job anyway. But it can hardly be the task of Misplaced Pages to provide the full names of criminals as a convinience for employers, or can it?Zara1709 (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant if they are innocent as it turns out, or even if down the line their convictions are overturned, the conviction and hypothetical overturning are also notable events. The notability becomes them having been wrongly convicted of the murder, which is in itself a notable event and does not make their names any less public. –– Lid 13:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Section-break (German court-order)

Why doesn't Germany give these two convicted people new identities? Count Iblis (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not preventing the German authorities to let these pesons hide their identity at all. in this day and age, if it is decided that someone should be able to start a new life and not be confronted with his past, then it is not practical to demand that no source anywhere in the world mentions the name of the person in relation to the past events. The only way this can be done is to give the person a new identity (new name , new passport, new fictitional place and date of birth etc. etc.). This is standard practice in many countries. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid TLDR, but my view is this: if a properly-appointed judicial court in a decent democratic country has made a legal decision with the privacy and well-being of certain individuals in mind, Misplaced Pages ought to respect that as a matter of courtesy. Obviously (I guess, though I'm not sure) a German court order doesn't cover the WP servers - though if a British editor added that info, perhaps the court order applies to them because of the EU? - this doesn't matter. We should volunteer to respect the wishes of accredited judges abroad. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not if the information is publicly available. And by the way, a "decent democratic country" would not allow murderers to hide their identity. And Misplaced Pages need not kiss up. Censoring publicly available facts on the fear that some judge somewhere is going to be unahppy about it, is offensive and a bad precedent. Baseball Bugs 13:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Are you suggesting, then, that Germany is not a democratic country? Because the EU, the UN, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the US Department of State and the Paraguay Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to name but a few organisations, all believe otherwise, and I reckon they're more qualified to pass judgement.

Secondly, just because you see the court as helping murderers to conceal their identities (and you've got no real reason to; naturally, any privacy-related injunction will involve the judge not divulging the whole situation in order to maintain the privacy it refers to), doesn't mean that you have to act as a force for righteousness and uncover the entire German state-sponsored conspiracy to allow murders to merrily wander the streets of Cologne, free men once more. Misplaced Pages is not about fighting for justice, quashing the henious apparatus of the evil censors in the German court system. It's an encyclopedia.

And this judge (who had the power, both legally and morally - being a properly-appointed individual, to interpret/enforce the law of a democratic country - to pass such an injunction) chose to do so, I respect that he must have had reasons for that. I suggest that Misplaced Pages obeys not out of "fear", and not out of a desire to "kiss up", both of which you alleged while managing to ignore the reason I provided first off. Which was...

Simple courtesy. Just because you have the arguable legal (and perhaps moral) oppurtunity to do something, doesn't mean you do it. If somebody asks you to refrain from a particular act, just do it, within reason. If my neighbour tells me to turn my music down, I turn it down, rather than quibbling about censorship of my personal tastes, and rather than reaching for my decibelmeter. Just be polite and do as we're bid. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"If somebody asks..." Who has asked wikipedia to censor this information? And don't say it's not censorship, because it is; be it legal or not, it's still censorship of facts. Baseball Bugs 14:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down Bugs. Actually, a "decent democratic country" believes in rehabilitation; namely, once a criminal has served their sentence, their punishment is over. In most European countries, many convicted murderers are given new identities once released. In this case, though, as far as the information goes, it's publically available, and verifiable, so it can stay if it actually adds something of value to the article. I haven't seen that it does, at the moment. Neıl ☄ 14:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank God I live in the USA and not Europe. You've got governments there basically putting the public at potential risk for the sake of social experimentation. It's outrageous. Honesty and openness should be what's important. If someone wants to hide their criminal past, then they are engaged in deceit and trickery. How does that benefit society? Baseball Bugs 14:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bugs Bunney, you are trying to argue a social and ethical point about the European system of crime, punishment and rehabilitation. It so happens that I strongly disagree with your viewpoint, however, such a debate is utterly irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. The question at hand is whether we should voluntarily obey the democratic and reasoned ruling of a foreign judge (who ordered certain information confidential, at least as far as his jurisdiction went). I say we should. Since your latest replies, most emotional and profound (in a good way!), don't address our issue we're supposed to be debating here, I can't elaborate further; only ask if you have anything more germane to add? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Germane"? Funny way to put it, as that word actually derives from the same root as "Germany". Now, tell me which wikipedia policy requires us to defer to some censoring judge in Germany. Baseball Bugs 14:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Germane" - I know it's a funny way to put it, I'd have said "hilarious", myself, that's why I chose it :-) Now, as I clearly and distinctly said no fewer than three times, no Misplaced Pages policy requires us to defer to censoring German judges. Since the issue of censorship is entirely within your own mind, and irrelevant, we'll skip over that and onto the issue of policy.

I believe we are now forming the policy. This is the discussion as to whether WP should voluntarily bow to the verdicts of foreign courts in "respected" countries (you know what I mean, a democratic, fair court system, as recognised by most international organisations and foreign ministries). I say we should, and you have yet to provide a reason as to why we shouldn't - so far, you've just repeated and re-repeated the fact that we're not required to, ignoring the fact that it is actually quite courteous to. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG, Baseball Bugs have you done a background check on you understanding of democracy lately? If in a "decent democraty country" you want everyone to be publically watched, because they could be criminals, any further discussion here is pointless. Not that I've seen a point in it the last two days anyway. I am not going to wage an uphill battle to remove about 10 letters from an article about a Bavarian actor I don't care about. If I ever want to wage an uphill battle I would spend the effort on something worth it, like explaining on the German Misplaced Pages why Hitler was not a charismatic leader. (I've you don't get this remark, don't worry.) As far as I am concerned we can leave the article as it is, although the image of their names being mentioned in some newspaper articles that was uploaded should be removed. Zara1709 (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hitler was a charismatic leader. Just not in a good way. Freedom is about openness. Censorship subverts freedom. These guys aren't members of the Witness Protection Program, they're murderers. And if they can work with a probation officer to smooth the way towards finding a decent living, that's fine. But society does not owe them anything. No one forced them to commit murder, they chose to do it. And you live with your choices. Baseball Bugs 14:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, please re-read this discussion from today and WP:FORUM, because you're still arguing your sociopolitical point. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are my opinions, but they're not relevant to wikipedia as such. What's relevant is that wikipedia does not censor facts, and is under no obligation to refrain from presenting publicly available information on the grounds that some judge somewhere might be unhappy about it. Baseball Bugs 14:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you have again missed my two main points, which I have stated no fewer than four times. Please read them carefully, I am not going to repeat them again. NUMBER ONE: I know that Misplaced Pages is under no obligation to; however, I believe that this fact is not reason enough for us not to. We are perfectly capable of volunteering to co-operate. That is, the fact that we're allowed to is not reason enough for us to do it. NUMBER TWO (as in, the one that comes after NUMBER ONE): I am not in fear of the judge's wrath, as you so astutely pointed out seventeen or so times, the judge has no sway or influence over us. I propose that we obey him as a gesture of respect, of courtesy, simply because he knows why he made that ruling, he made it for a reason that satisfies him and I trust him as a democratically-appointed member of the German judiciary. Thanks for ignoring. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not miss the point. And I'm saying that wikipedia is about presenting verifiable facts, not about giving "courtesy" (i.e. kissing up) to some judge. There is no policy compelling or even suggesting we do that. If someone raises an issue with wikipedia, we should respond. Out of courtesy, we should explain wikipedia's policies about verification, and if they push the issue, we should explain why we are under no obligation to kiss up. But we should not pre-censor out of fear, or courtesy, or any other politically-driven reason. Someone earlier accused me of not being "liberal". "Liberal" is about freedom. Censorship, which you are in fact advocating regardless of how you cloak it, is anti-freedom and anti-liberal. Baseball Bugs 15:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

< Yes, and you're clearly pro-freedom and pro-liberal, jolly good. My belief is that cloaking the names is not censorship, but regardless, Misplaced Pages is neither pro- nor anti- anything. If you believe a democratically-appointed judge in a respected, developed democratic country would make anti-freedom rulings, that's fine for you, but the international community (and by the looks of it, the Wikipedian community, thinks different).

And to be honest, it doesn't matter. Being courteous is not kissing up, I'm not trying to impress the judge or get a clerkship with him next summer. Being courteous is defined as, "Showing regard or thought for others" - if simply showing regard for others is, in fact, kissing up, then the whole of humanity is in big trouble! I've never heard such a loony definition. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of judges who make bad rulings, in both the U.S. and Europe. And, yes, it is kissing up. Regardless, tell me which wikipedia policy requires or even suggests that we should be "courteous" to authority figures??? How about we focus on being "courteous" (as per your definition of showing regard or thought for others) to the readers of wikipedia, who expect uncensored verifiable facts. Baseball Bugs 15:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had more intelligent conversations with rotting mangos. "Which Misplaced Pages policy requires that we should be courteous to authority figures?" - if you had the slightest idea of what courtesy WAS, then you wouldn't ask. Polite and good members of society don't only do nice things because they have to. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 15:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If those mangos are answering back, I'd just as soon not know about it. I am an American midwesterner, and we tend to be blunt-spoken and unvarnished. And Americans in general have a disdain for kissing up to authority figures and condoning censorship. That's why we don't dip our flag to foreign kings, for example. Baseball Bugs 16:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's focus on the topic at hand without bringing this into a personal and political discussion. We are not comparing the relative merits of democratic systems used throughout the world. We are trying to bring an article regarding a German subject into compliance with Misplaced Pages's policies. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues are dealt with by the Wikimedia Foundation, not by individual editors. If the German courts make stirrings towards Misplaced Pages, Mike Godwin will deal with it, and if the edit history does require purging, he's the one to do it, or order it done. Issues of this nature are not to be dealt with by well meaning editors practicing amateur law.

Many good arguments have been made on this page in support of the inclusion of the names, but I think most succinctly put is an NPOV article about an individual would name who killed the individual. Done. There is perhaps wiggle room in the area of people whose names appeared in the paper through no fault of their own, (e.g. Star Wars kid), but these are two convicted murderers. Our moral responsibility to these gentlemen is low, and not transgressed by printing their names. Whatever the German media does is irrelevant to us here. Ford MF (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We have no obligation legally to withhold the names of the murderers of a notable individual. No one seeks to give them articles, but it is absolutely notable WHO killed a notable person. If you don't name them, you can't explain the motive, if one exists, expect in general terms "He was murdered by someone he knew" or "he was murdered for revenge for something he did, but german "morality" (a questinoable term at best) prevents us from saying who.". Both of which are fucking ridiculous alternatives to "He was murdered by Bob dickface and Tommy shitlicker, who were hired to kill him in revenge for a business deal which failed." One makes sense, the other doesn't. Simply put, European morality in these cases is predicated on IGNORING bad things. It's like talking to a German about the Holocaust. They won't do it. Sure they learn about it, and now have limits on their free speech because of it, but actually talking about it is as verboten as being in a neo-nazi group. THey say things like "I don't want to discuss that, it's in the past" or "WHy dredge up those old memories?" or, and I heard this one, it's my personal favorite "All those people are dead anyways, what do we gain by talking about it?" "Those People" Referred to Jews killed in the camps. The discussion I heard that in was when one of the concentration camps was in the news a few years back. In a couple years, the Europeans will be back to calling Josef Fritzl a nice, quiet, odd neighbor. It's not forgive and forget there, it's denial. ThuranX (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oy weh :/ please spare such generalizations and stereotypings. Speaking of denial you might want to read this and calm down?

If movies are your thing The Dark Past (1948) , Compulsion (1959) and A Justice That Heals (2000) might be a good starting point for a bit of reflection. Yes I'm serious, you have to start somewhere. Please keep in mind no judge (in a country like today's Germany) would set free two murderers known to be incurable mentally disordered. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In a few countries, it is still considered proper to execute murderers. It's quite understandable for citizens of those countries to feel that, not only failing to kill them, but eventually releasing them from jail, is treating them far too lightly. That is my best explanation for some of the more bloodthirsty sentiments expressed above. Misplaced Pages, though, is not the place to right great wrongs.

As far as I know there is no policy or legal reason why we must not include those men's last names. There's no compelling argument in favour of censorship. It's not a question of common sense. It might be a question of common decency. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 04:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"There's no compelling argument in favour of censorship" This is not about censorship but about a privacy right that overrides public interest. It strikes me funny you use this

quote on your talk page, but don't waste a thought about what is "responsible editorial judgment". In my opinion there a good chance responsible editorial judgment covers to omit information that intrudes into an area where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Like coming out of prision and get a brandnew start.

Collective wrongdoing is a common thing with low-brow journalism. Misplaced Pages policies (if followed to the letter rather than the spirit) are Neandertal tools compared with a sane mind capable of reason and ehical reflection. To feign ignorance or join the "no censorship" choir without addressing different cultural backgrounds (which you did ;)) just exhibits a lack of social responsibility. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, yummy. An "Americans are bloodthirsty and uncivilized" ad hom on everyone here who argues against censorship, stating that Common Decency is something we all lack. If that's all you have to say, don't say anything. ThuranX (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If your remarks directed against the German people and the morality of Europe are justified, I think it's certainly reasonable to point out that some editors have expressed a certain eagerness to see these people punished further. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You attack all editors who think that common sense trumps 'common decency', which the two killers obviously lack. Editors have said repeatedly: German courts don't control En.Wiki; The material, nad names, are out there in numerous reliable sources; There's not 'punitive' value to it because anyone who wants to find out can find out elsewhere. Your response? "Americans are blood thirsty savage monsters who want to cause horrible pain to two innocent murderers by not censoring the pages to protect them from their own actions and legacy." And I stand by the European mentality about history and the past, as I've experienced it. ThuranX (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil in your edit summaries. As for the content of your post, I can only say that you seem to have misunderstood everything I've written. I don't think there's anything to be gained by continuing this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as admission of guilt, and drop this as well. ThuranX (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Section-break (again)

This might be one of the best statements I've read in this dicussion (from a legal standpoint anyway), it just happens many editors have never in their life spent a single thought about how a persons right of privacy could be weight reasonably against the publics right of information and how decay of such a public right could happen over time. FULLSTOP ;)

The concept of rehabilitation is just one more alien approach to many so it seems. :(

Some try to assume no responsibility and state in all seriousness whatever some tabloid spits out should be archived on Misplaced Pages as public knowledge. Listen up, in such cases even big name newspapers can become sources that should not be preserved on Misplaced Pages during the liftetime of a subject, as they serve daily information rather than encyclopedic conservation.

Editorial judgement is backed up by WP:BLP policy here, we don't need to call it a curtsey and we don't need to know the inner workings of American or European privacy law either (even though I got a feeling some of us do ;)) I don't believe in digital maoism. The no-censorship mob is not yet fit for such tasks with our current policies, but we can and should always improve these BLP policies to catch such cases in simple words.

Maybe, just maybe, linking to real world examples such as this one (or even Star Wars kid) in our policies could be one approach to strenghten the idea of editoral judgement where it is reasonable. I know some might consider such example lists somewhat clumsy, but it can really help to get an idea across rather than using some arcane three dollar wordings for the sake of flow.

I'm not happy with this "do no harm essay" in current state, but I do hope it can be reworded to become one of the policies we weight against each other rather than being a "stopgap" under constant attack from people who act like Google replaces any thinking and responsibility of their own. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The end of a prison sentence does not give an individual an automatic free pass back into society as if nothing had ever happened. He has to prove he's worthy of the trust placed in him by the parole board or whoever freed him; he has to prove he's fit for re-entrance into society. Starting out with deception, i.e. by assuming a new identity, is not a favorable step in that direction. Baseball Bugs 14:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the Misplaced Pages discussion; this is social debate. Please restrict the use of this page to appropriate material. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The issue is settled, the names are in the article, and they'll stay there. Maybe everyone could agree to just stop posting here and let the archiver remove this whole megillah in about 24 hours. Baseball Bugs 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The self-styled "privacy" guy 3vil-Lyn has taken it upon himself to delete the names with no consensus to do so. Baseball Bugs 15:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion this is covered by editorial judgement, so much for being offtopic, bitter much? :)

Baseball Bugs, hate to bring it to you but I'm no guy. :P

Anyway, the rule of thumb with BLPs should be to exclude potential harmful content until there is consensus to include it. Do we have consensus? --3vil-Lyn (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Guy" in the generic sense. Now read the discussion. The info is perfectly valid to be included and because it's public knowledge, the "right to privacy" claim is irrelevant. Baseball Bugs 16:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite aside from that this has been exhaustively argued and that the horse is long-dead, there's an important point being obscured, and it's one that Americans, especially, usually muff. Do individuals have "rights?" Yes, they do. What does that mean? It means that the government cannot do certain things to them. Misplaced Pages is not the government; it is a private entity that has no duty to respect anyone's constitutional rights except as provided by law. There is no right to free speech, to privacy, to pretty much of anything here, except as provided in Misplaced Pages's own policies and guidelines. Except to the degree those policies and guidelines are applied, and unless compelled otherwise by a court with jurisdiction over the English Misplaced Pages (read: the US federal courts and state courts in California and Florida), it can say pretty much whatever the hell it wants about whomever it pleases.  RGTraynor  16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"it can say pretty much whatever the hell it wants about whomever it pleases" -> no it can NOT. Take a look at WP:BLP

Putting everything law101 aside, ethical concerns have their place in the Misplaced Pages policies, and this one is either covered by editorial judgement or we can just as well forget about the idea of editorial judgement as it can't become much clearer than here.

As for beating a dead horse. If'd color everything that goes for an argument (of either side) this whole dicussion would shrink to a few sentences. Showing there is no consensus build on arguments that could even remotely trump those who support to omit the names. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(shrugs) There was a great deal of "Don't they have rights? What about their rights?" You can't argue law when you think it's on your side, only to drop it like a hot potato when it turns out not to be. As to ethical concerns, your belief in the clarity of your editorial judgment notwithstanding, your position seems to have been heavily outvoted, let alone attracted a consensus to overturn black-letter policy. Consensus /= unanimity.  RGTraynor  17:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I argued ethics and the idea of rehabilitation from my very first post in this dicussion. :) It is you who joined with nothing but the notion that Misplaced Pages can't be forced by law, something that was never questioned by me; and something that has already been identified as irrelevant to this discussion unless the editor in question actually lives in Germany. Whenever I pointed to law, I tried to bring the idea behind the ruling across. So either you go argue against this idea of rehabilitation with morals or you just retract to your legal argument which is NOT sufficient according to Misplaced Pages's own policies as we have to take ethical concerns and the idea of "do no harm" or better "do not prolong harm" into account. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As other have noted, what makes these two characters different from any other offender who is released and wants to restart his or her life? I hope we're not going to make it standard policy to remove names from articles once people serve their sentences! As an encyclopedia, public interest trumps their private wishes. justinfr (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ford MF above:

Legal issues are dealt with by the Wikimedia Foundation, not by individual editors. If the German courts make stirrings towards Misplaced Pages, Mike Godwin will deal with it, and if the edit history does require purging, he's the one to do it, or order it done. Issues of this nature are not to be dealt with by well meaning editors practicing amateur law.

Many good arguments have been made on this page in support of the inclusion of the names, but I think most succinctly put is an NPOV article about an individual would name who killed the individual. Done. There is perhaps wiggle room in the area of people whose names appeared in the paper through no fault of their own, (e.g. Star Wars kid), but these are two convicted murderers. Our moral responsibility to these gentlemen is low, and not transgressed by printing their names. Whatever the German media does is irrelevant to us here.

IANAL, but Misplaced Pages.en is incorporated in the USA and not Germany, and is subject to the laws of the former, not the latter. (I don’t know if Misplaced Pages.de is subject to German law, but I would expect it to follow German societal norms for the most part, censored or not.) In any case, though, rights are enumerated in general principle by constitutions and expanded or limited by constitutional law. Since the two nations do not have the same constitution nor the same interpretations of constitutional rights that emanate therefrom, there should be no expectation of universal concurrence on what is a full and proper determination of “rights.”

Zara1709’s main point, though, is about the moral issue, not so much the legal issue. Her assertion

The only thing you'd have to do is to weight the persons right of privacy against the publics right to be informed, which has already been done by a German court.

is therefore correct that the issue centers on weighing a person’s right of privacy against the public’s right to be informed, but the decision of a German court – and a lower court at that – does not make it one of universal application and legal force. It applies only to those under its jurisdiction.

In the U.S. privacy is restricted to individuals, not institutions (including the government itself – aside from information on individuals it may hold). A person committing a crime is committing violence against the public itself and the proceedings leading to conviction become a public record. They have, in this sense, “given up their right to privacy” in this regard. Public figures have a more restricted degree of privacy due to their decision to act publicly. If you commit a public act, you have no right to expect that it can subsequently be made “private.” The strength of freedom of the press and the right of self-defense in the U.S. are considered to outweigh the privacy rights of those convicted of criminal offenses. Incarceration pays the criminal’s “debt to society,” but it doesn’t absolve him or her of the consequences of their having committed it. This understanding of the “social contract” is rather pervasive among both Western and non-Western cultures. Indeed, even the Avoiding harm essay notes that the "do no harm" principle “does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person.” In fact, that essay’s inclusion test passes this topic, although it would tend to discourage creating articles about the two murders (at least if that’s their only claim to notability). The main policy limit on their treatment in Misplaced Pages is found in WP:BLP:

It is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

In other words, it should be short, to the point, NPOV, cited to reliable sources, and without undue weight, and the way it is treated in Walter Sedlmayr appears consonant with this:

In 1993, half-brothers Manfred Lauber and Wolfgang Werlé, former business associates of Sedlmayr, were sentenced to life in prison for his murder. They were released on parole in 2007 and 2008.

Given this, the preceding discussion, and Misplaced Pages’s various rules impacting this issue, there seems to be no broad-based dominant legal or moral support in favor of expunging the names of convicted felons from Misplaced Pages articles just because they are on parole or have served their time in prison. Indeed, the consensus (which does not mean unanimity) appears to be in line with keeping the malefactors’ names in the article on their victim, since the information is effectively in the public domain and beyond the court’s means to completely censor post facto. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

SOAExpert1 Wikistalking

• SOAExpert1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

A brand-new editor with a username that suggests he may be one of the editors blocked for advertising in List of SOA related products and Service-oriented architecture, is now reverting my edits, including restoring some BLP violations. --Ronz (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like SOAExpert1 stopped after being warned. --Ronz (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, let me know which if any of the spam domains were spammed in spite of multiple warnings and I will investigate them more closely. --A. B. 15:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• 206.53.144.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) has been warned for doing the same. This appears to be one of the blocked editors from List of SOA related products and Service-oriented architecture. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz is vandalizing pages by removing legitimate links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.102.177 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

68.175.102.177 is blocked for block evasion.

• 206.53.144.59  (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) another - WP:SPA - warned. --Ronz (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• 206.53.144.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) another - WP:SPA - warned. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at blocking this ip please. --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• 68.175.102.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) has continued, starting again just two hours after his block expired. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at blocking this ip please. This appears to be blocked editors User:SOAExpert1 and User:HelloSOAWorld. --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked three months. --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Barberio - prevention needed

This editor has been, and continues to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground . He doesn't seem to get that this isn't a mere dispute about who agrees or disagrees - it's completely inappropriate behavior. Further disruption needs to be prevented. (NB: the user hasn't been informed of this ANI report - by me anyway.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Notified. Daniel (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist was obviously aware that the subject of the report should be notified about the existence of the report he filed, but he didn't do so, and then ostentatiously announced that he hadn't done so. Is there a reason for this? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've looked at the diffs Ncmvocalist provided, and the rest of the discussions they are part of, and I see a debate that perhaps got a little more personal that it should have, but nothing that I would describe as "disruptive", and certainly nothing that, in my opinion, requires admin intervention. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

While I've not been disruptive in main-space articles, I admit it, I've been vocal in my opinions about policy and the current ArbCom majority. I've assisted in the RfC process on Arbitration Policy. I've made statements, both ones that gained significant community support, and ones that didn't. I've tried to push the ones that did get community support into actually being actioned.

I was unaware that those were blockable offences. --Barberio (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If it was merely that, then I would not have brought this here. You've been using Misplaced Pages as a battleground and it's grossly inappropriate, and blockworthy. And continuing to do so isn't exactly helping.

I don't expect to be around for a couple of days - so hopefully this doesn't continue to be a problem when I'm back. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For your future reference, the WP:BATTLE links to a section of WP:What Misplaced Pages is not, which reminds and requires editors to be civil and use recognised dispute resolution. As noted both in the page's masthead, and the Dispute Resolution policy, this noticeboard is not part of Dispute Resolution. --Barberio (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BATTLE enjoins us not to turn Misplaced Pages discussions into personal crusades. Good advice for all of us, no? MastCell  19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

While it's good general advice, it's clear from reading it that it's really not about policy debates. The opening section says:

Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Misplaced Pages discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.

As I said, good general advice, but clearly meant to head off personal disputes from spilling over into Wikipedian discussions. Its invocation here seems more like an attempt to use it as a weapon to prevent a Wikipedian from pursuing policy changes which he believe are best for the project, but which Ncmvocalist disagrees with. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics

Hi
Please see this. I'd appreciate an action review.

1. User waged edit war, was warned on article talk page - then blocked (for a time)
2. User is now back - arguing for censorship of the article and
3. Providing their real world identity as a young wikipedian.

I've protected the article page, and requests that any changes be made by consensus, but am concerned that a) she's identified herself, b) she requires mentoring to understand how to contribute to wikipedia constructively. Any help much appreciated. Kbthompson (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

She appears to be Polish and have English as a second language. Are there any Polish-speaking admins who could do the mentoring? Here's the full history, so you have an idea where she is coming from: rude, rude, slightly misleading edit summ, deleted entire thread, incl comments by two other editors, highly misleading edit summary; deletion of another editor's statements, misleading edit summary; deleted another editor's comments, misleading edit summary; claimed grammar, actually removing entire sentence, misleading edit summary; claimed 'changed word'--removed sentence, also edit-warring from here to here, after being warned re: 3RR. Plus an edit here, after the block expired, and after saying she would seek compromise on the talk page. Her own talk page has been blanked; diff here. Prince of Canada 09:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked User:Elonka to help by speaking to MissOrgum1996 in Polish, or finding someone who can, at her talk page. Prince of Canada 09:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User has now degenerated into accusations of racism and sockpuppetry. I have never wished to speak Polish before, but I certainly do now.. Prince of Canada 10:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As I just said at WP:WQA, where there are further disruptive edits , this smells strongly of trolling. For a supposedly new editor who ahs been here only a day, this person knows a great deal about Misplaced Pages workings - knowledge of sockpuppetry, finding the dispute forums WP:COIN and WP:WQA, knowledge of specialist syntax *{{article|2012 Summer Olympics}}, etc. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A final warning has been issued, further disruption will result in blocking the account. This action does not preclude discussion in Polish with Elonka, but the disruption to multiple inappropriate boards has to stop. Any comments? Kbthompson (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to merely restrict her from editing anywhere other than her own Talk & article Talk pages until Elonka (or another Polish user) has the chance to talk to her? I strongly suspect she won't stop, she'll get blocked, and just create another account or continue anonymously. Prince of Canada 11:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A block allows the editor to comment at their own talk page. It prevents further disruption to the project either in article or talk space. A ban would be self imposed and it does not look like such co-operation is forthcoming. This is not an action taken likely, but the situation has just got disruptive. I'm still assuming good faith, although a checkuser would be handy - considering the wheel war that's breaking out. If the editor is genuinely just naive, then it can be sorted out after discussion. I would appreciate comments from other admins as to the appropriateness of the actions. Kbthompson (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I have filed a request for Checkuser here. Prince of Canada 11:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Request denied. Prince of Canada 12:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

They just (properly) declined it, I guess I was looking for prior evidence of disruption, etc. Wrong, my fault. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

MissOrgum1996 has not edited since 10:44 UTC (three hours ago). She has received an appropriate final warning. If she returns and continues to edit in the same vein, I think a one-week block would be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Still no activity, hopefully the final warning has caused pause for reflection. I'll keep an eye on it. Kbthompson (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

She seems to have passable English, so I am not sure what we can translate into Polish to improve the situation. Kids are kids (i.e. notorious brats) everywhere, and if they disrupt our project, plonk the little trolls and move on (which study showed that majority of wiki vandalism occurs during US school hours...?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My inclination is to go for engagement first - someone's got to be editing here in ten years time - and keep the big stick behind our backs. It's not as though we've not seen many perfectly good contributors go through here, but when they get the bit between their teeth, they go off (and well off). It's only the disruption that needs to be stopped, if that level of enthusiasm could be harnessed, we could power the server farm for years! Kbthompson (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Betacommand

Betacommand (talk · contribs) For using or appearing to use automated tool on hi main account in direct violation of the community sanction that is logged here. In his recent contributions I counted nearly 80 edits in 2 minute period - in addition to the edit summaries clearly indicating the use of twinkle: . Viridae 10:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the edits and I endorse the block. Haukur (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits are based on Misplaced Pages:Bot requests/Archive 22#Delinker. —Giggy 10:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Not a breach in my opinion. Twinkle isn't a bot, and this was needed. Synergy 10:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt TWedits add up autosummary as ( TW ) ? -- Tinu Cherian - 10:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily - it;s easy to remove that. _TalkIslander 10:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You can configure your TW edit summary to whatever you want using your monobook. Monster Under Your Bed 10:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't possibly confuse automated summary with automated process. This was done with his main account, not his bot account. Can we unblock him now? Synergy 10:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The bot account is blocked. He is forbidden from running anything that is or gives the appearance of being automated on ANY account. Per the link linked by giggy he also screwed up at least several of the links which east has fixed. Viridae 10:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. That is not what the resolution states. Synergy 10:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Community consensus placed editing restrictions on Betacommand during late May, 2008. He is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or his main account." - Viridae 10:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wonkery. He didn't do anything wrong. Blocking over this was futile. Plus, wouldn't you think east would have blocked him if he was such a detriment? Never mind, don't answer (I have to go out and get some coffee). Synergy 10:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He is a under a community sanction. he broke the rules of that sanction He got blocked for it. The "he is helpful" atrgument was paraded around every time he pissed the community off right up untill when he was sanctioned. It doesn't hold any water at all. Viridae 11:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed. I was hoping to use that water to brew my coffee. But while I'm gone, would you be so kind as to explain why he is not located here and cross reference that with your block? (I'll seriously be back, but I am leaving for the store). Synergy 11:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oversight perhaps? (not the tool) Some else has asked that question of Ryan P (who closed the sanction discussion and enacted the sanction). Either way, it IS on the arbcom case page, as linked above. Viridae 11:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it does hold water as an excuse -- the first few times. It is the persistence that was the problem and which led to the restrictions. Here is the notification given to Betacommand by Ryan Postlethwaite. Sam Korn 11:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I have asked around . It bugs me that RFAR Beta 2 gets cited (even if it's just the link name), when the current restriction was placed in favour of RFAR Beta 3, which was declined because the "community is dealing with it". This and at least the last block should have been placed with explicit reference to a linkable community sanction, not to the last available ArbCom decision. AC is asking us outright to deal with what we can do ourselves, this should have been done in a more clean way. (BTW, endorse block) Franamax (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, and the discussion. I guess I just don't see (or maybe no one has pointed me; to where) why these edits were not good edits. I figured we, as the community would judge these on a case by case basis. But based on this case, and this case alone, I still don't see why these edits would be grounds for a block. And yet, I can see this is just a time waster (my objections are; its not directed at anyone else) so I'll drop it. Synergy 11:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do his edits to delink also convert an en-dash to a "-"? hereFritzpoll (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Acutally, it's still an en-dash, it's just not code. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly an automated or semi-automated tool -- of the type that Betacommand is specifically prohibited from using, and as has frequently been the case there are significant issues with the edits. This is absolutely the kind of thing that the sanctions were intended to prevent and I wholly endorse the block. Sam Korn 10:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Fifty-two strikes and you're out. Nandesuka (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. This is precisely the type of edits that led to the community sanction: Unapproved automated edits that in some cases cause disruption of the edited articles, with false edit summaries ("removing links to deleted articles" when what was actually done was formatting changes). Is he back? (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The block is necessary, due to the ruling violation, although at least some of the edits look reasonable -> deleting references to the non-existent article List of male boxers. Baseball Bugs 13:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is arguing that he is using a "semi-automated" tool and that that is not a violation of his restrictions. Baseball Bugs 14:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He made dozens of bad edits like this one - if he specifically pushed the 'y' button to approve every bad edit that isn't, in my opinion, a point in his favor. Haukur (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block, this is a clear violation of his sanction. the wub "?!" 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is nuts. This is the sort of behavior where you arrest someone for jaywalking because they ran across the street to save a child from a burning building. Beta wasn't running a bot, and not ONE of the edits in dispute has been reverted. Not one. What Beta was doing was GOOD for Misplaced Pages and you're penalizing him for it. God I'll be glad when this witch hunt for his hide on a stick is over. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. He used twinkle, made a mistake and was reverted by East718's bot, then he made the correct edits. But you're correct on the rest. Synergy 14:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also endorse the block. This has happened far too many times. Jonathunder (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's the link to the actual sanctions? The link given by Viridae links to RFAR/BC 2, which gives him permission to run his bot and other tools, as long as within policy. Everything in this thread references (There must be a more appropriate, linkable place for this) The community sanctions give restrictions on automated tools, but TW is semi-automated. (). If these sanctions were meant to restrict him from using TW, why was it not removed from his monobook? Jennavecia 14:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle can be set to automatic modes, the recent adminbots RFC showed there was an automated deletion component written for Twinkle, whether Beta was using such a script, I do not know. MBisanz 14:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Check here. It's not fully automated. Jennavecia 14:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The fuzzy area might be the sanction about "edits that appear to be automated." And a series of edits like this might not technically be automated, but they do appear to be. Baseball Bugs 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In what way is Twinkle "semi automated"? As far as I know it does not require you to preview all your edits before approving them. Besides, Beta's edits were done at very high speeds (only three seconds between each edit on average), so that even if he was reviewing the edits, he cannot have done any proofreading at all other than clicking the "approve" button, since just the page loading that happens when you do an edit takes about three seconds in itself. This was clearly done without manual approval, and is why the community sanction also prohibits Betacommand from making edits that appear to be automated. I also see that many of those who are defending Betacommand are new users who might not know about past issues. Betacommand has a long history of making automated edits that are poorly thought out and buggy, and in a few cases also intentionally disruptive. He also frequently made bot runs that were untested and buggy without any previous approval. Therefore, there was consensus to remove him of the right to use automated tools, because frankly, the little benefit that his edits brought was outweighed by the massive disruption caused by them. The fact that this particular run had fewer errors than usual for Betacommand is not relevant. He violated the sanction, pure and simple. Is he back? (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Betacommand has provided a screenshot on his talk page that clearly shows that he was just answering "yes" to all edits without reviewing the actual changes to the articles, just as I thought. Also, this was not done using Twinkle, as some claim. Is he back? (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

dude. He was using twinkle the first time. Check his contribs. Synergy 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the set of edits he messed up which had to be reverted, dude? Baseball Bugs 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Who are the new users? I'm LaraLove, I've been here for over a year and a half, and you can trust I know all the history with Betacommand. Synergy has been here for like two years, Hammersoft formerly edited under another name and you can be sure he knows all the history as well. So time served here isn't an issue. That issue resolved, I'm not posting the link again, but the tool is semi-automated. This vague loophole inserted is valueless when being applied to constructive edits, none of which are in need of reverting. The mess about his edit summaries is irrelevant. They stated he was removing links to a deleted article, he did. In that he made some formatting corrections with them is irrelevant. So where, exactly, is this block justified as a benefit to the project? Jennavecia 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is forbidden from making automated edits, and the screenshot he provided clearly shows that he did not check the edits before he made them. Really, where's the difference between a fully automated process and one where you blindly type "y" before every edit? --Conti|✉ 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The downplaying comment "he made a mistake", which someone stated earlier, shows the danger in running these things even if he weren't barred from doing so. So it also suggests he was being careless, never mind disruptive. I don't know about wikipedia, but in my shop we test things before we run them in production. Baseball Bugs 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I made the comment. But the mistake did not burn down wikipedia. Synergy 14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but it could have. I asked this question on Betacommand's page, and he deleted it without comment, so I'll ask it here: Is there any kind of "test system" for wikipedia, for editors to test mass updates before running them in "production"? Baseball Bugs 15:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for semi-automated tools it's called "show preview" (or "show changes", rather). I know AWB automatically shows all changes before you save an edit, and I hope Twinkle has a similar feature. --Conti|✉ 15:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What? Where is the disruption? The disruption stems from the block. Stating someone else's assessment of the situation suggests carelessness to you doesn't add anything to the discussion. Where's the disruption to the article space? Where's the mistake? Where's the negative impact on the project from these edits? Not counting this thread? Jennavecia 14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the mistake? Here is the mistake. 217 edits that had to be reverted. --Conti|✉ 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is claiming that this was a screw-up on Twinkle's part, and that he only intended to perform one edit. Personally, I am not familiar enough with Twinkle to evaluate that claim. — Satori Son 15:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Er.. Betacommand wanted to make one test edit and accidentally made 217 test edits instead? Totally not automated ones, even. That sounds.. pretty odd. --Conti|✉ 15:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He requested east revert him, which took four minutes. Jennavecia 15:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• This was clearly an automated process. There is little chance that Betacommand could make close to 50 edits a minute and put due thought into each of those edits. This is precisely what the editing restriction against Betacommand was supposed to stop. Most bots don't even run at this speed. I was actually considering asking the community to lift the restrictions slightly on Betacommand so he had more freedom to make bot like edits, but unfortunately for the time being, I'm going to have to forget about that idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, the community, apparently yourself included, does not know the difference between "fully automated", "semi automated", etc, and the general note you left when closing the last discussion stated only "automated" which can be interpreted either way... I think its just great that we're dulling out punishment for things that we don't even know anything about (at least thats the way it looks to me). - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated process - no thought went into this, I don't care if Betacommand pressed y to ever edit, he didn't have time to think about the edit - that goes against the editing restriction in my eyes. No one can honestly suggest that a user can make nearly 50 edits a minute that aren't almost fully automated. This was precisely the thing that the community restriction was supposed to stop. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

People can easily make 50 edits in a minute without using a fully automated script - hell, without using a script at all. Maybe later I'll run a demo. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've seen the screenshot, so we know that Betacommand was using a tool - whether he clicks yes without thought, or he programs the computer to do it makes no difference in my eyes - they're both automated. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

While I sympathize with those arguing that Beta's edits were constructive and useful and we should not be shooting him in the foot for technically violating his restriction, I have to endorse the block, as well. The whole point against sanctioning against these types of non-approved rapid edits is not because we suspect Beta of having any malicious intent, but because in the past the abuse of this style of editing did cause problems. The spirit of the sanction is not to prohibit automated edits per se, but to force Beta (and in reality this should apply to anyone) to consider their actions before hitting the "submit" key. It is abundantly clear that did not happen here. Shereth 15:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. He's still doing the type of thing that has caused problems many many times before. And, it caused problems this time. The block is perfectly good- Betacommand needs to change his behavior to prevent further blocks. This is the one thing he appears unable to grasp. So, the blocks will continue as needed. Friday (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How many more blocks are we going to give him before he's blocked indef? In my opinion, based on the block log, he should be blocked indefinitely. D.M.N. (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you're going to indef Betacommand for doing something good for Misplaced Pages (namely removing links to a deleted article) then you'd better indef block me too. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• By God, indef me, too, then. Jennavecia 15:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, that's not at all the point DNM was trying to make - Beta has been blocked in the region of 20 times - any other editor with such a record would have been indef-blocked by now. Whether this specific block is justified or not, you're not seriously telling me that 20 or so blocks are all wrong? _TalkIslander 15:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, just that we shouldn't see 20 blocks and go "Ok just block him indef". That's a knee jerk reaction. Many of the blocks are unfounded, accidental, etc. If the Arbitration Committee felt a need to indef block him, they would have. But, in the arbitration proceedings this wasn't even suggested as a proposed remedy. I think it's blatantly obvious there's people here who would prefer he be indef banned. So what? There's plenty of people that would like to see our fair use policies over turned. It's not a reason to indef block him. I think that decision must lie with ArbCom in this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• As Hammersoft pointed out, many of his blocks were not warranted. Beta has many enemies, and some of them jump at an opportunity to block him. He's exhausted the patience of a portion of the community. But that portion of the community has exhausted the patience of another part. So, really, we can't base an indef off of it in a case of an editor who clearly improves the project. Jennavecia 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Woah........ why are we even discussing indef blocks??? That certainly shouldn't be the conclusion of this case - we're far away from requiring an indef block, and I suspect we will never need to properly consider it. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fully endorse block. The spirit of the "Sam Korn solution" is very simple: the community does not trust BetaCommand's use of automated tools. That's it. It's impossible to argue that BetaCommand is oblivious to this and the merit of the edits is completely irrelevant here. A legally blind man is not allowed to drive, even if he was just bringing chicken soup to his grandma and didn't run into a tree. And let's cut the crap about automated vs semi-automated (or simi-automated...): BetaCommand has been requested to use the good old method of clicking the edit tab, followed by the preview button, followed by the save page button. This is a very reasonable restriction until he can regain others' trust. Clearly, he doesn't care but what I find most disconcerting is that some still want to defend him. It's not like he's being banned (or indef-blocked, I don't know why this is even being suggested). It's a three-day block, fully in-line with restrictions that were made crystal-clear to him more than once (and in particular by Ryan). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy is weak. He was not endangering lives here. So to compare it to a blind man driving... no good. He's been restricted from the use of automated tools. If he was intended to be restricted from using TW or AWB or any other semi-automated tool, then that should have been put in the restrictions and his access to these tools removed. But they weren't. Instead, he gets blocked without previous discussion for what appeared to possibly be automated tool use. Jennavecia 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the analogy is weak and I do understand he's not actually killing anyone. But the scope of the restrictions has been pointed out to him quite clearly. See this (partial) sequence of diffs . In the middle of those diffs, BetaCommand says, in essence, that he doesn't accept these restrictions. He's free to do that but he can't complain if he's blocked for violating them. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Betacommand should be unblocked. Sanction states automated not automated and semi-automated. He made an error yes but it's fixable. Bidgee (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the diffs just above. The message to him was loud and clear. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To say the restrictions are crystal clear is laughable. It states automated, not semi-automated. If he's not allowed to run Twinkle, that needs to be added to the restrictions and it needs to be removed from his monobook. That simple. It's not crystal clear. It's ambiguous at best. Stating otherwise repeatedly doesn't change it. Jennavecia 17:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sanction failed

The so called community sanction on beta failed to stipulate these actions. If he was not allowed to use twinkle or AWB (hes still listed for AWB, and not one of his js subpages have been removed or taken from him), it should have been removed from him according to that consensus. Seeing as it wasn't, a block based on his actions of semi-automated tools is clearly not appropriate. This was a mistake anyone could have made. But what did Beta do? He asked an admin to revert it so he could correct it. Synergy 15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

erm, what doesn't he get about "You are prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated)" - this clearly looks automated, and I strongly dispute any claims that what he was doing wasn't tangible to fully automated. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• You know, I could easily conduct 40 edits in a minute without using any tool whatsoever but my keyboard. Does that make me a bot or automated tool? Beta was acting within his restrictions. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)They look automated. A high edit-frequency combined with repetitive edit-summaries = a hallmark of automated editing. While it may not be (depending on whether Beta exercised due discretion before clicking Y to each edit - which given the edits-per-minute count, seems highly unlikely) automated, it certainly appears so, and the "injunction" specifically encompasses such edits. Very clearly, as it happens. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• No comment on this case, but would you mind showing me how to conduct 40 (productive) edits in a minute without using any tool whatsoever except a keyboard? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just open 40 windows on 40 different article, make a productive edit on each and then click save on each of those 40 windows as fast as you can. You might be able to get all 40 in one minute if you're quick. Useight (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, using control-tab (in iceweasel at least), and, having the cursor on the edit summary box on each one, it's just a matter of hitting a shift-enter combo about 40 times. SQL 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• But we've seen the screenshot of the tool he was using! We know he was using a tool, where all he had to press was "y" to make each edit. I doubt any thought went into the edits, just a constant clicking of y - that's just about automated in my eyes. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if he was pressing 'y' for each edit, that is not fully automated. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the spriit of the ruling was to prevent these sorts of unreviewed mass edits. Arguing about whether the tool is "automated" or "semi-automated" misses the mark, in my opinion. The result is the same. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not if he wasn't specifically prohibited from making semi-automated edits. It's completely relevant here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If this were in a courtroom, I'd agree with you. But we're on Misplaced Pages where the spirit is more important than the literal wording. Looking for loopholes and gaming systems in order to get around restrictions is not acceptable here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a loophole, its common sense. His community sanction discussion should have been more specific, and if that had happened, we might not be having this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Man. It's like when I was a kid and I would tell my brother not to touch me and he stuck his hand a millimeter my face and said "I'm not touching you!" Now sure, I could have chosen my words more carefully. But that doesn't justify the behavior of a person who deliberately flaunts the intent of the directive. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make a comment here, completely irrelevant to the header above, but it looks like two different tools were used. I had a hard time understanding this, but from what it appears betacommand tried to use the unlink function on WP:TWINKLE, which preformed a different action then he expected. (it unlinked the article from all other articles). These were automatic edits, but probably not what he was intending to do. As a result he (correctly) requested an admin to revert the changes. After that he used his semi-automatic tool to do the changes correctly, and from what I can see, the semi-automatic tool's changes were correct and are still the top revisions as I speak now. Take what you will, but I don't think betacommand had any intent to do those first 200 some edits. This is intended merely as a summary of confusing events above. —— nixeagle 16:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, after going over them, that sounds about right to me too. It does sound AWFUL close to using an automated tool to do it to me, but, it's entirely possible he checked over the changes BEFORE he started, in reference to whomever above or below said he couldn't have possibly checked the changes. I'm still waiting to hear what damage Betacommand has done here today, other than causing someone else to make a whole lotta ANI drama. SQL 18:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no damage. More than 14 hours after the edits were done, and not ONE of them has been undone. This smacks to me of someone spilling a bunch of milk, Betacommand swooping in and using a tool to clean it up, and the lynch mob calling for his head on a pike because OH MY GOD HE DID SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE PROJECT WITH A __TOOL__???? HANG HIM! HANG HIM NOW! Unreal. Get some perspective people. What Betacommand did was good for the project. Show some harm from what he did THEN talk about how long the noose needs to be. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, my point is that this was a failure to impose the sanction with respect to twinkle. I'm not blaming anyone. But you can't hold this against Beta, when no one removed his ability to use these functions. Synergy 16:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse the block. Yes, he had to confirm each edit, but there's a level at which assisted manual edits becomes indistinguishable with droning/botting - and Beta went past it. Besides, he was removing redlinks. Yes, it's good, but the world won't end if he doesn't do it; unlike his bot, anyone can delink articles. Sceptre 00:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread is depressing

• Why are possible extenuating explanations for how this happened (which, I admit, I don't know enough about to know whether they're reasonable explanations or not) being discussed after the block, rather than before the block?
• Does it seem to anybody else like this thread isn't so much a conversation, as it is people sequentially yelling their opinion on the subject, with their hands over their ears so they don't have to listen to anyone else?
• Aren't most of the comments above either the usual knee-jerk Betacommand-hating suspects coming out of the woodwork to say the same tired things, or the usual knee-jerk Betacommand-apologists coming out of the woodwork to say the same tired things?
• Does it seem to anybody else like there's so much noise in all the babble that the signal (from the comments coming from non-knee-jerk editors) can't get through?
• The most depressing thing is that this kind of thread ("I have performed a controversial action without discussion, and invite comment after the fact." "Great block!" "Horrible block!" "Great block!" "Horrible block!" "Great block!" "Horrible block!".....) seems pretty common.
• I have a new working theory that no thread on ANI that's over one screen long, or that has more than 4 people commenting, is ever useful.
• Fantasy-land utopian description of how I wish this had gone (and there is blame on both sides that it didn't go this way):
  • Viridae: Um, BC, you just did a whole bunch of edits that look automated, which you aren't supposed to do.
  • BC: What? Those weren't automated, they were semi-automated.
  • V: I think they violate the agreement, tho.
  • BC: I disagree. I'll stop them while we ask at ANI, AE, or somewhere else.
  • V: OK, great, thanks.
  • (V and BC open a discussion somewhere to settle the issue)
  • (Everyone lives happily ever after. The End.)

--barneca (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nods. But this is the first time I've come into this situation. Synergy 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why I stay away from replying here. Well said. --Kbdank71 16:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

But look at the bright side of things: there has yet to be a debate on whether or not Viridiae or anyone else is "involved" or "uninvolved". In any case, I think it's a pretty innocuous block. Editor told "don't do this" goes out and does. Editor blocked for fairly short time. Everyone lives happily ever after. The End. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I do tend to agree regarding the length and contribution to ANI threads... there seems to be a new improved wikidrama here every time I look. It's scary just how many admins never come to Administrators' Noticeboard and its incidents subpage because it's so consistently C-grade theatre rather than problem-solving. Orderinchaos 05:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Barneca BC doesn't need warning - he has had sufficent of that. He knew he was under a sanctuion, he broke it, he deals with the consequences. Viridae 07:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the general level of support for the block, I've declined Betacommand's unblock request. In my personal opinion, this ban is poorly described. We either ought to clearly decide Betacommand is banned from semi-automated tools, or he's banned only from fully-automated ones, because this business about edits that "appear" to be automated leaves too much room for interpretation. Mangojuice 17:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well we could always define an Edits Per Minute rate = an Automated Tool. I personally have found it hard to get over 10EPM using a tool like AWB, and even those with very fast connections report rates above 20EPM as rare. MBisanz 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just indicate that he must review each edit. I think that would be more effective at achieving the goal of the restriction than some arbitrary number of edits per minute. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that in this case, he did "review" each edit in some sense. Do you mean he would be required to preview each edit? Mangojuice 17:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that what is meant here is "review" as in, look it over and consider it and ensure its accuracy, rather than "I looked at it". I simply cannot accept that anyone can give substantial thought to an edit in the time span above. Shereth 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure what the difference is, but sure. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What about we add something like "Betacommand is required to review all semi-automated edits he makes" to his sanction? When he makes more than 200 edits that need to be reverted, he clearly did not review those edits. --Conti|✉ 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• This nonsense over "fully-automated" vs "semi-automated" is some of the best wikilawyering I've seen in quite some time. Beta's restriction prohibits his use of automated tools. Whether semi or full, automated is automated. When somebody is prohibited from doing something by community restrictions, the proper response to violating those restrictions is a block. The proper response is not to open the 1000th discussion on Beta's actions. Good block. - auburnpilot talk 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• This whole thing is ridiculous. He knows damn well what he wasn't supposed to do. The wikilawyering over "semi-automated vs. fully-automated" is pure semantics. I remember the discussion that led to the "Sam Korn Solution" being adopted, and the consensus message was REAL clear. Beta just seems to have an amazingly strong (and frankly baffling) long-time obsession with making automated edits via whatever method he can. Unfortunately, they've inevitably done nothing but create trouble and controversy every time, and yet he keeps coming back. Over and over and over again. For years and years. We tell him his bot is broken, he says "No it's not", we tell him it's broken again, he says "Ok, I fixed it", he causes chaos, he says "Everyone's overreacting", we take away his bot-rights, and he switches over to rapid-fire Twinkle. I like Beta and I truly believe his heart is in the right place, but he either does not understand or is too obsessed to care what the community has told him repeatedly. The whole problem would go away overnight if he wanted it to, but he just can't keep his damn hand out of the cookie jar. Bullzeye 18:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Your assessment sounds about accurate to me, too, which brings me to the conclusion that this block is nothing short of a punishment. I've been thinking for a while now, about what this could possibly be to prevent, and, all I can come up with is "Betacommand editing". SQL 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, the answer is that there is a bright line that was created by the restriction, and that bright line would have no teeth unless it was enforced by the threat of blocking. If we don't actually enforce the restriction, we might as well not have it. The block has to be considered part of the restriction, not as a punishment in and of itself. Sam Korn 19:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    • So, we're going with "To prevent Betacommand from editing" then? I do not see where he was doing harm, outside of the initial mistake. This is starting to appear more and more like it's just a block for blocking's sake. SQL 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
      • No. The block is to enforce the remedy, which is intended to prevent Betacommand from using automated tools, which he has been demonstrated to have abused. If you believe the remedy is effective and necessary, you need to have this block. Sam Korn 19:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's not "nonsense" and "wikilawyering" - it's part of the policy on bots. This very issue was brought up when the Korn solution was proposed, and people chose not to listen to BAG members who knew how the terminology would be understood by the bot community, including Beta. On the point itself, Beta claims he intended to do one test edit with Twinkle and something went wrong, generating 217 edits which also happened to be bad edits. Beta's edits happened at 05:55-05:56, and the reverts by 718 Bot were at 07:00-07:05, just over an hour later. If that scenario happened to me, I would think "oops!" and start undoing the edits immediately. Gimmetrow 18:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For those of us who aren't in the know, could you explain how 1 test edit can somehow become 217 edits? I don't really get that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably because, if he reverted them, some trigger-happy admin would see a clearer golden opportunity, and block his ass. Then again, the fifty plus edits per min that came around afterwards kinda blows that out of the water. SQL 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If Beta is using a modified version of Twinkle's de-linking function, or something similar, it wouldn't be too difficult to rack up an absurd number of edits in mere seconds. See Cyanoa Crylate's contribs for how this is abused by vandals. - auburnpilot talk 18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What does how TW can be abused by vandals have to do with this situation? Beta's not a vandal? He wasn't abusing TW? SQL 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

SQL, I think it's time you reread Chunky Rice's comment. You know, the one right above your comment. - auburnpilot talk 20:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Bad block - where's the good faith assumptions? Are people contending that Betacommand was attempting to disrupt Misplaced Pages? Kelly 18:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, they are contending that he violated an editing prohibition that he has been placed under. Shereth 18:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No one assumes good faith where Betacommand is concerned because, quite frankly, he should know better by now. I'm not suprised to see Betacommand cheerleaders popping up at the merest suggestion of any form of punishment towards him, as usual. *sigh* Jtrainor (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand cheerleader? I'm not seeing any indication he was abusing bots here, no matter how this is spun. People who have histories with Betacommand should leave him alone instead of watching his every move - if he does something wrong, let an uninvolved party tackle it. Kelly 19:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. No one is making any accusations of abusing automated tools, but the community prohibition is on using automated tools, not abusing them. I'm certain his intentions were good but he is specifically prohibited from doing so, and has violated that prohibitin. Shereth 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's only Twinkle, then it's not an automated tool. Kelly 19:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The argument being made is that the prohibition includes "semi-automated" edits like the ones in question. Perhaps some clarification is needed, but either way it's a minor technicality and there's no reason to be wikilawyering loopholes. Shereth 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly: "if he does something wrong, let an uninvolved party tackle it." - heh, amusing. I'll be impressed if you can find an uninvolved party - strikes me that most of the Wiki community is involved when it comes to Beta. _TalkIslander 21:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not that Betacommand is abusing automated tools, it's that when he uses automated tools, it occasionally results in bulk fuckups like the 217 Twinkle-powered delinks that are part of this mess. --Carnildo (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Since a lot of the arguing going on is centered on the distinction between "automated" and "semi-automated" tools and is leading to a lot of silly bickering and getting bogged down in semantics, why not move toward a compromise to shut this issue down before it gets uglier?

Given the following :

• No one is really accusing Betacommand of being malicious or abusive or disruptive
• The community prohibition does not explicitly state semi-automated and there is room for interpretation
• The spirit of the prohibition is meant to include semi-automated edits

I propose that the current block on Betacommand be lifted as a "technical misunderstanding", but that the wording of the ban be modified to indicate that the use of a "semi-automated" tool such as Twinkle to make rapid-fire edits is also prohibited. It should be understood by Betacommand, as well as those intending to enforce the prohibition, that the intention of the ban is not to prohibit the use of tools per se, but that the intention is to enforce a thoughtful review of each and every edit before it is performed. As such, any edits that appear to be automated, inasmuch as they are generally considered to be too quick and successive to allow for any measure of thoughtful consideration prior to committing, should be considered a violation of the prohibition and subject to a block as stipulated previously.

What say you all? Shereth 19:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing the wording of the restriction is a good idea. Lifting the block is not. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 19:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that many people are arguing that Betacommand's tool was not automated because it was "semi-automated". Well, I think that is purely semantics. IMO, fully automated and semi-automated are just two different types of automated tool, and the spirit of the community sanction discussion was that the prohibition included all automated tools, full or semi. At least that's what I had in mind when I voted for the sanction. It saddens me that it's necessary, but I'd support formally specifying that the sanction applies to all automatic tools, and that the only allowed method of editing should be clicking the edit tab, making changes in the edit box and clicking "Save page". I don't really have a lot of sympathy for Betacommand in this case: given the numerous crystal clear warnings he was given, and the rapid pace at which he made edits, he should had understood that using an automated tool was not OK just because he pressed the "y" button a number of times equal to the number of articles edited. At the very least, he should have asked for a clarification first. Instead, he repeated the very same behaviour that led to the sanction in the first place: just starting a script run without asking anyone. IMO, the block was correct and in no way a misunderstanding. However, since blocks are preventative and not punitive, I'd support an unblock on the express condition that Betacommand expressly commits himself to making edits only through the edit tab, and that the community sanction is clarified to that effect. Is he back? (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that though I think preventing him from using, say, Twinkle is unnecessary. Now using his modified version of Twinkle or "testing Twinkle" is a problem because the restriction was put in place in part because BC screwed up fairly regularly as a programmer (and in part because of abuse). I don't mind seeing TW edit summaries in his contribs. In any case, what is really needed here is clear language for the restrictions. I believe that this should make clear that edits such as the ones being discussed now fall under those restrictions. As I said earlier, the spirit of the original restriction was "BetaCommand is requested to use the good old method of clicking the edit tab, followed by the preview button, followed by the save page button." But clearly, it's ok if he reverts vandalism with a script. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we simply cut it down to; "You are only permitted to make edits that are clearly manual, and in any event are less X per minute." While there may be debate on whether BC acts in the best interests of the community, although seriously there can be no argument that is the intent, it has to be realised that for someone with such a desire to automate the editing process they have an unfortunate habit of making poor decisions resulting in very many edits being needed to be reverted/repaired - and that this is a recurring problem. How many times does even the best faith editor need to be sanctioned/brought up before the community again before we take away the tools that keep being used badly, and ask the editor to apply their energies in another manner? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with this version. Viridae 21:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree to this, but it should be "X in any single minute" or something. Otherwise we may get "sure, there were 50 edits that minute, but there were none for the five minutes before". Franamax (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is fair. Jennavecia 23:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He has had plenty of chances. Keep him blocked. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Support The bad outweighs the good here. Whatever he's blocked for, he is still pushing an interpretation of his own that is questionable, and has persisted in doing so, without going to the root of the issue, which is the policy in question. Blind faith is still blind, whatever the mechanics, and numerous blocks, even discounting the dubious ones, do not seem to be moving his mindset forwards, or er, in any particular direction. If we need bots, let's have them, but let's have non-human ones. --Rodhullandemu 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which section to put this in, so it can go here. The evidence suggests that the tool was semi-automated. It required confirmation for every edit (the "pressing y" as people refer to above) and it showed changes which each edit is causing (which some users above, again, seem to helpfully overlook on the screenshot on BC's page). You see the little red "-"s, and the green "+"s? Those are the changes, in a diff format. The bits with a red "-" next to them are being removed, and those with a green "+" are being added. Thus he was checking his changes by looking at the changes to the wikiscript (and if using a graphical preview is the crime being cited here, I think we're all guilty). I'd suggest that betacommand hasn't violated the word of his community "ban", and it would be hard to enforce anything under the "spirit" of it, given its controversy and the drama surrounding the whole issue. My suggestion would be to caution betacommand not to run bot tasks on his own account, semi-automated or not (not precluding vandalism fighting and what have you, of course), and to remove the block at some point. That's only my 2p though and I'm not particularly attached to the idea . Martinp23 01:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it seems no more automated than AWB is, in "normal mode". Martinp23 01:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you look at Beta's screenshot, first says "Changing page ], then Beta approves five edits, then it says Changing page ]. The changes to those two pages are part of a run in which there are in excess of 30 edits per minute - so less than two seconds between edits. So Betacommand must have spent less than two seconds reviewing five edits. How can you say that's semi automated? A bot performing edits automatically is just the same as a human automatically pressing the "y" button. Besides, his edits also made quite some formatting changes besides those displayed, and Beta said "I dont bother to look at because I know they are correct and dont mess things up". So weren't those formatting edits made automatically? The spirit of the community restriction was quite clear, according to the ANI thread and the notifications given to Betacommand – this was precisely what they were intended to prohibit. Beta is now arguing on a semantic level, but even that requires quite a leap of faith to accept (I don't recall anything about the sanction saying "Betacommand is prohibited from using automatic editing tools, except if he knows the edits are correct and don't mess thing up"). Is he back? (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't take much time to look at a diff which is supposed to be removing a link in a bulleted list. It either looks like

- *]

and you hit "y", or it doesn't and you hit "n". I thought the complaint here was about the initial 217 twinkle edits? Gimmetrow 11:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much tell that you didn't look at any of the diffs before posting this. This is the last diff before blocking, and the others are all pretty similar. You can't be seriously telling me that you could look at that diff and approve it in less than a second! The problem is that Betacommand isn't checking his edits, and it strains all of our credibility to say that he is actually looking at every diff. I can't say how long I would need as a minimum for such an edit, but load+check+approve in 1 second of an edit where 10 sections of a file are touched is just not possible. AKAF (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's like running a program in debug mode and blindly hitting "return" for each loop. There's no practical difference between that so-called "semi-automatic" mode and "automatic" mode. Baseball Bugs 11:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Is he back? was referring to Beta's screenshot. Beta was editing to remove a link in a see-also section. He's only reviewing that edit. If that edit is approved, his script apparently also does a bunch of other things comparable to AWB's "general fixes". Why exactly is that a problem? Gimmetrow 12:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Because he's not supposed to be doing either automated work or work that "looks automated", which this does. Baseball Bugs 12:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So in your interpretation, the "Sam Korn solution" barred Beta from using AWB or Twinkle, or any use of pywikipedia? Gimmetrow 12:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The sanction forbids the use of work that "looks" automated. Baseball Bugs 12:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive146#Proposed_community_ban_of_Betacommand. The terms of the proposal was Betacommand has no right to run bots. Any unauthorised bot activity should be met with blocking, and the topnote summary has He is banned from using an automated program to make edits. Nothing about "looks automated". Gimmetrow 12:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's near the end of this section: Baseball Bugs 13:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Because you can mess up an article with such "general fixes". Sure, the chances are very low, but when you do a couple of hundred edits, it is almost inevitable that you have to fix one or two or three "general fixes" by hand afterwards. And that's why you have to check all those edits. --Conti|✉ 12:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, usually the AWB developers remove anything from "general fixes" that causes occasional problems. There seems to be little support for censuring AWB users who don't check the normally non-controversial "fixes". Heck, there's little support for censuring the editors who make up their own incorrect "fixes". Gimmetrow 12:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect, and neither are AWB's "general fixes". Actually, they're pretty good, and they do just what they're supposed to do in maybe 99,5% of the cases. But that doesn't stop mistakes from happening, and whenever I did disambiguation work with AWB, there were usually one or two edits that needed to be fixed afterwards. If I wouldn't have looked at every edit I made, I wouldn't have found those mistakes (or a bug that got fixed swiftly). Luckily, AWB automatically shows all changes before you apply an edit, and I just hope that's true for Twinkle as well. If you don't check the edits you make, you either should get yourself a bot (and know very, very well what you're doing), or don't make those edits at all. --Conti|✉ 13:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Right - let's get things back on track. I'd like to make a formal proposal here, taken from LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs) up above;

Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under a community restriction. He is prohibited from using fully automated tools to make edits. Furthermore, his edit rate must not exceed 10 edits per minute. Should he go above this rate, or make any edits that are obviously automated, he may be blocked for up to one week by any uninvoled administrator.

Hopefully this will reduce any ambiguety. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sounds ok though the second sentence should start with "Furthermore". I am open to tweaks if that gets more people on board: what we really need is to have something clear enough that a subsequent block will not be accompanied by 50kb threads. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks Pascal. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Obviously automated"? It seems that it's not obvious either way for a lot of people (see above), and you again introduce ambiguity as to semi/fully. (might also be worth citing WP:BOT as policy, if it describes the distinction (I think it may...)). Martinp23 01:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WP:BOT even describes what obviously automated is, I know Werdna used to have some tool for checking is a sequence of edits fit the bot pattern, but maybe just the 10EPM limit, otherwise, good proposal. MBisanz 01:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of the distinction between semi/automated (sorry if we're on a different wavelength, I may be confused). Martinp23 01:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I was thinking the "obviously automated" end, but even the semi/auto end is rather ill defined (there might be something in WP:B, but it is still unclear). I'd be happy with just a straight EPM limit at this point, with the understanding that if he's editing for 59 minutes straight at 9EPM every minute, that isn't acceptable. MBisanz 02:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I make one tiny suggestion, as crappy as it is? For each such block that "sticks", can we increase the length each time a tiny bit? 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4, 5, 6, etc.? Or else every month this will just come up again and again as it has forever. rootology (T) 01:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As someone (judging by a comment above, perhaps a very rare someone) who's both experienced but never been involved in anything involved Betacommand, I would suggest that ten is perhaps too low of a limit. From all I've read, it seems that Beta's edits are generally small edits that can be done quickly by a human, perhaps faster than one per six seconds: I myself make many small edits (never using even semiautomated processes), copypasting the relevant text in many tabs and then hitting "save page" in each window rapidly. What if Beta wants to do this with, say, fifteen pages: he'd have to stop after ten and wait a minute. Without attempting to get into the question of the propriety of Betacommand using any automated or semiautomated tools, I think that the proposal should be furthermore :-) changed in two ways: (1) Change "uninvoled" to "uninvolved", and (2) "10 edits" to "15 edits": it wouldn't be that much of a problem, and it would reduce potential problems from fast little edits such as I described. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I oppose any sanction that only prohibits "fully automatic" tools. As we just saw, banning only fully automatic tools will lead to endless wikilawyering about where the limit between semi-automated and fully automatic goes. How many seconds must be spent reviewing changes before pressing "y" etc. etc. etc. I would instead support the following proposal:

Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under a community restriction. He is prohibited from using any automated or semi-automated tools to make edits. However, specific exemptions may be granted for semi-automatic tools, provided that his edit rate does not exceed 10 edits per minute. In that case, Betacommand will have to make a request at WP:ANI indicating specifically which tasks he wants to perform, and which semi-automatic tool will be used, and there must be clear community consensus for running the task. Should Betacommand make any edits in violation of these restrictions, he may be blocked for up to one week by any uninvoled administrator.

This proposal is very clear without any loopholes that will create huge discussions when Betacommand violates the restriction. However, it leaves him the option of running semi-automated tools with proper discussion in advance - this will allow him to perform uncontroversial tasks, and also give him an opportunity to show that he can use these tools responsibly on a small scale. Is he back? (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I predict wording like that would lead to a dispute over whether a series of edits was really done with semi-automatic tools, or was just repetitive editing with browser tabs. Giving him an outlet for script work is important, though. My proposal is along these lines:

Beta may not make any automated/semi-automated/script-assisted/tabbed/vaguely-looks-scripted edits from the Betacommand account, but only from the Betacommandbot account, which is therefore unblocked. He's allowed up to 20 edits to test and debug a scripted task on the Betacommandbot account, but anything beyond 20 auto/semi-auto/assisted edits requires approval through AN/I. Any script assisted edits on the Betacommand account, or anything more than 20 edits on the Betacommandbot account without task-specific approval, results in escalating blocks on both accounts, starting at 3 days.

Trying to cover a few more loopholes while giving Beta room to do some script work. Gimmetrow 03:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - since when was the unblocking of BCB discussed? _TalkIslander 08:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Is he back?'s proposal - this version is crystal clear, without any obvious loopholes (though one will be found, I can guarentee that...). It also allows the possibility for Beta to do some useful scripted work, but only with the community's approval. _TalkIslander 08:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as Gimmetrow pointed out, there is the "tabbed browsing loophole", which has in fact been used earlier. So perhaps something should be added to the effect of "Furthermore, Betacommand may not use any method, manual or otherwise, that submits several pre-prepared edits in bulk" – just to close all loopholes, since they will be found, I assure you. Is he back? (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I suggest a simple 30-day block for violating the restriction against automated or semi-automated editing. Every time Betacommand runs another software-assisted bulk edit, others have to check over all his edits and fix the bugs, which is a drain on the project. --John Nagle (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As explained above, there was no straightforward restriction on semi-automated editing. Note that when the "Sam Korn solution" was proposed, another proposal was already on the table which did address semi-automated editing, so people were (or should have been) aware of the distinction. Gimmetrow 10:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Generally, when we have editors who ruleslawyer in this way, we don't bother trying to close all the loopholes. We simply make it clear that they can stop lawyering, or they can be shown the door. Friday (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• For what it's worth I think we can close this discussion and go with Ryan's formulation: it has sufficient support as a compromise so there's not much to gain by letting the thread go on and on. Although some would prefer tougher restrictions (or BC's head), I don't see a strong support for that, either here or in previous ANI threads. In any case, I think it's unreasonable to throw BC off the project and I'm confident this is the overwhelming view. On the other hand, it's fair to say that Ryan's proposal has the support of (at least) Shereth, Ed Fitzgerald, Is he back, Viridae, Franamax, Jennavecia, Rodhullandemu, rootology, MBisanz, Nyttend, Gimmetrow, Islander, Friday, Sam Korn, Ryan and myself. I also believe that the idea here is to remove any ambiguity in the "Sam Korn solution" which also had wide support at the time. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Disagree that there's consensus. I would approve of Ryan's proposal as long as it doesn't replace the existing restriction against edits which are automated or appear to be automated.

Again another off topic note by myself. I want to make sure all involved understand the chain of events. You can see my initial summery above. What happened is this: Betacommand tried the unlink function on WP:TWINKLE, which for all intents and purposes is an automated edit. I don't think he realized that is what it was when he did it (I can't read his mind though), but if he did not realize that is what it did, he failed to read the manual on twinkle. In short the twinkle actions were fully automatic for all intents and purposes. It is debatable if he intended to actually do those edits though.

After the first set of edits by twinkle were undone by an admin, betacommand went on to use his own tool. This tool can be argued to be semi-automatic. It showed a diff of all major changes it was making to the article, and betacommand simply confirmed that it was not removing the wrong text. This is the software shown in the screenshot on betacommand's talk page. As far as I know (and at the time I have checked) these edits are still the top revisions on the affected articles. Nobody has undone the edits by betacommand here.

In light of that, any remedy should keep in mind that betacommand's edits are generally helpful, when he uses "semi-automated" tools. Editing speed is not so much the issue, as the fact that he is actually reviewing the changing he does. My suggestion is to make it very clear that no automatic editing of any type is permitted, including those from popular javascript tools. You can define automatic as any tool that does not request input from the operator before commiting the save on each article in the list. (the delink button on twinkle fits this definition). Cheers folks —— nixeagle 20:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I also do not agree that there's consensus for Ryan's proposal. In particular, I do not support it, even though I'm listed in Pascal Tesson's list. I do not agree with any proposal that makes a distinction between fully automated and semi-automated edits. As we have just seen, that is just a recipe for rules lawyering. I support a restriction that encompasses both fully automated and semi-automated edits. Is he back? (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of IP vandal

Ok I did some stoopid vandalism here, but the admin blocked the IP indefinitely, and another one confirmed that. You can't block that IP indefinitely, it's a dynamic IP by a commercial ISP, which I don't even use anymore, now I have 77.12.234.15 (talk)!. Make that a timed block, will you? 77.12.234.15 (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I am more of a visitor here than anything else but frankly the block looks ludicrous in the absence of other evidence. --Herby 12:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed (downgraded to 31 hours), I guess User:Ckatz misclicked. -- lucasbfr 12:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Huggle block; I thought it was set not to indefblock IPs? – iridescent 12:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And that's exactly why I don't use Huggle to do any admin work. Useight (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You've heard my opinion on the matter - I don't personally think Huggle should have any admin tools enabled (when I see pages speedy-deleted 30 seconds after creation I cringe) but I don't think Consensus agrees. – iridescent 18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Mis-click indeed, and not noticed while cleaning up the nineteen pages the guy vandalized in his desire to add the word "Satan" to as many pages as possible. Certainly could have been resolved without an AN/I post, but then it was posted by the vandal. Anyway, thanks to Kralizec for letting me know this was going on, as the IP certainly didn't bother to do so. --Ckatz_spy 23:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility problems by User:Straight Edge PXK

• Straight Edge PXK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past few months, I've had a few problems concerning civility with Straight Edge PXK, who appears at times to be uncivil. At first, the user looked a lot like a violation of WP:MYSPACE, i.e. to spend most of his time communicating via talkpages. I originally brought up the issue here, at which point several editors agreed with me. Despite this, he continued to make non-constructive edits that could be seen as sarcastic. . This diff looks particulary alarming. He also made comments at several points that grossly violated WP:FORUM which didn't help in discussions: . After I warned him about his forum-y and non-constructive edits post, he accussed me of harrassing him, even though I wasn't, and in fact was only warning him as he was violating Misplaced Pages guidelines. He has also (although I don't believe this is prohibited) removed things from his talkpage, including the warnings I gave him. . The last diff of the two was given after he personally attacked me here. I find it interesting how he removed my warnings, yet reverts others for removing warnings from their talkpage. IMO this user as a whole is disruptive and isn't really a constructive user, with only 31% of his edits to the mainspace himself. Thoughts? (Note: I haven't notified him of this discussion, as my post to his talkpage will probably get reverted.) D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, I think you should notify him/her on his/her talk page. Reverted or not, he/she needs to be able at least to notice this. If he/she decides to ignore it, it's his/her own problem. Second, this user seems to be adopted, so maybe his/her adopter can talk some sense to the user. It's worth a try. Another idea would be a WP:RFC/U on this user or a report at WP:WQA. Last but not least, if he/she vandalizes, you can report the user to WP:AIV, no matter if he/she ignores the warnings. SoWhy 17:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a young kid, acting the way young kids generally act. We have no generalized solution for this problem. If his disruption becomes severe enough, he can be blocked. Until that time, there's not much to be done about it. People could stop this "adoption" nonsense and encourage people unsuited to Misplaced Pages to move along rather than encouraging them to stay, but good luck convincing the social networkers that this is the best approach. Friday (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember one incident now on my talk archive where I suggested something and then the rest of you went off subject to single me out as non constructive (find the irony there) as if to say "It's PXK suggesting it, what the fuck does he know" without using those exact words of course. Also, I'm 15, but I do sometimes have child like tendencies dueto reasons I don't want to go into. PXK /_C 18:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean, this which I linked above. That was intended as advise to make you a better Wikipedian. That doesn't take away forum-y posts and comments that takes discussions off course. We're here to improve the encyclopedia, and create a nice atmosphere that abide by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. The posts linked above fail to do that. D.M.N. (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with everything D.M.N. stated, but at this point, I can not come up with a solution to solve this problem. I just think that if PXK doesn't clean up his act, a block may be justified. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki based WP:OR "assault"

Hi. The Anonymous anti-Scientology crew is currently "harpooning" List of new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to include Scientology as an "alien-based" and "supremacist" religion. Please see their thread - "Misplaced Pages Entry on New Religious movements equals lulz". Both those claims are OR, biased, and based on a selective interpretation of primary material. At first I was reverting both but I decided to stop fighting the "alien" one and just hold the line on the "supremacist" claim as that is very clearly OR (in addition to not being true). Problem with this is that it is leaning toward a content dispute but with the problem being that these editors are not acting in good faith but are seeking to promote their POV and there are more of them then there are of me. Any ideas? Thanks. ps - currently the page is protected in the "harpooners" preferred version. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is alien-based, but I can't see I see any sign of it being "supremacist". However, I cannot ethically edit the article, because of previous conflicts with Scientology, unless the church specifically releases me from a voluntary pledge I took back in the 90s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not "the church" but I am a Scientologist in good standing and likely the only such actively editing Scientology articles here. I certainly do not hold you to your pledge and personally see no reason that you should not be editing the articles. I mean every other critic of Scientology edits them, why not you too? (Assuming you are a critic.) I would rather have responsible editors of any stripe editing than inexperienced SPA POV pushers. Present company excluded, of course. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As cited in the reference provided there, it is shown to be supremacist. If needed, I can provide a completely done website that demonstrates this. Also, as you can see, I "harpooned" the user in question. ie http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/preface.htm --Groupsisxty (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That website doesn't demonstrate anything, it claims things. Please read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability for an explanation of our requirement that material - particularly contentious material - must have been published by a reliable source. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than clutter this page, we can move discussion to my talk page if you guys like. Groupsisxty (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, the entire listing a OR. Every item can be contended, to include Westboro Baptist being in the supremacist section, or even the definition of "New" Groupsisxty (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That point is not without validity, however if you go to the specific article in question and the classification is clearly justified then perhaps the unsourced nature of the list is more understandable. Your attempt to smear Scientology with every negative connotation that you possibly can is just that. And we both know that. No reliable source has ever claimed that Scientology is a "supremacist" group and it needs to come out of that part of the list. I already said I will not argue the "alien" bit. So let's remove it from the "supremacist" list and be done with this. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As another side note, I am currently the only person editing the talk page. There is no "attack" called on this page, and I am acting in good faith, citing sources. Justallofthem has reverted several edits, without giving cause other than "Once more and I'm taking it to the mods". I have called for discussion in the Talk Page prior to the lock, without response, and the user's talk page is locked, so I could not alert the user to it. The "attack" was circumvented by myself. I stated "Cited sources, abide by the Wiki Guidlines". This is not pushing a POV, contrary to Justallofthem states. I think we can remove this section from the alerts page, and continue to reach a consensus on the Talk page for the article. Groupsisxty (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing and can we please wrap this up?

Well that is not exactly true, Groupsisxty. There were a number of IPs and SPAs reinserting the OR materials:

• Marc abian (talk · contribs)
• Groupsisxty (talk · contribs)
• 65.213.127.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 86.139.125.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.243.175.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 24.117.105.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Not to mention this repeatedly inserted on the talk page:

Thank you to the Misplaced Pages mods for allowing the truth to be told, although I'm sure eventually the so-called 'Church' will bully and threaten Misplaced Pages into removing the material they don't like, as that is their way (lalala - Justallofthem). I hope Misplaced Pages, shining beacon of truth and knowledge, stands tall and refuses to do so, even under inevitable threat of being sued.

Scientology denies their belief in the Xenu story because if they told people they really believed that, people would stop joining them (I mean come on, it is just a tad ridiculous)! They deny their belief that they are a master race ('Homo Novis') as it would be further proof that Scientology is in fact the biggest threat to the free world since the Third Reich (woo hoo Reductio ad Hitlerum - Justallofthem). They lie, cheat, blackmail, infiltrate levels of government, and they most definitely have blood on their hands. The truth is out there on the internet and other sources for anyone to read, we encourage people todo so and spread the word. KNOWLEDGE IS FREE.

We are Anonymous. We are legion; we do not forgive, we do not forget. EXPECT US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.241.81 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is to your credit, Groupsisxy, that you reined that Anon in both here and in your forum though your call for /b/ackup in that selfsame forum is not considered exactly kosher:

Why don't you faggots register there and start adding to the talk pages. It seems (to them) like I am the only one pushing this and we wouldn't even to rule on "Consensus"

You are new here and it is an understandable error. However the time is now to please revert this to my last which was a a compromise and change the protection level to semi. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, to have a number of people writing this Wiki is not what is desired? Especially with sourced info? Huh wut? I told people to register so people can offer their their POV into the article. How is this not kosher? And as I said, I am currently the only one. As for wrapping it up, there are citations on the talk page supporting it's placement, and none to the contrary. And don't presume I'm new here. I had an account here quite a few years ago, and forgot what it was so re-registered. Groupsisxty (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No disrespect intended. Even if you have some experience here you might not know that what you did is considered disruptive canvassing on several levels. No harm done that we cannot undo right now. The point and only point is that your inclusion on the "supremacist" list is your WP:OR based on your read of primary materials and others have already said as much here. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Deathgrinder

IP 63.23.96.135 made attempts at death metal to add a non-notable band (with a recently deleted Wiki article) to this music genre article. A regular user explained to the IP user that the insertion was inappropriate. The IP re-appeared as Deathgrinder, with the same continued vandalism and WP:3RR. I appreciate any assistance with this user. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems the account hasn't edited since the last warning. Perhaps they got the point, or perhaps they've just left for the day. If they show up again and cause problems in spite of the warnings they should be blocked; but since there has been no new problems since the warning there's not much that can be done at the moment. Shereth 23:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Weirdo82

Weirdo82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems unable to comply with WP:IUP. He is uploading copyrighted images and marking them as pd-self. He as been warned time and again and again. The first warning was responded by a diatribe indicating a complete lack of comprehension, but the second one received something that looked more promising. Regardless, he's back at it today, recreating images that got deleted yesterday.
Kww (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given the user a final warning regarding these kinds of uploads. Let me (or any admin here) know if he continues to do so, and a block will be issued. Shereth 23:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Further problem: he reposted Image:Claire.jpg, which was a blatant copyright violation when he posted it last night ... still is, but he now has gotten smarter, and doesn't list the source URL when he claims to have taken it himself. If one of you kindly admins you could look at Weirdo82's deleted contributions, it was one of the images that was deleted around 12:43PM on August 20th. My CSD notice included the URL, which is what I need for a copyright violation CSD. Sure would be nice to have the ability to view deleted contributions without having to put up with adminship.
Kww (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted this latest image, plus one earlier one. Kevin (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

70.181.114.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)is apparently his IP which he sporadically has been editing at. He does very little talk/user talk editing. But from what I've seen the user may be a non-english speaker/young person who has some comprehension issues. From this diff you can see some text they removed, it gives me the impression this is a very young person with a comprehension issue, and frankly there are some civility issues in there. If someone wants to take on the coaching of a young user and this person is willing to accept that, it would be the only viable solution. It doesn't seem like anything else but time to gain maturity would change their behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about age, but given his musical tastes, having Chinese as a first language wouldn't surprise me a bit. I agree that we seem to be having a comprehension problem, not a malice problem. I got a question this morning from Stupido222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who just innocently happened to notice the problems with Weirdo82. I cautioned Stupido222 about using two accounts, tried again to explain the image policy, and offered to try to arrange help in another language if he needed it.
Kww (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is this particular bit that makes me think young user and not foreign language user: What is wrong with editing? Can you stop blocking me? It is super annoying! Plus, what is wrong with posting Angela Chang's images? Blocking isn't your job, fungus person.... yeah...that means you! Just stop blocking me because that is none of your business!!! Just stop! STOP STOP STOP! teaching foreigners (including chinese) doesn't give me the impression of an ESL issue, it gives me a clear impression of someone very young. The grammar and vocabulary choice just don't seem right for someone having an esl problem. I've also posted a friendly note on weirdos page to offer some advice.--Crossmr (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I missed that bit ... it must be somewhere in his deleted contributions. I'm losing hope of a good resolution: Stupido222 has just posted a reply saying he didn't understand what I was talking about.Kww (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Steve Washington

Steve Washington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating many articles that get speedy deleted because they usually don't meet A7, and he has been warned many times and the user doesn't understands. I'll like to request administrator assistance to deal with this user. Thanks, Macy 00:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: User has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use at Images for Deletion

Damiens.rf (talk) has been nominating a couple dozen images for deletion (see Thursday's IFD log) with admissions that they pass the fair use criteria, using disclaimers such as the following:

Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable because it shows a deceased person. What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news agency.

In the last twelve hours, three different editors have left questions or warnings on his/her talk page about this. I've called for speedy keeps on many of these nominations, as they are effectively attempts to make a point with images that plainly fulfill our criteria. Could an uninvolved admin please look into these images? Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

News agency images are pretty much always at the very least debatable with respect to the non-free content policy. All the IfDs look legitimate to me insofar as a valid discussion could be had on each. I certainly didn't see any that were in bad faith and hence none is appropriate to be "Speedy kept". Damiens.rf could arguably consider slowing down a bit but our widespread misuse of news agency photos is an issue that needs to be addressed. CIreland (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

@ Nyttend: That is not an admission it passes the criteria. It is an admission it passes ONE criterion. It must pass them all. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Each image can be discussed individually at IfD. A fair use rationale is not a ward for copyright considerations, it is still the purview of the community to discuss whether or not we are using the images appropriately. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• The two main problems with news agency photos are complying with policy WP:NFCC#2, I'd say that use of a low resolution image is highly unlikely to impinge on news agencies commercial rights. The other is the guideline WP:NFCImages#6, now that is a lot tougher to comply with. Though being a guideline it doesn't carry the same weight as the policy criteria but should still be respected in most cases. RMHED (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The copyright lawyers are lining up at wikipedia's door even as we speak. Baseball Bugs 09:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:65.216.70.60 etc.

User: 65.216.70.60 has been cutting a wide swath in the last few month, being involved in a 3RR violation on the Gemstone IV article, edit warring on the Superman (film series) article, edit warring with severe WP:BLP violations on the Ray Carver (darts player) article, vandalization of user pages and numerous hostile and uncivil edit summaries and user talk page posts to myself and several other editors , , , , , , , , , both from that IP address and two other IP addresses to which he has access - Special:Contributions/68.239.20.96 and Special:Contributions/72.72.118.129, discernable by editing one IP's talk page from another, from two of the accounts editing the Gemstone article and all three reverting on the Carver and Superman articles, and indiscriminately posting to user talk pages. The 65.216.70.60 address has been blocked three times within the last week for some of these violations, only to open up again directly after the expiration of each block, and is now under a two week block; nonetheless, he's using the 72.72.118.129 address for more harassment .  RGTraynor  03:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And make that yet another one. .  RGTraynor  23:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Something Worthy of Attention

  «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like EdJohnston has replied over there. No further action required for now. — Satori Son 14:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd behaviour by a couple of new users

Anyone got any thoughts on what these two are up to:

• Newcrewforu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 347Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I get the feeling I'm missing something. CIreland (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

it's a weird bunch of accounts, edit-warring with each other. They've been here before. See this, for example - Alison 05:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly connected with Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/96.247.37.61. Kevin (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah! :) - Alison 05:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have indefblocked both. No good contributions, userpage vandalism like this or that Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

202.14.81.49 edit warring

202.14.81.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps removing content that I've sourced in some cases removing the reliable source and is also being uncivil. Bidgee (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block requested

--Crossmr (talk)

It is obvious that User talk:Gamingnews is here to cause trouble, so could someone please investigate and impose a sanction? I recommend an indefinite block. Thanks. BlackJack | 07:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:347Editor

The user User:347Editor's account has thus far been used only for vandalism, trolling and harrassment, and has now begun adding purported persona information and petty threats. --Killing Vector (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The guy's blocked already. I did submit an SSP case on this guy. Edit seemed fishy. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, you might want to check out the thread three sections up. It's the same editors again - Alison 07:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Man with a tan

I've reblocked Man with a tan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per several questionable edits not least this one: (I nuked the redirect as being entirely inappropriate per WP:BLP). His deleted contributions also show evidence that he's here mainly to play silly buggers, including some WP:BLP violations. I think he's in the wrong place, he has mistaken Misplaced Pages for Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Note that he had to get IP block exemption due to chronic abuse from that IP range - looks to me as if he is part of that particular problem. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the block and concur with Guy's assessment. I've offered him a {{second chance}} to give him an opportunity to demonstrate a willingness to work constructively and meaningfully, and I hope that he'll take the opportunity. I guess we'll see though. Gazimoff 09:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He already had a second chance. He blew that one. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he needed ipblockexempt to get round a hard block suggests to me that this is a returning vandal/troll. I agree fully with the block. Sam Korn 09:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was he granted with IP block exempt in the first place? His very first edit was a request for exemption. If the flag is being dished out willy-nilly to new editors with no contributions, nor with a checkuser to confirm the hard block then the system is very very flawed. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I ran a checkuser -- he is on a range that is hardblocked with a specific invitation to request ipblockexempt. He is the only new user to have been granted it. Sam Korn 11:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... If the account was caught in an ip range hardblock then the only pages they could edit was the userpages - and a request for ip exemption thus makes sense. I admit that such knowledge displayed on an accounts first edit might be suspicious, but there is the matter of AGF. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the block reasons that expand on attempting to edit a page now specifically describe how to request IP-BE, so I would not be surprised to see larger numbers of ranged blocked accounts asking for it. MBisanz 13:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To expand a bit more on RyanLupin's question, this is a problem of the ipblockexempt system, as the actual vandals/trolls/abusers on the range are able to get a new account, because it's tough to prove via checkuser what individual is behind the IP. However, as we see in this case, the user got blocked pretty quickly, with only 156 edits, and most of them since August 4. So the system works here, IMO. Maxim (☎) 13:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the only thing that went wrong was us (including me) not watching closely enough after the exemption was granted. But little damage has been done, this is just a bored kid I think. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

RSPCA Australia

Alexcan99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding a Controversy section which I have no issue with however most of it was unsourced POV and OR. They readded it again today with a new cite however it didn't state on what was said in the article. The user has readded it which is now a copyvio since it uses the word for word ("Shockingly, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) generally supports this legislation." ) but the issue is it's only about a law that the RSPCA supports and not really an action of the RSPCA and it's only one source by a site I know nothing about. Bidgee (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor added this "Treat the other posts the same or get out of editing you hypocrite. ". I understand that the article is unsourced and I plan to do some work on sourcing but ATM I'm busy on other matters that I'm working on. Bidgee (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the editor's first activity since January (at least under that user ID), so it's effectively a single-purpose account, and obviously a POV-pusher. Baseball Bugs 10:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted his latest attempt. I think there's a 3RR situation here also. Baseball Bugs 10:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The red-link editor was already blocked last fall for OR, and his one entry in January was an editorial paragraph about pit bulls that has since been removed. Clearly a strictly POV-pushing account, maybe with good intentions, but inappropriate to wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 10:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a POV-pushing type but I've not looked into all the edits the user has made. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

His edits are in little chunks. The first group was some editorializing about dogfighting which was eventually removed. The next was a lengthy series of edits about some Austrailian public figure that bought him a lengthy block. Then came a couple of edits in January about pit bulls, also reverted. His main focus seems to be to knock the Australian SPCA. He could be right, but he can't provide valid citations for it. Baseball Bugs 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this guy before (either here or at AIV), and thought I'd blocked him previously for POV warring, but obviously haven't since I can't find it in my log. He seems to want to set the record 'straight' concerning dangerous dogs. This is apparently a recurring problem, and with every edit designed to push a POV and nothing constructive, I'm inclined to indef. EyeSerene 12:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been warned and blocked and won't stop, so indef-block would be the normal course of action. He can always appeal if he thinks the block is unfair. So far he hasn't bothered to respond except with uncivil snide remarks. Baseball Bugs 12:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There have been plenty of prior warnings, a previous block, and no indication of cluefulness. We really don't need another POV-pushing editor. Indefblocked. EyeSerene 12:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good. Case closed. Baseball Bugs 13:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block (with regret: we really should have attempted to educate him when he started this silly nonsense, rather than letting it fester to this point); closing discussion as resolved. Anthøny 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Roman Abramovich Misunderstoodment by User:Alexnia

Dear Admins, I need help regarding this article were User:157.203.42.50 had removed information. At the beginning I thought this user was vandalising this page. Later I was noticed that the edits by the IP address weren't vandalism and that the case was discussed in the Article's talk page. The IP address is extremely angry at me and I ask help to remove all warning I gave out to him.

p.s Yes I am reporting my self Alexnia (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't you just delete the warnings from the talk page? Ged UK (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I can but I tested out every time I remove a warning from a user and he gets warned again the templates act as IF the warning I gave him are only invisible but are still there and now the IP user in talk is trolling my talkpage I need help of a Admin to solve everything Alexnia (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I also found out that there is a small chance I was correct with the warning I gave him since a other user noted that his edits were unacceptable for wikipedia.Alexnia (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

problem is almost half way solved after research I found out the facts were more on my side but came to the conclusion that the IP address didn't deserve the warning . There fore I am going to archive the discussion about the case on my talkpage and I'm going to delete any further comments by this user on my talkpage (reason : he is given me a headache + TrollingAlexnia (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User EvilLuthor

Came across EvilLuthor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the history of some pages while on vandal patrol. He seems to be making a personal attack in all his recent edit summaries. Arakunem 14:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Never mind, I see he has been blocked already. Arakunem 14:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional eyes please: TOV?

These edits might be considered threats of violence: 1, 2. I've blocked the IP for 72 hours, and I'm assuming no further action necessary since the threat is so general, but I'd appreciate additional scrutiny on this. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the right call to me. GlassCobra 17:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ooa9309

This user has been adding non-notable schools in Taiwan on Misplaced Pages en masse, despite numerous warnings for him to stop. Should we block him? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Comayagua98 indef block

I've just indefinitely blocked this user so we can get a clear idea of what's going on. Basically, they have been blanking user pages, slapping on block notices and chucking sockpuppet accusations around indiscrimately (examples). I suspect there's some history here. Thoughts anyone? --ROGER DAVIES  16:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than sure this user is a sock of User:Miamiboyzinhere who we've had problems with before —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That would fit the evidence. Good block. EyeSerene 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

New Cold War

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

This is going nowhere. Wait for the AfD to be closed. GlassCobra 21:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a deletion discussion on New Cold War (an article which I created), which will meet its five day mark in a few hours. The nominator and I both feel that the the discussion has not yet resulted in a consensus for delete. Outside of the deletion process, User:Commodore Sloat, another participant in the discussion, de facto deleted the content of the article here. I consider his deletion of the content of the article to be without consensus, but I obviously think that my reverting his deletion of the content would just escalate the issue further. I believe the deletion process is specifically designed to help create stability in situations like these, and I'm afraid User:Commodore Sloat has just made an end run around that process.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The de facto deletion of the article has been reverted, but User:Commodore Sloat has indicated he intends to revert that edit, and delete the content again, should the article be kept as no consensus for delete.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, what? This AN/I report is baseless. I created a disambiguation page based on the discussion on the deletion page. Someone else reverted the disambig page back to the inappropriate page based on the reasonable argument that we should wait until the AfD discussion is over. I concurred with the reversion. I am not sure what user:j is complaining about here, but I think an AN/I report is entirely inappropriate -- my behavior on that page has been entirely civil and within the rules. csloat (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the content of the article outside the deletion process is not "within the rules" and promising to do so again is just as unacceptable, hence your deletion of the content being reverted and this issue being brought here.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

csloat, you were perhaps a little over-eager to prejudge the AfD outcome - the final decision will be made by the closer, and it may not be to disambig the page. However, the content has been replaced, and you say you have no problem with that, so is there really anything more that needs discussing here? EyeSerene 17:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Commodore Sloat has indicated that he intends to delete the content of the article and restore his disambiguation if the result of the process is keep, regardless of the lack of consensus for that action and regardless of the concerns of others. I'm afraid that's the issue at hand here now.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is nothing that needs discussion here, other than perhaps an admonition to users not to file phony AN/I reports. csloat (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This all seems to me to be jumping the gun. I would suggest that both of you wait for the AfD closure, rather than worrying about what might (or might not) happen afterwards. If the article is kept, and if someone then begins to edit disruptively, then would be the time to bring it to admin attention. However, a reminder might be helpful that edit-warring on any article will eventually lead to sanctions; talk page discussion and possibly dispute resolution should be the first ports of call in a content dispute. EyeSerene 17:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(←) I brought up this issue here because I believe deleting the content of an article to circumvent AfD, and promising to do so again after that edit was reverted, is disruptive and harmful to the deletion process. I agree that talk page discussion and dispute resolution (if necessary) should be employed, not unilateral edits that significantly alter the page without consensus.   user:j    (aka justen)   18:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your attribution of evil motives to me is uncivil and violates WP:AGF. And the suggestion that I should be punished for future actions smacks of, well, Phillip K Dickism. csloat (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

csloat, user:J raised a perfectly legitimate concern; your comment can indeed be read as a threat to revert back to your disambig version of the page if the AfD results in a keep. I don't believe you would do this though, as I'm sure you're well aware of the consequences of disruptive editing, so perhaps we can all assume good faith, both with your post and user:J's concerns, and let this drop? EyeSerene 20:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your motives are, I can only address your actions. You deleted the entirety of the content of the article while an AfD was ongoing. You promised you will do so again should the deletion discussion be closed as keep. To say nothing of your motives, your actions were disruptive, were reverted, and were discouraged by others.   user:j    (aka justen)   20:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, you don't know what my motives are, and your assumption that I was trying to "circumvent AfD," besides being completely and obviously false, is a violation of WP:AGF. So stop it now, please. csloat (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) csloat, user:J raised a perfectly legitimate concern; your comment can indeed be read as a threat to revert back to your disambig version of the page if the AfD results in a keep. I don't believe you would do this though, as I'm sure you're well aware of the consequences of disruptive editing, so perhaps we can all assume good faith, both with your post and user:J's concerns, and let this drop? EyeSerene 20:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if you assume bad faith, you can also read my comment as a threat on somebody's life. But it is no such thing, and I didn't threaten to do anything! Is J seriously proposing I should be punished for future actions based on a tortured misreading of a comment I made? And are you actually supporting this proposition in some way? It's very odd. I am not being disruptive, I am trying to help out here! csloat (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your page edit and comment, taken together, could give the impression of an intent to remove the article no matter what. You claim that was not your intent, and I'm happy to accept that. All I'm suggesting is that you try to understand how it appeared to J, based on the concerns he raised. I understand that it's a hotly-contested AfD debate, and with you both being of opposite views, misunderstandings happen all to easily. No-one is going to be sanctioned for something that might never happen, but neither is it helpful to prolong this dispute and entrench positions by bringing more policies to the fight ;) EyeSerene 20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The only way one could get that impression is through a tortured misreading of my words that begins with an assumption of bad faith. Other than that, I agree with you - there is no need to prolong this nonsense. csloat (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Abtract edit warring at Masculine and Feminine

I've become used to Abtract's "playfulness", but it just so happens I'm discussing sodomy with someone at Virginity atm, and the meaning of Greek malakoi, usually translated as "effeminate", but with the sense of "unmasculine" happens to be relevant to that discussion. Abtract's insistance on removing both the description of the normal use of the word masculine and any link even to Masculinity clearly impedes even internal use of Misplaced Pages in discussions at other articles.

All that seems to be needed is to encourage him to use the talk page to make his case. Though I suspect he knows as well as anyone else that what he's doing has no defence. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually his last edits to both pages leave your version in place and simply add {{disambig-cleanup}}. Both predate your post here so this edit-warring complaint is resolved. I'll note that Masculinity was indeed linked in his version, and that your version seems really really weird to me for a dab page. 86.44.28.251 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Shevashalosh - Legal threat

Hi, there's a legal threat against Misplaced Pages on ℑonathan ℂardy(talk) 17:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User blocked, page protected. 86.44.28.251 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks like the same threat I'm reporting below. --GoodDamon 18:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• ZOMG! Suppression! Censorship! Anti-semitism! Good block. User simply does not get it, for various and several values of it. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User שבע-שלוש threatening lawsuit

Resolved – User block, talk page protected. _Gb 18:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

שבע-שלוש (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Not sure if that will work with the Hebrew character set)... This user's talk page is a call to organize a lawsuit against Misplaced Pages for perceived anti-Semitic discrimination on the English Misplaced Pages site. I'm not sure how this sort of thing is usually dealt with, so I thought I'd give a heads-up. --GoodDamon 18:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you allowed to threaten lawsuits on the Sabbath? _Gb 18:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the guy from the thread above. 86.44.28.251 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Have blanked it, will watch contributions. _Gb 18:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

They've continued to introduce the same page, were warned twice, persisted, were blocked, persisted again, and the page has therefore been protected. _Gb 18:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

While I empathize with שבע-שלוש's sentiments, and agree that antisemites are using English (and several other language editions of) Misplaced Pages as a vehicle to spread their poison, and using the open atmosphere and letter-of-the-law interpretations of policy to effectively trounce opposition to their nefarious activities, שבע-שלוש's actions are a violation of both the letter and spirit of Misplaced Pages's "no legal threats" blocking policy. The redlinked user page above doesn't take into account that this proposed activity of שבע-שלוש's is also ongoing on he: at he:עריכת משתמש:שבע-שלוש. For saying so, I'll probably be labeled a self-hating Jew. Oh well. As much as I despise the antisemites out there, I like Misplaced Pages better. And no, not only are you not allowed to threaten lawsuits on Shabath, you're certainly not allowed to use a computer (much less the internet!) to do so... Tomer 18:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that this user is the same individual as above (shevashalosh is a transliteration of the Hebrew name). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh ya, sorry, I forgot to mention that. Tomer 20:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Time to block?

Is it time to block bannedtruth (talk · contribs)? In my opinion this is a single-purpose POV-pusher who is unwilling to play by the rules. Their only contributions are talk-page posts in favour of Holocaust revisionism and some POV-pushing in articles (all reverted by other editors). After this warning from me, their last contrib is a veiled threat and a complaint that Holocaust revisionism is not allowed at The Holocaust. Correction: it's a statement that David Irving is not an anti-Semite... citing a YouTube video. Would a short block be appropriate, or do we wait? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this users conduct would be considered bannable at this point if it were a less distasteful POV. (Although I do like that he seems to use an almost stereotypical "but some of his friends are Jewish! And his lawyer" argument without realizing how that comes across). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at his edits (such as this, and stuff like this.) That's about all we're getting out of this account. I've blocked him indef. Grandmasterka 19:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good block. I don't recall seeing anything, anywhere, that says we need to be naively tolerant of an endless stream of cranks, crackpots, POV pushers, and bearers of the truth who won't accept that Misplaced Pages is not here to be their voice. EyeSerene 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You must be new around here. Harry "Snapper" Organs (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. This seems like a hopelessly POV individual. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, that does come over as a bit ranty, doesn't it? I honestly wasn't commenting on any other posts (or posters) :P EyeSerene 20:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I support this block on Bayesian grounds, without reviewing the editor's contributions. If a username contains a permutation of the word "Truth", the pre-test probability that it's a tendentious agenda account is 96.923%. Further testing and review is therefore unecessary and potentially misleading. :) MastCell  20:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

96.923%? That low? EyeSerene 20:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar and Rlevse and possibly Scarian

I am posting here because I feel that Dreadstar and Rlevse have done me wrong. For a month or more a situation has gotten out of control and Dreadstar and Rlevse have failed to prevent it.

I am sorry to say that you can only understand if i explain the full situation from start to finish. I give you my apology in advance, but this is a complex situation. Dreadstar and Rlevse have been involved with all three of my blocks in a month's time.

On July 20, 2008 I had removed a video from the Ejaculate article. I did so as I felt the video did not add any more educational value then the text or image. I cite this in the edit summary which can be seen in the diff here This was reverted by a editor known as The Wednesday Island, who request i look at the talk page.

Apparently I had went against a "long standing" consensus that I did not know existed, or even expected one to exist for a video such as this one. Also the video had apparently been in debate for a long period of time. 2 days after I had removed the video and it was replaced, I went back to the article and notice the video was there again, and that someone reverted it, and left a comment in the edit summary. I went to the talk page to post like requested. (I have been ridiculed for the 2 day gap in time for a response by another editor or two, but will detail that later if i remember.) I posted on the talk page this comment

Now my comment might sound as if I had the intent to filter or censor, but that is not the case. I have a hard time explaining what I am trying to say, as my grammar in that comment might illustrate. I made that comment because I believe if the text and a image on a article can illustrate the point of the article and it's subject matter, then a video is not needed. No need to over illustrate is the basic point of my argument, and what led to the depute. I use the intercourse article as an example because I believed it would be the most likely article with similar subject matter which would have text and images that efficiently illustrate the point without a video. As we all know to well there are videos that can illustrate it, but I don't currently see one in use on that article.

Well the editor who reverted my removal of the video made a rather inappropriate comment back

I admittedly commented on my disapproval of the comment s/he left. Being that it was a serious discussion, and such tones should not be used. Well the discussion goes on from there with many other comments from the editors, and The Wednesday Island that are more or less Trollish and uncivil, but please do not take my word for it, and feel free to judge for yourself on the ejaculate article's talk page under the heading Video.

I more or less feel that he was only trying to get my goat, and was there just because of the easy targets that come to that article. Logically if that article had no video or article I doubt there would be many disputes, not that I am advocating the removal of both image and video mind you. I am only saying that these two things combined or not will draw a crowd, and a debate which people like. I believe that the editors on these articles, who have stuck around them a long time are just using them to get a conflict going. Please don't take my word for it, use your own judgment.

That is when the first of it started. I get singled out when there are editors on those articles that use the no censor policy as their sheild and sword and stick around the articles keeping any new people away.

The Wednesday Island, Atom, Honeymane (I guess not as much as the others), Asher196, Dreadstar and Rlevse are all editors i've had nothing but trouble with on these talk pages for the last month. From The Wednesday Island's counter productive behavior, To Atom's We don't censors, you're censoring, you're sexualizing images, or that is just my opinion of you, attitude. Another case would be Asher196 making a ruckus by reverting my edits not just on the article, but on his talk page as well.

I can see the Breast Article's Lede image being reverted if it was in a discussion, but leaving comments like this in the edit summary?

After I changed the lede (without knowing Asher196 reverted it) I noticed the Gallery on the article was quite large, 57 images in fact. Much of it was filled with many miscellaneous pictures. It just looked like someone just threw in anything breast in there. I removed 8 of these images bringing the total down to 49. This action was undone by Asher196 as shown by this series of diffs.

Removing 8/57 images is not a major change but a trimming.

The problem here is I'm being targeted because i'm the new guy to these artiles, and all these editors know each other and those admins.

I get blamed for edit waring when Asher196 and Atom are converting the edits yet that was ignored by Dreadstar.

Asher196 edit wared with me on the gallery over 8/57 images and Atom edit wared with both me and asher over the gallery table being hidden calling it censorship.

Asher196 hid the gallery to keep the stretching down. I mean loading 57 images causes the scroll bar to jump around like an idiot. Well here comes Atom to revert it saying it was broke.

I thought it was a honest mistake and i corrected him and told him it wasn't broke but programed to hid to help in navigation of the article. He reverts it again, this time claiming censorship.

I revert his revert and assure him its not censorship.

Well i guess because i reverted twice i am in a edit war? He reverted 3 times. once Asher's edit twice my own.

Asher196 hiding the gallery http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=229168263&oldid=229167936 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229168263 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229169608

Atom's Reverting it http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229169608

Me correcting him http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229329371

Atom reverting it a 2nd time, this time using the censor card 2RR http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229373351

Me correcting him a second time might be considered 2RR but that's a case by case thing I guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=229633092

Well after this episode Me, Asher196 and Atom got were trapped in a sea of editing and reverting. It got to where it seemed hey were reverting edits just because I made them. I had to remove a non creditable site and a image that was already represented in the gallery multiple times because of it, which is another thing dragged into the claims of edit warign by Dreadstar.

Dreadstar had came to my talk page after I commented on the Breast Article's talk page that "I don't indent and never saw a rule on it," and even thought this rule isn't strictly enforced he continued to bring it up with more and more uncivilness in his tone.

Well i plainly told him not to focus on me, because Atom and Asher196 were equally guilty of edit waring. He asked me for the diffs and I was a little frustrated that he would go and find diffs to show "My Crimes" but not take a quick look at their diffs.

After I gave Dreadstar this info, and he still focused on me not indenting, and edit warring. Gave me the old speech "You're responsible for your own actions" That is when i accused him of being bias. I had seen his presence on that article and its talk page, discussing the topic and how to improve it with the others. I felt he was to involved and as far as i knew or still know he could have been friends with Asher196 and Atom.

The conversation just completely fell apart from there. as no one was thinking straight, and i asked him not to contact me anymore.

It was after this drama that Rlevse contacted me for the first time. He gave me a warning after the fact. I hadn't even edited that article the entire day when he gave me that warning. He then protected the Breast article a hour latter, and editing was impossible so i couldn't do it even if i wanted to.

I discussed the lede image with the other editors like Rlevse asked buy the next day I got blocked for being Uncivil and going against consensus.

Now how can i go against consensus if the article is protected?

This was Rlevse post on my talk page (now in archive) "Since you insist on being disruptive and incivil, you have been blocked for 48 hours. Towit: calling someone a headstrong ass, etc, accusing other's of being disruptive for commenting, refusing to accept consensus on a content dispute. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re your email to me. You seem to fail to realize you are edit warring against several people. Even if your claims in the email are true (ie, basically that he's the guilty party), it does not mean it's okay for you to call people names. I'll ask User:Atomaton to comment here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)"

I admit i called Atom a headstrong ass, but that was on my own talk page so i don't really see the logic of doing a block based on that, maybe a user page protection but a block for something on my own talk page that i can still edit? Maybe if i had called him that on the artile's talk page but how would a block stop me from talking or saying something on my own talk page?

the second and third diffs were taken out of context, and the other editor i was accused of calling a liar even said so himself.

Also as for the last diff, i don't even see how its possible to go against a consensus when editing is impossible. I had simply stated that "even if we reached consensus to day, there is nothing we can do" because the article was protected. You'd have to wait for either the admin to unprotect the article or let it protection expire naturally. How can me saying something out of common sense be going against consensus?

Well i disputed this to Rlevse but s/he completely ignored me. Then while looking at Rlevse and Dreadstar's talk pages I saw that they had awarded eachother the same day that Rlevse blocked me. They also were working on the same article beforehand and Dreadstar has a active presence on the Breast article.

After finding this out i told them both "Oh this puts the icing on the cake. I thought Dreadstar was bias but this

		Society Barnstar
		For finding key public domain documents that proved George Thomas Coker's military record and were key in helping improve that article and helped to settle issues regarding it, I salute and thank you! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For providing invaluable assistance and teamwork in uploading and formatting the Coker military documentation on both Commons and Wikisource, I salute and present you with this award! Dreadstar † 02:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of you come at me and it turns out you guys are at least on a friendly enough basis to award each other. Plus don't think i didn't see that you were involved on the Breast Article. You shouldn't be getting yourself involved in matters on a Article that you are affiliated with, an you shouldn't get on someone with another admin you are affiliated with.

I ask that both of you admins never contact me, never involve yourself with me and remove yourselves from this discussion, from this situation and from my wikipedian life. Yami (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)"

Well after this episode i decided to wait out the block,cool off only to get it extended by Scarian. IT seems that Dreadstar, who i remind you i called bias, was talkign with Scarian. Scarian then posted this one Rlevse Talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ARlevse&diff=230415690&oldid=230414485 (read both sides of the diff grey and green)

Well after this i E-mailed AGK about this and opened a public complaint against them. The extension and what ever of the first block was left over was undone, and It seemed like they were all to eager to play nice since I stumbled upon their dealings.

Well I had disagreed with Atom who claimed no consensus on a Poll that was up for 2 weeks with most of the people decided on the day it was created. for 2 weeks not one ne comment and the results were 5 people for change 4 to keep that article lede as is.

Atom is the user who started the survey and claims that we would need at least 75-80% for a consensus in favor of changing a image that has been disputed for months.

I and a few other editors didn't agree with him automatically declarign consensus when he is the one who has been against change from the beginning and i have accused him of WP:OWN based on some of his actions. If you wish to discuss that please let me know but this is about Dreadstar and Rlevse.

Well Dreadstar and Rlevse start to accuse me of WP:TEND and i told them and Atom that their actions could be counted as WP:TEND and WP:OWN.

Dreadstar, even after my multiple request for him to leave me alone, contacted me on my talkpage. Talking about me being disruptive WP:TEND and misrepresenting consensus. We exchanged the usual unpleasantries known between us. I asked him for the umpteenth time to leave me alone and he has this to say http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AYami_Takashi&diff=233027652&oldid=233018944

Well unknown to me at the time Rlevse was working in the background collecting these diff between me and Dreadstar and then Rlevse contacted MBisanz, who has associated with Rlevse at least a few times before then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AMBisanz&diff=233030929&oldid=232908519

Well obviously not knowing the past between me Dreadstar and Rlevse the user blocks me using diff that said i was being uncivil when i do not feel i was so. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AYami_Takashi&diff=233032474&oldid=233032248

I feel that Dreadstar and Rlevse are unethically treating me, and pulling any strigns to get me in trouble. Until i meet these two and the editors on the breast article i have never been blocked. I feel these admins and editors are to closely related and it is unethical for these admins to get involved as that is a conflict of interest. Plus i have accused both of being bias, and have asked both to leave me alone one multiple times.

I ask that their actions be looked into and investigated, and i ask that they not be allowed to contact me on my talk page, or accuse me of anything on any talk page.

I will contact them to tell them of this post. Yami (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you've wandered into the wrong doorway. dispute resolution is down the hall. Corvus cornix_talk 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. John Reaves 20:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking for a review of the action of two admins, i just gave the back story so people would understand. I feel that these two have done my wrong and that a general investigation into them accure. Yami (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully intend to review the above, as requested, but could you give us the problem in a nutshell? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

IP making threats

Corvus cornix_talk 20:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. — Coren  20:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

From that editor's contribs, they don't seem to have made that contested edit before. So, they may yet revert again from a different IP. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WhisperToMe (crossposted from Help Desk)

Is there a new policy where every survivor (and possibly the fatalities) of airline crashes are to be memorialized with redirects to the incident/crash that they were involved in? I ask because of the numerous redirects that User:WhisperToMe (contribs) is setting up. Dismas| 21:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is the most appropriate guideline we have. To put it another way, no. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So, any admin feel like using the admin rollback? NuclearWarfare _{My work} 22:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, redirects are pretty cheap/harmless. I don't think there is any pressing need to wipe the redirects. Shereth 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

They can't be speedy-deleted anyway. A mass RfD is the way to go. But first, why not bring it up at his talk page? This is what they're for. . . Chick Bowen 22:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As said elsewhere, these aren't memorials - they are intended to deter creation of memorial articles and to direct inquiries to the article about the disaster. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are not memorials. It's a logical way to deal with people who come to Misplaced Pages looking for information on one of these victims. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You could always list them on WP:RFD Exploding Boy (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like a preemptive measure. After the Virginia Tech massacre, articles were created on every victim and most were eventually merged or redirected to the main article. I didn't see anything on WhisperToMe's where he was asked to explain what he was doing. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  - 22:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a pre-emptive measure. I am doing this for incidents old and new. Most of these names are not mentioned in these articles at all. These people are notable, but they are only notable as a group, so they are redirected. People who are notable individually who happen to be in a disaster, like Frank Huddle, get their own articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should heed Shereth's advice and just leave them be. It prevents other users from creating stubs about those persons and as Shereth points out, redirects do not harm anyone. SoWhy 23:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If they're not mentioned in the article then the need for redirects is debatable, in my opinion. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The need is certainly debatable, but as they are already there and not causing any problems, it just seems more trouble than it is worth to go through the hassle of running these through a RFD. Shereth 23:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Shereth. Potentially useful as search terms, more trouble than they're worth to get rid of. GlassCobra 23:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. If nothing else, keeping them could encourage others to create similar redirects. Are we to redirect the name of every person killed in an accident, disaster or attack? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If the redirects aren't causing a problem, then what's the big deal? I seriously doubt that someone is going to be encouraged by this spate of redirects to start creating droves of them, but even if they do it is not a real problem. They're just redirects. Shereth 23:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Above, WTM says he is "doing this for incidents old and new." Exploding Boy (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case but I still say "so what". You are right in saying that we do not need to have these redirects, but we also do not need to get rid of them. I wouldn't have advocated their creation but since they are there, it's best to just let it be and move on. It's not doing any harm and isn't in need of any dire attention. Shereth 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason we delete articles and other pages we don't / no longer need. And for the added reason that, to me, it seems rather like a violation of Memorial. And for the additional reason that having a redirect could well encourage or be used as justification by someone to add the person to the article. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your concerns and I'll just leave it at that - clearly we have differing opinions. In any case, it's pretty evident this is a non-issue (in terms of immediate administrative intervention) so if you're intent on having these removed you'll have to take it to RFD. I'd still advise against it. Cheers, Shereth 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm intent on removing them, but I would suggest that perhaps we can ask WTM to refrain from making such redirects in the future. He should review WP:NOTE, and Misplaced Pages:Redirect. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a more pressing BLP concern here. How do we know that these people were involved in the accidents? We certainly won't be putting in a list of the victims to add sources to it, so we have no way of making it verifiable in the article. Without any verification on wiki, then we have no real way of showing to our readers that these people who they've come across via a search engine have anything to do with the disaster that's been redirected to. It's a bad precendent to start, because we could have malicious redirects created of people who have never been involved in an accident. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I wasn't planning on bringing this up, but WTM has been admonished before regarding unnecessary redirects, in that instance for creating numerous redirects based on unlikely misspellings and misromanizations of Japanese names. We removed many of those on similar principles, ie: that they can create confusion. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For people who are still living they can be "sourced" by commenting in links to reliable sources. For people who are dead, while BLP doesn't apply, the sources can also be added. It should be easy to source them. Anyway, regarding the Japanese redirects, I do not remember them being removed. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but adding sources etc to redirect pages is just an invitation to expand them into articles, when those people are not, as you said, really notable.

Regarding the Japanese redirects, I thought some of them had been deleted; I certainly remember that as the outcome of the discussion. I just checked one I particularly remembered and it still exists; I think I'll just delete it now.... Exploding Boy (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessarily the case - It's hard for newbies to edit redirects, and --> makes the source there, but discreet. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Exploding Boy: Which one is it? AFAIK I would RFD it first. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of the names will also be held by more notable people. Various people (several look potentially notable) called "Jeff Arnold" have 36000 Google hits , and we redirect Jeff Arnold to an article not mentioning the name. It seems confusing to people searching information about any Jeff Arnold and wondering about the connection to the redirect target. Also, the crash was 9 years ago. How often would an article about a crash victim or survivor be created more than 9 years later? I think most of these redirects do more potential harm than potential good when the subject is not mentioned in the target. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, some of the names (whether or not it's the same person) are mentioned in other Misplaced Pages articles, for example Jeff Arnold . Instead of getting useful search results, a user clicking Enter or Go will get a page they may not understand the meaning of. And wikilinks on the names may go to a page irrelevant to the person in the context. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring blocks on Taekwondo

I have blocked Melonbarmonster2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for escalating the latest edit war over Taekwondo, which I have additionally protected for a week. I think they both exceeded 3RR today; regardless of whether they did that or not, it was clearly in violation of the edit warring policy. Brought here FYI, in case anyone else wants to review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Both users are now asking for unblock, so if anyone has the spare time to review... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good use of the mop; both editors were using the article talkpage to shout at each other and anyone else who happened in the way, and looked likely to use ip's to further the slanging match. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My contributions are being deleted

Hi,

I provided references at the Norse colonization of the Americas article and its being reverted for no reason. I think its because I added a chapter on how the Native Americas were able to fend off the Norsemen. Anyway, its good stuff there and I don't think the reversion are in everybodys' best interest. One reason for the misunderstanding may be in relation to this page. Special:Contributions/InternetHero (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Whose contributions are being deleted? User:InternetHero's or User:69.60.229.218's (the one who posted the above)?

If the former, your/his edits seem to be rather controversial, judging by his talk page. You/he have been warned for rude edit summaries, for one thing. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards