Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:07, 30 May 2009

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

NPOV, criticisms and controversies

Hi there friends. I've been trying to sort out why our Barack Obama coverage is being allowed to violate our WP:NPOV policy. In case anyone is unfamiliar with the policy it states that: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Misplaced Pages. All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Yet significant and notable criticims, controversies and perspectives are being deleted from our Obama coverage. No I'm not talking about fringe craziness, although it should be included appropriately, I'm talking about the 44% of the United States, and the people on the political right and far left, who are having their views and media coverage of their issues excluded in violation of our policies (ie censored). I understand the decision was made to eliminate most criticism articles, but the content is not being integrated into any of the articles. So what then is the alternative? Help, suggestions, and ideas welcome. Thanks for remembering to assume good faith and for keeping the personal attacks to a minimum. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you give any examples of where you think policy is being violated?    7     03:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by examples. Do you want examples of the content that's being excluded or examples of the objections to it? To generalize, every possible policy is brought out in objecting to any addition no matter the phrasing or the source. Saying it "may" belong in "some other" article is also a familiar meme. If you clarify I'm happy to respond with specifics, but I don't want to burden the discussion with details that you're not asking about. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean diffs where properly cited, reliably sourced, NPOV information was censored or objected to or removed. I think it will be very hard for anyone here to stop the problem without knowing exactly where it is happening or who is doing it. In general I think everyone will agree that, per the policy you quoted, all significant views of his presidency should be expressed.    7     03:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at for example I would agree with you, that you added a properly cited comment. I'll let an admin reply, because I was just really looking for a clearer picture of what your concern was.    7     03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume ChildofMidnight doesn't know the answer. Here's the short version: Misplaced Pages policies (meaning policies or guidelines) that have no enforcement mechanism are something closer to aspirational essays than actual policies. Unlike WP:NPA and WP:BLP, which have enforcement mechanisms, after a fashion, there is no enforcement mechanism enforcing WP:NPOV if a group of editors successfully camps on a particular page or group of pages. WP:CANVASS, an asinine policy that goes way beyond what's needed to prevent over-spamming of user pages, actually discourages you from going out to find a larger group of editors to overrule the POV fanatics who camp out on particular pages. If you do get that larger number of editors to overturn the campers, the definition of "consensus" will be expanded by the campers to try to deny that you have such a consensus, and since there is no set definition of it, you'll have to argue about that. Along the way, the campers will snipe at you for any procedural problems with your proposed consensus, helped by the fact that Misplaced Pages has vague strictures on procedures for developing a consensus, so if someone is motivated to argue about something, they can usually argue it for a long, long time. As you're trying to do all this, expect to be sniped at, continually, by campers trying to get your goat so that if you snap back in a way that steps over a behavioral guideline, admins will slam you with a block as AN/I commenters attack you mercilessly. These are, in fact, the rules as they now stand, and they are pretty much iron rules. We really ought to have a set of written-out real rules to help editors through the actual challenges of this website. The way it is now, it's kind of like a Congressman trying to get a bill passed only by reading some "How a Bill Becomes a Law" pamphlet, rather than by realizing that a certain committee chairman needs to have his ego stroked or a certain lobby needs to be mollified -- except when trying to get NPOV there are no unwritten rules, either: unless it's the unwritten rule You Can't Get There From Here. Extreme cynicism on this is the wisest attitude.

Can it change? Glad you asked. It's next to impossible to get any policy change on this website. SlimVirgin has a proposal still under discussion: Misplaced Pages:Neutrality enforcement. That proposal isn't my preferred way of going about it, but you and I and anyone else frustrated by Misplaced Pages's enormous failure in this area should probably discuss the matter there or somewhere. Keep in mind that, like any proposal, you'd be fighting ignorance, stupidity, complacency, bad-faith bias and a number of other problems I'm probably forgetting about on your way to establishing consensus for some proposal that probably hasn't been created yet and which might or might not work. Personally, I prefer to edit List of mammals of Connecticut. -- Noroton (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet one must consideer how 'out of bounds' the situation in an article may really be. CoM, for example, wants to see more in the BO article focusing on both the Ayers/Acorn/Wright stuff, and on criticism of his policies and presidential actions. The former are covered in a proportion which finds consensus, and doesn't become a tarring and feathering, which most of those opposed to the current proportion want implemented, and as to the latter, there's an article for that already. On highly contentious topics, like Obama, Misplaced Pages suffers as much from POV warriors as it does from apathy. We get a set of editors as regulars at that page, and unfortunately, they spend a great deal of their time fending off POV pushers. Regretably, the people inclined to 'drive-by' edit in a contentious edit aren't your average person, they're people with a seriously adhered to set of beliefs. They aren't going to be interested in hearing our policies, and they aren't interested in 'neutrality', though they shout that word a lot. They're interested in smearing the topic. A few of those may learn some policy, and shout it out, hoping that like whack-a-mole, they'll hit an effective argument. Unfortunately, that presents a misrepresentation of 'consensus' and 'neutrality', because they've simpyl gone from POV Vandals to the 'Civil POV Pusher'. They still aren't serious, reasonable editors. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Regretably, the people inclined to 'drive-by' edit in a contentious edit aren't your average person Neither are the people camped out on the article. Both groups tend to be POV warriors. You can't solve the problem of POV editing by bashing one type of editor over another. (In fact, no one can actually "solve" it anyway, all we can do is ameliorate it.) One idea is to have some mechanisms where we attract a broader group of editors to an ongoing dispute, so that advocates of one POV or another will need to appeal to a group that is, overall, likely to be a bit more neutral. Another idea would be to conduct some ongoing disputes more like XfD discussions with set periods to discuss, and a third party to make an ultimate decision in a process where there are some well-understood procedures. These ideas would build on what we already do, so they innovate as little as possible and might, eventually, sometime, somehow, get consensus. Just a couple of thoughts. -- Noroton (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment is right over there; that would be the appropriate forum. Keegan 07:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Is NPOV a core policy or not? How can we make sure it is enforced? And as far as what particular criticisms and contrary perspectives are the most notable in regards to Obama, I am very flexible and interested in collaborating on phrasing and sources. But certainly there are notable issues and concerns that have been widely reported on and that are that are appropriate to include. Excluding this content violates a core policy and it needs to be addressed. I don't think RfC provides an answer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You can find answers about this at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and there is also a notice board for such questions here: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which is pointed out at the first link right on top.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

some requirements and policies can be specified more exactly than others. NPOV is always going to be a matter of judgment. Nobody is actually neutral on any important controversial topic. Even when one edits intensively on something one does not care about in the least -- some dispute for example involving two groups neither of whom one has the least interest in., it is almost inevitable that one will become of the opinion that one side is more in the right than the other, or that one has more sympathy for one position than another. We can try to repress the grossest expression of our biases, but we cannot do so completely. Nobody can. Most of us realise that there are so topics we care too much about to work on in an objective manner, or at least, that the strain of trying to do so is excessive. A reporter will always have the tendency to turn into an advocate. Inevitably also, the mix of people here is not uniformly distributed among all possible viewpoints. No work can be done totally objectively. All encyclopedias, all histories, reflect the views of those who write them. all group works reflect the group. The older encyclopedias reflect the cultural views of the time. This one will inevitably reflect the general views of those people most interested in contributing to a work like this. Given the nature of the work, there are going to be several general tendencies: one is towards general political and social liberalism, the other is to a somewhat libertarian attitude, both left and right. given the possibilities here, there will also be people of very extreme positions on all sorts of issues. the hope is to find some sort of balance. The general run of people here are not zealots; the y will normally give a very wide tolerance to opposing positions. I'd say, in fact, that of all works of this sort, Misplaced Pages gives an extremely wider tolerance than anything else I can think of. The sort of people who who support Obama here are by and large not going to be extremists about it. They'll accept a good deal of material from the other positions. And remember, there are people here also who oppose him--from the left. They too will help keep the fans from running away with things. The practical attitude, expressed rather cynically but not inaccurately by Noronton, is that you will get a good deal of what you want if you do not ask for too much. DGG (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment. I will try again in the next few days. But we've gone from having criticism articles to having criticisms "integrated" out of existence for Obama. I believe it is an issue of censorship and it goes to the heart of Misplaced Pages's integrity. Many editors find the criticisms objectionable. They simply don't want them included, just as many of our articles on overt sex acts are objectionable to many, but we aren't confronted with them because they aren't topics that most of us work on regularly. But the policies seem clear.

Are we to believe there are no perspectives or criticisms that should be included in a U.S. president's biography? Are the criticisms about his approach to economic policies, foreign policies, associations (yes those!), not worth a couple sentences? Clearly there are sources discussing these issues. Clearly they are mainstream opinions even if they aren't majority opinions. If NPOV is a real policy, I don't see how it's acceptable not to include perspectives that are critical of Obama. We certainly include perspectives that identify his popularity, speaking ability, charisma, awards and recognition etc. And if there are more notable criticisms or controversies then lets include those instead. I'm flexible. But let's not have such an important article on Misplaced Pages that contains only the narrowest of perspectives and that violates one of our three core policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You know you're dealing with POV pushers when they object to numerous criticisms, each of which has been made by significant, reliable sources, often many such sources that represent significant points of view on a subject. You know you're dealing with an area in which Misplaced Pages just doesn't work well when you bring up the problem and no one has a real answer for you. But you're not going to change a thing until you change your focus from your particular problem with the Obama article to the problem of POV in general. By focusing on Obama so much, you undercut your own case by making it appear that you're only interested in promoting your own POV, not promoting NPOV across many subjects. You seem to expect a greater level of intellectual and emotional maturity on the part of editors here than is justified by Misplaced Pages's history. Editors in general, and admins as admins, seldom respond to pleas to help other people with promoting their points of view when it's a POV the audience doesn't share, and a majority don't share the general outlook you and I do when it comes to Obama. Therefore, in their immaturity, they don't view the POV problem with that article as a particularly bad problem. They also view it as a knotty problem (because Misplaced Pages makes resolving POV issues incredibly hard to do when there's a determined group camping on the article, and everybody with experience on Misplaced Pages knows this). In other words, you're wasting your time by complaining on this page. I assume this thread hasn't been archived just yet because there's a bit of sympathy for the fact that there really is no adequate spot on Misplaced Pages to air this particular basket of dirty laundry. -- Noroton (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DGG, The fact that we can't be perfect (or even nearly perfect) in terms of NPOV doesn't mean that we couldn't make enormous strides toward fair coverage. WP's free-for-all atmosphere on article talk pages is fine for typical discussions, but it tends to favor editors who aren't being fair but who have enough allies to push their own viewpoint. So far, the game has been to get editors on the other side to commit behavioral violations because that's the only way admins will eventually ban them from the topic. It seems to me that the best solution would be to create incentives for editors to be on their best behavior -- not just in terms of civility, but in terms of reasoning calmly and striving to be as objective as possible in their own thinking. By bringing more third parties to the page, POV pushing editors realize they need to provide adequate arguments to promote their view, and they tend to respond with arguments that are as reasonable-sounding as possible. When a discussion is subject to more rules and when there is someone there to enforce those rules, discussions tend to be more productive, more reasonable and less emotion-laden. I think even the worst XfDs are seldom as bad as the very contentious article talk pages for just that reason. Court trials and our own ArbCom cases have more rules and enforcers, and, despite the fact that very contentious subjects are discussed, they seem to work better than our free-for-alls on controversial-article talk pages. I think that's the direction WP needs to go in, and, I think, eventually it will. -- Noroton (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you about the problem. I think required decent manners even from devoted content writers would help tremendously. But I do not think formal process at Misplaced Pages works very well; if it did, why do we have repeated arb cases over the same issues? They don't lead to closure either. And neither do XfDs. I've been arguing the same topics for 2 years now. But yes, greater participation is the solution to many problems here. We can;t prevent a general trend that way, but we can prevent a few people dominating a subject. DGG (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think formal processes like ArbCom and XfD work better than the free-for-all situations where we have large numbers of POV warriors dominating an article, so it would be useful to have some kind of more formal process as an option for intractable content disputes, especially larger ones. By "better", I mean "more reasonable" and "with results bringing us closer to NPOV", but even "not as nasty" and "with less edit warring". I think the fact that XfD discussions are more formalized results in more editors taking part in them than would otherwise. -- Noroton (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is probably more suited to an RFC that details specific shortfalls of NPOV in it's initial findings, sourced to mainstream media (since while no source isn't partisan somehow, the general mainstream is arguably the most centrist). Since admin tools can't be used directly in regards to content disputes, and NPOV isn't a policy whose violations can be sanctioned for basically short of RFAR, there is nothing any admin can really do here based on this discussion. rootology/equality 16:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of topic ban for ChildOfMidnight

COM has been parroting on about wanting a "criticism" section in the Obama article for months, now. I should point out that no featured article, outside the arts, has, or should have, a "criticism" section. And why is that? Because they inherently violate NPOV by focusing solely on negative opinions. And that's the exact reason why Criticism of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) doesn't exist any more, and why there was a strong consensus to keep an Obama criticism deleted. And honestly, seeing how the Bush articles ended up, said articles will invariably end up criticising his choice of cheeseburger toppings (because it was discussed in reliable sources, after all). This is the point that COM just won't get. It's becoming very disruptive now. Sceptre 13:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack on myself

Dear Administrators,

User:Interestedinfairness has made a personal attack on myself here, by saying "Seriously Cinema your a a discrase", and he furthermore told me to "So go away and go and concentrate on the Serbia page"... Now, I have made several attempts to explain how facts aren't the same as opinion (as you'll see on his talk page), and I just don't have any motivation to try to explain to him why POV pushing is simply not allowed (and I'm not the only one to do so, User:ThuranX did so as well), and now the personal attack... I don't know, can anybody do something about it so that this doesn't get repeated?

All the best,

--Cinéma C 18:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left a warning on the user's page. Just do your best to stick to the high ground and talk about articles/sources, and you'll be OK. If the behavior continues, you can re-report the issue here. TNXMan 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Cinéma C 19:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought you had attacked yourself. John Reaves 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. JPG-GR (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be self abuse. Edison (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

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

I absolutely approve of the image in the lead. Misplaced Pages is not censored for any reason as long as the image represents the subject. We also do not disclaim spoilers. While I can appreciate the sentiment of the argument, it does not apply to our standards. Keegan 05:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Echo Keegan's statement, and also props to Xeno for working that summary out. I appreciate a lot of work must have gone into preparing that. Ironholds (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you add me to the supporters of including the image in the lead? Verbal chat 08:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a lot of effort, by the looks of it. I hope this moves us toward a resolution, one way or another. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Impressive work on that compilation! I briefly stepped into the middle of that a year ago (already?!) to enforce consensus after one of the debates, which you have presented in your review. My opinion then was simply to try and gauge consensus. I do fully side with that consensus, and believe the image should stay right where it is. I am not surprised that the debate rages on, however. Like the Muhammad images, it is going to be a controversy here until Wikimedia shuts down the servers for good. Resolute 23:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A merged page

The page Sydenham, Warwickshire was recently merged into "Leamington Spa". The merge was formally listed as a merge proposal on the article pages and recently at Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers. The discussion was closed by an editor who proposed the merger and who was involved in the discussion being in favour of a merge. There was some on-going discussion and the merge was then completed. I am questioning the merge, because I feel that this merge is not without controversy, the "votes" being 3 to 2, and also because the wiki guidelines indicate that an uninvolved administrator should be asked to close a controversial merge. Also, I there have been a number of edits initially on my talk page regarding aspects of the merge, which I perceive as undue criticism and which I am becoming uncomfortable with. I have copied the discussion on my talk page to Talk:Sydenham, Warwickshire, where the discussion can be continued. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a vote. There were no good arguments from the "no merge" side, the obvious choice was to go ahead with the merge. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Views from anyone uninvolved with the discussion will be welcome. Snowman (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jenuk1985 - consensus was reached, with no adequate reason given against merging, and no attempt in 1 year to reach notability. This argument is moot - by removing the merge banners, Snowman had already subverted the process. As per guide above, further discussion of this issue should continue here Talk:Sydenham,_Warwickshire. Widefox (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Views from anyone uninvolved with the merge discussion will be welcome. Snowman (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Freemee

Just a notice that I have indefblocked Freemee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for persistent creation of attack pages over the years. Well, only 1 page Taimak (edits in history)...but considering the warnings he/she's been given and the BLP concerns I think the project is better off without their contributions.

If someone else wants to try and give them a chance, feel free to unblock. Syrthiss (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How bizarre--one account to vandalize one article and nothing else, really, over the years? I'm half inclined to suspect this is a bizarre sock of some other account, simply because it's so odd for someone to keep a lone account for this kind of purpose. rootology/equality 16:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that bizarre. I can think of another reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

GEOIP

I have disabled it from watchlist.js as toolserver is down. _→AzaToth 17:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

TS seems to be back up, can someone do the deed? -- Luk 20:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Q 21:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

AF

Just a note to any admins who haven't noticed this yet; there are quite a few brand new accounts doing subte vandalism with an edit summary linking to WP:Tags but using AF as the pipe. I'm not sure but this is likely a reference to the abuse filter. Anyway, these accounts usually pan out to be vandalism only, so just a heads up. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe, based on the WP:Tags page, that it is the abuse filter itself providing the edit summary. The vandal themselves are just doing 'DSJDSHDJSDUISYHUIHEUWHDHSDJCSD' or whatever as their edit and the abuse filter put in an edit summary of 'AF: repeating characters' with AF piping the Tags page. Could be wrong. Syrthiss (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That is correct to my knowledge; maybe it would make sense to change the "AF:" to "Tag:"? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should be bold and just change that... it seems very confusing to use an abbreviation when it could be quite clear if only one letter longer. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:ABFIL#Tags look like edit summaries sometimes and feel free to change it to "Tag:" if you prefer. –xeno 19:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I'll going to be bold and make the change. I think that it will be much clearer. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is the filter tagging the edit, not a vandal providing a helpful edit summary describing how they vandlaised the page. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

:) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok. Sorry for the mixup. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No Nonsense

I may be mistaken, but don't Misplaced Pages naming conventions and the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style say to capitalize trademarks according to English spelling rules and not by the actual trademark? Because a user keeps changing the capitalization to what the trademark is, and that seems contradictory to MOS:TM... --Даниэла ★ 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the need for admin intervention? Have you tried steps of dispute resolution with that user? Regards SoWhy 18:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is best discussed on the article talk page. FWIW, No nonsense is consistent with both MOSTM and the company trademark. I am not sure why User:Daniela591 thinks that No Nonsense is preferable. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The brand's website indicates the capitalisation. I think it should be "No nonsense". I think the page name needs moving to to "No nonsense". Snowman (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The naming convention isn't to use the actual named spelling of an organization, group, or product? Really? rootology/equality 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you mentioned that. It did not say that it should be copied, I said that it indicates the capitalisation. Perhaps I should have added that MOS is also taken into consideration. Snowman (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to be superseded by User Daniela591's request on the talk page for an administrator to move the page back to "No nonsense". Snowman (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec, re to Rootology) Really – see WP:TITLE#Use standard English for titles even if trademarks encourage otherwise. My opinions on this (IMO particularly idiotic) policy are fairly well known; see Talk:Victoria line (and the threads linked there) for more of the same. – iridescent 20:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's... boggling. rootology/equality 20:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really - it's pretty clear to me that we shouldn't use River LINE and MidTOWN DIRECT, despite New Jersey Transit doing the same. --NE2 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

Per a motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The topic ban imposed on TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) (see WP:RANDARB#TallNapoleon topic-banned and warned) is removed. In place of a mainspace topic ban, TallNapoleon is subject to a zero-revert restriction (0RR) on Ayn Rand and related articles for the remainder of the six-month duration. He is instructed to seek talk page consensus before undertaking any potentially controversial edits. TallNapoleon is encouraged to continue his efforts to develop a functional consensus and improve articles related to the subject.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety 22:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Per a motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

In remedy 1.1 ("Area of conflict") of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, "... the Palestine/Israel dispute ..." is replaced with "... the Arab-Israeli conflict ...".

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety 23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The summary of the case may be found here.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• This has now been picked up by the DrudgeReport, linking to the CNN article . --64.85.211.32 (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Now might be a good time to clean up our Scientology articles; I note that the articles associated with entheta and enturbulation are deleted and now we have merely a circular redirect and a pointer to a particularly inscrutable Wiktionary definition; since the terms explain (or would have) the Scientologists' efforts here (see , perhaps one of them ought to be recreated. - Nunh-huh 12:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Page restore

• Autofellatio/FAQ was created by a user for the FAQ template at Talk:Autofellatio.
• Talk:Autofellation/FAQ was created by a user as a redirect to Talk:Autofellatio.
• Since the FAQ doesn't work with sub pages in main article space, Autofellatio/FAQ should have been created at Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ.
• I removed the redirect at Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ and replaced it with the content from Autofellatio/FAQ.
• I CSD-tagged Autofellatio/FAQ. I also left a note on there that the content was moved to Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ.
• Autofellatio/FAQ was deleted per the CSD but so was Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ.
• Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ should not have been deleted as it was in use in the FAQ template at Talk:Autofellatio.
• The FAQ template being displayed at Talk:Autofellatio is now empty and red-linked.
  • All of that said to ask: An admin, please restore Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ.
    • Thank you. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 04:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I laughed a lot. Out loud. that's a whole lot of autofellation. Plus, way too much interest in it. Does Misplaced Pages REALLY need a how-to for that? come on. Really? ThuranX (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

haha I couldn't figure out how to explain it in a paragraph so I went the "history of" route. The FAQ is a necessity because despite the fact that a couple years worth of discussions/Rfcs has yielded no change in the consensus in regards to the particular image in the article, people just can't seem to accept that and to this day want the image hidden/removed/moved. {{Round in circles}} indeed. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 05:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Nakon 04:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 05:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

But the history is lost. As far as I can tell, the text was not created by Allstarecho but by Benjiboi. A history merge will need to be done. Fram (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Which page? When I click on history at Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ, I see it all. From when Benji created it as a redirect to when I copied over the content from Autofellatio/FAQ. Keep in mind, I didn't "move" Autofellatio/FAQ to Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ because non-admins can't move a page to a page that already exists. So I did a copy & paste move, then CSD-tagged Autofellatio/FAQ. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 07:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The history of the article FAq (not the talk FAQ), created by Benjiboi andedited mostly by the two of you. The current history does not indicate that the text added in edit 2 (after the redirect) was not created by you, or at least does not indicate who actually wrote it. I understand why you did a copy-paste move, but you shouldn't have done it and gone to requested moves instead. I'll try to correct the history now, don't be alarmed if some pages get redeleted and restored a few times in the next minutes :-) Fram (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Done now. The history is quite complex now (I should perhaps not have restored a couple of the edits made on the main page after it was redirected), but all actual contributions to the text can now be traced back to the original editor, as required by the GFDL. Fram (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 08:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

More Bambifan101 weirdness

I just tried something on a lark. The password this individual actually provided on a talk page for his sockpuppet accounts is apparently that of pretty much most if not all of his other socks. I just picked two at random and was able to log on to both. Any advantage to going in and changing these passwords since they're blocked anyway? This just gets stranger by the minute. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless we can do this to shut down, permanently, emerging socks, which I doubt we can, there's no advantage. -Jeremy 06:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If the passwords are freely available, the accounts need to be blocked with email blocked, to prevent abuse by third parties. Or scramble the passwords. Thatcher 11:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is a bad idea. It's a checkuser nightmare waiting to happen. Should any checks be done on this account, your IP will show up and your account could be suspected to be involved with Bambifan101. Also, it will mess up the SPI bot because it uses article edits to search for socks. Icestorm815 • Talk 16:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

HaX0r3d by PMDrive1061? - It would really be best to scramble the passwords.. If you really wanted to have fun with them, leave the accounts unblocked & let them spend hours trying to guess the password. (less time to abuse other accounts, and yes - I know there are all kinds of really bad things that could happen with this approach). Collecting them as "trophy accounts" probably isn't a great idea either. --Versageek 18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus, I'm pretty sure that it's not legal to use someone else's account. At least not in the UK... – Toon 00:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Title page

The picture in the today's Featured Article on the Title page has a bad description ("Hunt in action in 2004" instead of "Paulinus of York"). It is locked, so I cannot corect it myself.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming it's not already fixed, are you talking about the caption at Paulinus of York, its description at File:Paulinusofyork.jpg or something from Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/May 29, 2009? Other than the caption, the article talk page and Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article are available? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoever created the Article of the Day template didn't overwrite the caption from yesterday. I've gone and fixed it up. Lankiveil 10:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC).

Cross-wiki templates

I'm curious.. is it possible to include content from sister sites via transclusion? I ask because I'd like to put the WikiNews weather and the WikiNews ticker on my user page here. Possible? Not possible? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 08:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's possible, but disabled. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, though, this is a perfect question for the help desk. :) hmwithτ 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

application

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

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

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

Per AGF? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why not, but if a POV returns then consider a longer, or permanent, topic ban if the community decides it's necessary. Until then, they've been a good editor, no real issues, I see no reason not to AGF. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bukubku should not be unbanned from his indef.topic ban

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

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Topic_ban
• Strongest possible oppose for the unban' See these are "some" of disruptions that Bukubku has caused to the community. His indef-topic ban is a very much generous decision by Future given his falsehood to Korean related articles. He not only harassed me by calling me "racist" several times because I restored his massive blanking of referenced contents that he dislike, but also by forum shopping to admins (including emailing), so he tried to make my reputation bad. His "bogus ANI" and "horrendous attacks" can be seen in his reports. Bukubku knows Future has no time taking care of Bukubku's recent edits and activities because of the Macedonian ArbCom case. I'll show why Bukubku should not be free but be sanctioned more. His insistent and false usages of primary sources that scholars define "unreliable" are all disruptive. His habitual lying to attack me such as accusing me of a liar (his lies were revealed, he never apologized to me), and harassed me whenever I corrected his misuse of primary sources. He admitted him doing wrong so deleted some of the sources that he used, but he deceived me as if he deleted all sources as if he uses two different types of primary sources. See below;

Talk:Empress_Myeongseong#Misusage_of_primary_sources_by_User:Bukubku

Talk:Imo_Incident#Massacre and No Original research

Talk:Joseon_Dynasty#Bukubku_and_ADKTE.27s_disruptive_edits

Talk:Korea_under_Japanese_rule#Togo Shigenori

• Reminder One of the topic-ban conditions is that if Bukubku evades his ban by using "socks", he should be indefinitely blocked. And I have a suspicion that Bukubku broked the restrict. So I request Checkuser on him. Before Bukubku had disrupts Korean related articles especially Empress Myeongseong, some anon with Mesh Isp appeared to insert "unreliable sources" to the article. See the edit summaries. After the anon's insertion, Bukubku created his account and and then his wiki-knowledge was way beyond newbies'.

Comparison between edits by Ip user and Bukubku to Empress Myeongseong

Mesh Ip user Official Gazette of Korea

Bukubkju's edit Korean Official Gazette

• Request for Checkuser Recently there are tendentious edit warring going on Cherry blossom. Bukubku appeared to edit the article, and his edit does not breach the ban (not to edit any Korean subject or mentions and not to leave to such articles' talk pages). However, a Mesh Ip user 220.144.194.227 (talk · contribs) appeared to edit and gave this insulting agenda 6 days after Bukubku appeared. "South Korean's lie", that is what Bukubku has used to attack me and Korean editors. Given the previous appearance at Cherry blossom and the similar edit summary, and agenda, and Ip, I'm pretty sure the anon is Bukubku.

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

Caspian blue and me had some troubles. I'm sorry. I apologize to everyone. Sometimes I made mistakes. Sorry. I regret what I has done beyond my translation skill. Sorry. However..Cherry blossom? I only insert picture explanation. Is it wrong? Talk:Imo_Incident#Massacre and No Original research is not my OR. Do you know Boston Massacre? The casualties were less than Imo Incident. But I don't know correctly massacre mean how many casualties. Someone teach me. My talk inTalk:Korea_under_Japanese_rule#Togo Shigenori is wrong? Certainly, my words was not polite for Caspian blue. So I mend my attitude. What is the racist? What is the socks? I don't want to take advantage of Fut.Perf.'s busyness. If Fut.Perf. want me to wait his time, I would wait him for months. I am not cowardice. Please, don't insult people. Well, Caspian blue was blocked as his harrassment of other users in April 1, 2009. I don't want to create with your new drama, sorry.--Bukubku (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your harassment and disruption led your "indef.topic ban" and I can back up your racist attacks with diffs. As for my block, another user was blocked for the same case, and you intentionally forgot to mention about it. You're the ONLY ONE that has been INDEFINITELY BANNED in the history Future's banning editors because of your massive disruption. He has either banned 2 or 3 months, not indefinite time. I request the checkuser, so if you're innocent, you don't need to worry about. However even if you're not the Mesh anon who insulted Koreans on Cherry blossom, there are plenty of evidences that should not endorse your unban. However, you falsely accused me of a sock without any evidence because you wanted me to ruin my name. B'crat warned you for your insults to me. I gave the valid evidence in which is of course no insult to people nor you. You mislead this thread as if you're editing constructively. Since you're requesting for unban to the community, as I'm also one of the community members, I do not approve your unban. So behave nice. Moreover why your activity is hugely decreased since your ban? --Caspian blue 15:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency it should be noted that Caspian Blue has been blocked by Future in the past for edit warring on the same article on Comfort women, and harassment of other users. Plus has been blocked by other admins for 3RR and edit warring on Korean and Japanese articles. Canterbury Tail talk 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well my blocks by Future are related sockpuppets from 2channel and I shot my feet by requesting Future to look into cases. He blocked me together with socks and others for making noise. In the interests of transparency it should be noted that Canterbury Tail has edited Japanese related articles. Canterbury Tail's first comment shows that he did not do research at all.--Caspian blue 15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have edited Japanese related articles, but not edit warred and not gotten blocks on it. My original comments still stand. What IPs did before the OPs account was created is not the subject of this. Canterbury Tail talk 15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not revert more than 2 times per day even thought I was blocked for edit warring. You're entitled to your comment so does mine. Please respect my opinion. The diffs of a Mesh anon's edit are to show that Bukubku may evade his ban by using a sock ip. He is not allowed to edit anything Korean subject. So my checkuser request is valid.--Caspian blue 15:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Caspian, are you Fut.Perf.? And I have already been checked by Checkuser Rlevse when Caspian blue asked Rlevse. Don't forget your action. You are be rude to Rlevse. Everyone ask Rlevse, please.--Bukubku (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is Shell Kinney's comment. So I asked Fut.Perf.. Is it wrong?--Bukubku (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I highly respect Rlevse unlike your numerous rudeness to him User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_12#Unfair, and my request for checkuser is regarding the mesh anon on Cherry blossom. And you meatpuppeted the notorious sockpuppeter, Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) back then when I requested a RFCU on you. Since you're requesting the Community's approval, as I say, I don't allow as such. --Caspian blue 15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for comments.

Llywrch, I don't intend to colorize Shell_Kinney's comment. OK look her comment, this is the link User talk:Shell Kinney#Hello

Rlevse, 1) I edited mainly "home turf" since I have participated Misplaced Pages. Is it wrong? Now Caspin claim my edition of Cherry blossom. I don't use socks. And If Cherry blossom is related Korea-Japan, many article about Japan become relate Japan-Korea. Because most Japanese and Korean culture or history are overlaped. 2) My attitude was not good, I admit my former tendency. 3) I want to use talk page rather than revert. 4) Canterbury Tail's comment I see no reason why not, but if a POV returns then consider a longer, or permanent, topic ban if the community decides it's necessary. Until then, they've been a good editor, no real issues, I see no reason not to AGF. If community think my POV returns, community should topic ban me. 5) Why only my ban is indefinite period? Caspian blue's ban is 6 month. And I didn't personal attack like.

My opinion is not match Rlevse's. However I respect Rlevse. Rlevse dealt with me fair all times. So what should I do? Please, guide me.--Bukubku (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Bukubku, this is about YOUR UNBAN request from the indefinite topic-ban, but you're quick to attack me again. That has nothing to do with me. However such behavior just prevents you from releasing your indefinite ban. Your edits back then were all disruptive, so you're banned by Future accordingly for your disruptive editing to Korean articles with selectively chosen sources to shift the war blame to Koreans. Future said that your edit and intention are "cheap" and "disruptive". You also edited Korean articles unrelated to Japan and your countless edit warring with various editors are all vivid in my memory. There are many good topics unrelated to Korea that needs editing and expansion. However what did you do during the 4 months? Moreover, you have abused AGF and if you're changed, why you have posted the image on user box? (diff)

	This user is interested in History of Korea

WP:IncidentArchive383#Request for checkuser on Opoona (talk · contribs) (See the gallery too and the socks's edits)

Rlevse saw the image once when socks from 2channel disrupted the Namdaemun to bash Koreans with the image over multiple language Wikipedias when a fire incident occurred to the Gate. Unlike other history userboxes on your page, you created the userbox instead of using existent ones that shows those who are interested in Korean history such as User:Historiographer/Userboxes/History of Korea and User:Mizunoryu/Userboxes/Korean history

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

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

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

If you think your above personal attacks could help your unban, keep continuing. You're very good at it so far. Why do you think that the burn-down Namdaemun image has to do with the one that has been used on your user page and socks from 2ch used to vandalise the article of Namdaenum? You also inserted the poorest image to the article of Joseon Dynasty regardless of the fact that there are obviously much better images taken before 1910 out there. Your introduction of the new image here shows that you have no interest in editing Korean related articles with neutral view. --Caspian blue 14:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

FriedC upped new clear image on 19:07, 28 May 2009. I haven't known until now. I changed my user page image now. I don't have any intention. Please, don't accuse me.

--Bukubku (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

E-mail concerns

Already discussed. Section blanked per WP:DENY. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Protecting an article

I really apologise if this is not the right place to ask for this, but I would like to respectfully ask an administrator to protect the Matthias I of Hungary article. I keep adding neutral, foreign sources about his Romanian origin (that is, his father was the Romanian nobleman John Hunyadi), sources from Corvin's contemporaries, yet I see someone tries to push a Hungarian or even Cuman descent on his father's side. I believe the vast amount of sources which indicate his Romanian descent at least allow for this "theory" to remain in the article, since there are many more numerous, and more objective, sources claiming he is Romanian, than otherwise. Thank you. --Venatoreng (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

1) The origin of the family is disputed by scholars. Maybe he was romanian or hungarian or cuman or serb we are not sure."Gáspár Heltai in his chronicle makes Hunyady the illegitimate son of King Sigismund and a Wallachian peasant-girl. Others try to establish the purely Hungarian origin of the family; others again put in a plea for its Serb or Wallachian origin. In view of modern investigations it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin; János Hunyady himself, however, may be regarded as a Hungarian from his birthplace; probably he spoke the Wallachian language only during his youth, and no doubt was born in the Catholic faith, which his father Vajk (Voik, Vuk) probably had already professed" It was/is also disputed on the talkapge:2.) Please do not remove reliable references from the article:

Who is this person who doesn't even sign his username ? We have his contemporary and collaborator Antonio Bonifinius stating his Romanian origin, we have the neutral observer Ransano, we have his rival Friedrich the III who used his Romanian origin against him... There are sufficient sources pointing to his Romanian origin - it should be in the article, if this really is an encyclopedic article. --Venatoreng (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bonfinius? You mean the guy who wrote that the Hungarians are Huns and Matthias is the second Attila? Please read WP:PSTS. Also, this is not the place to discuss this.

Please see WP:RFPP. Nakon 23:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Autofellatio image battle part umpteenth

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

You document your unhappiness, but not what the issues are with respect to creating a fine encyclopedia consistent with our policies and guidelines. What is the issue? Difs, please. Common, suck it up and give us the details, no matter how much back ache it causes. Sorry to be a pain in the neck. Edison (talk)

OK, break was helpful. Autofellatio is the ability to give oneself a blowjob as it were. Since early 2005, possibly a record, there has been various ethical issues applied that have undoubtably resulted in our current policies on what is or is not censored. I'll leave it for others to decide for themselves if there are any implications of the heteronormative mainstream culture or WP:CSB concerns.
As Misplaced Pages has grown so have policies evolved including the implementation of the MediaWiki:Bad image list, which really should be moved to the MediaWiki:Restricted image list, but I digress. Currently there seems to be support for at least one photo of someone autofellating themself without any masking, hide boxes, links to commons, etc. This is in part to confirm that what would seem physically impossible is, in fact, do-able. There is also a strong and broad community consensus against censorship. Previous efforts to hide the image were to use a template image link, the template has since been deleted. Over the last month an effort to find new ways to hide the image or otherwise make our readers take extra steps to see the image have been suggested and generally rejected with similar, IMHO, circular discussion. It's disgusting, Sorry, we don't censor with various nuances.
Two RfCs, the second needed because the first RfC didn't add "and don't put the image at the bottom of the page", supported that generally ... wait for it ... we still don't censor. Since then we have had more theoretical and rather pointy threads all rehashing the same issue that has been recently resolved via community dispute resolution. I started a FAQ to help ease these issues but I feel this is starting to boil. I stepped back to avoid a 3rr myself. I hope some univolved folks could look at this and see if there is some obvious steps that should be considered, a projectwide ban of all naked photos?, a policy that any image seem as objectionable should be put in a click-to-see box?, something else? I feel there is an effort to disregard both the letter and spirit of the previous RfCs but I'm in the middle of it so would appreciate some outside perspective. -- Banjeboi 08:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Short answer? RfC's are a method of determining consensus; if they were closed with a consensus that the image should remain (and remain as the primary one in the article) then removing it is against consensus and is therefore disruptive. While, of course, consensus may change it needs to be demonstrated to have changed and therefore another RfC (or other method of polling consensus) needs to be held to certify that change of consensus. I suggest that it would need to be those who disagree with the existing consensus to put such a new RfC in place. Until there is another consensus reaching process that finds in favour of removing the image, the image should not be removed/substituted/hidden or in any way displayed other than as per the current consensus.

If you wish for someone to assist you in trying to convey that consensus is to be adhered to, and that the existing consensus is that the image stays as is, and violations of consensus is disruptive and may attract warnings and then sanctions should the disruption continue, then I shall do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The editor who did this was blocked indefinitely soon afterwards.

Whereas this is simply handling disruption???

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

Grotesque? Let's not go overboard, and let's not accuse people of canvassing either. What we've had in the last week on this page is a previously uninvolved editor who began a discussion about removing the image without having read the archives, and was told that we've already achieved consensus on the issue, and another editor who seems to have previously been involved coming up with yet another way to allow people to hide the image, seemingly circumventing both this article's consensus and general practice on Misplaced Pages. No one has accused anyone of censorship; people have stated that Misplaced Pages is not censored. There have been, as this section's title suggests, umpteen discussions regarding this issue. Misplaced Pages is consensus-based, and consensus can change, but revisiting the same issues over and over again ad nauseam is neither useful nor practical. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the consensus of 44 editors (against 75) in Archive 1? This is the only discussion in the archives that looks like a community-wide discussion to me.

As to "censorship", there were numerous RfC votes based only on WP:NOT#CENSORED, as if this was an obligation to break each and every taboo that we can legally break:

• "Oppose - We are not censored, that's the end of the matter. If you have a problem with Wikipedias policy on censorship, take it to the appropriate venue. No it's not. These individual disputes on each controversial page have got us nowhere. If there is going to be change to the censorship policy it will have to take place at a central point. Not an obscure article about men who can live without girlfriends (or boyfriends) because of their unique ability to self pleasure." (Realist2)
• "Srong oppose. WP:NOTCENSORED is pretty clear and fair. Personally I may be offended at seeing people who aren't engaged in autofellatio - does that open the door for these convenient masking tools to be employed on every photo I can rally a group for? No, this will only lead to more arguments and splitting hairs and the community has somewhat reasonably sided to avoid images that are more pornographic for ones that are encyclopedic and prefer images of real people than the, IMHO, usually inferior graphics created. Apologies to the editor(s) who work on them but many are, inferior. There also may be some accessibility issues here but the policy of not censoring renders almost every other concern moot." (Benjiboi)
• "Oppose: The users who 'accidentally' reach this page from Google can presumably speak for themselves. We should not censor a page to humour the sensibilities of certain editors." (Rōnin)
• "Strong oppose: If we sacrifice the basic WP:NOTCENSORED principle here, what next? Slippery slope down which we should not slide." (ukexpat)
• "Oppose WP:CENSORED." (Dlabtot)
• "Strong oppose: we don't remove images just because someone finds them offensive, even if they were created to offend. NOT#CENSORED is clear on this: censorship of material runs against our mission of becoming a 💕 that includes the sum of human knowledge. I should point out that Template:Linkimage was deleted because it was ultimately used for page 'sanitation'." (Sceptre)
• "Oppose. Why are we still talking about this? No, it's because certain people fail to understand basic ideas like "not censored." This debate has been going in circles for years; it's become ridiculous." (Exploding Boy)

Each of these !votes made an implicit assumption that there is opposition against the photo only for the sake of censoring – as if that made any sense. When people censor something they do it for a reason, and that reason is rarely a general desire to censor. We don't show everything. We don't show every single photo from commons:Category:Sunflower in sunflower, even though this would be feasible. Decapitation doesn't have a photo of a severed head, and won't get one even if one becomes freely available. There are obvious tradeoffs between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANITY. I could find no proper, community-wide discussion of this issue in the archives (except for the one in 2005 that started with Jimbo deleting a photo and in which there was a majority against the photo). And a large number of users including some of the owners of the article are refusing to discuss anything other than whether WP:NOTCENSORED is valid and worth defending. That's exactly as constructive as if the other side would refuse to discuss anything other than whether WP:PROFANITY is valid and worth defending. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, this isn't something for Admins to deal with. Start a new RfC. I understand you're upset with that process but, unless you want to try an ArbCom (which I seriously doubt would be accepted), RfC is your best route for gauging consensus. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As an academic with a real name account, I am not going to edit that talk page any more for the reason explained above. And the massive, counterfactual claims of consensus that are going on at this talk page are a matter for administrator intervention. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Vaguely waving WP:PROFANITY around isn't going to help you, either. To quote that page - "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Misplaced Pages readers..." - so good luck on defining typical Misplaced Pages readers. The only comment I'd make on the Autofellatio article is that the drawing is a bit redundant given the photo. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea that WP:PROFANITY can't apply because there is no typical WP reader is only slightly more intelligent than the idea that WP:NOTCENSORED can't apply because the photo isn't obscene in the first place. Of course it is, for almost all readers. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's clearly obscene for almost all readers, then surely it would have consensus to be removed? Or are you insinuating that the average Misplaced Pages editor has a higher-than-average obscenity tolerance level? Or are you insinuating something else? I can't tell, to be honest, except that your argument appears to contravene NOTCENSORED (which is policy) whilst promoting PROFANITY (which is a Manual of Style guideline). So, er ...? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's very likely that the average Wikipedian has a higher-than-average obscenity tolerance level. We're mostly young, male, a bit geeky, and familiar with the Internet. That adds up to a high tolerance level for sexual content. Yeah. -GTBacchus 18:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Surely it's only in a prominent position if you're actually viewing the Autofellatio page in the first place? And if you're viewing that page, I'd guess that it's unlikely you've arrived there by accident (barring a 3,000,000-1 chance that you got there by hitting Random Article). A prominent position would be, say, on the Main Page, or on one of the Portals. Not there. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about native speakers of English, but a non-native speaker can easily come across this word in a novel with only a very vague idea of what it means. "Oh, no problem, I have internet in the office so I can look it up in Misplaced Pages." But this goes beyond what we should discuss here. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

...they then see the image and in a microsecond they are educated as to what autofellation is, job done and in a very efficient way. --WebHamster 16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a picture paints a thousand words! --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a very simple concept. The image that most accurately describes that which is in the article is placed in the top right position. It works well for thousands of other articles, so why should it not work well here? Or are you suggesting that the image doesn't accurately reflect the article's subject matter? The fact that it's a guy blowing himself is irrelevant from an encyclopaedic standpoint. --WebHamster 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think an ogg audiovideo would more fully and accurately reflect the article's subject matter. Oh wait --- that would be porn.17:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The moustache makes me feel ill. I'd rather the drawing was in the lead (it fits the criteria given for lead image above), and any photo, a better one hopefully, could come later (no pun intended) - if it was agreed it should be included at all, after an RFC perhaps (with a choice of images or no image presented, perhaps). Verbal chat 17:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(Resp to Hans Adler) WP:Consensus is not that which is decided upon by the regular editors of a particular page - but which is decided upon by the community by means of discussion and reflected in policy. The fact that a majority of editors within a particular prefer something does not negate consensus generally - you cannot take an article and agree between the current editors that WP:NPA, WP:Civil, and WP:OUTING does not apply within those pages and say you have consensus (well, you can try and take the consequences). Consensus is that WP:NOT#Censored applies generally across WP articles, and images that illustrate the article subject are allowed.

I find your mentions of your daughter and father relationship, and the potential of employers finding out your editing habits, bewildering and not to the point - Misplaced Pages is certainly not going to be edited around your lifestyle and career choices. When you choose to edit a subject you should be aware that you are doing so to the existing consensus, and if you are unable to change the consensus to reflect how you feel is appropriate then you have the choice of abiding by that consensus or not editing the article. Your choices are not Misplaced Pages's "problem", but something between yourself, your principles, and your interests. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In your first paragraph you seem to agree with my point – which is precisely that global consensus breaks local consensus. The problem is that as far as I can tell there was no attempt to find a global consensus since the 75–44 result against a specific photo in 2005. Yet the mantra that there is a consensus for a photo is being used whenever someone brings the topic up. If there is such a consensus, I want to see it. Otherwise I suspect that this is simply a case of the autofellatist's new clothes.

As to your second paragraph, I reserve the right to edit articles that are not related to my interests. Normally this is considered a good thing hereabouts. In this case I didn't even edit; I responded to an RfC that was derailed by supporters of the photo, apparently in order to avoid the determination of global consensus. Personally I think the photo is unnecessary, but I wouldn't complain about its existence. What makes me furious is the insistence that the photo must under all circumstances be at the very top of the article. That seems to be motivated only by assumptions of bad faith or the desire to break taboos. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I disagree, Rootology. Writing and editing a Misplaced Pages article often involves choices of style and taste. Moreover, Misplaced Pages policy forbids unnecessary offensiveness in articles: "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If the whole article was filled with photos, all-but-one could be removed under the WP:PROFANITY guideline. We always try and indicate the topic of the article with as clearer image as possible, including this photo. The whole discussion is about censorship, because some people (or even many people) will find it (maybe highly) offensive or inappropriate. Luckily, WP:NOTCENSORED deals with this issue - and makes it a non-issue. Misplaced Pages is not censored. We don't censor religious images, we don't censor nudity and we don't censor this. If you want to censor this, you'll need to get consensus to change NOTCENSORED. And seriously - you probably won't get it. Ale_Jrb 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTCENSORED; "some articles may include text, images, or links that some people may find objectionable when they are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." Is an image of autofellatio offensive? Irrelevant. Is an image of autofellatio relevant to an article on autofellatio? Yes. Does an illustration of the act of self fellatio improve understanding of the subject? Yes (this picture shows that it is both possible and also difficult to achieve, and one does not need to read any text to understand the subject - while reading the text without the visual aid may not inform the reader to the full extent of the practice.) What are your encyclopedic objections to the image? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not irrelevant. WP:NOTCENSORED says: "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only ...." Do you agree that policy says that?

If there were an automatic, reflexive need to illustrate everything at Misplaced Pages with a photograph, then please let's get right to work at necrophilia, anal sex, abortion, and thousand of other articles that currently have no illustrative photograph, and then we can get to work on Disembowelment, Execution by burning and the like.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it says that - which is why I gave the breakdown on why that image was appropriate for that article. As for the other subjects, I am not certain that there are free use images available (I am surprised if there isn't for anal sex or disembowlment, and equally if there are ones for abortion or necrophilia) but there is also the matter of how the illustration or lack of same effects the understanding of the subject. The photograph fulfills the requirement in a way that a drawing or other representation cannot, yet in the sister (sic) article of fellatio a drawing suffices because of an acceptance of the common frequency of the practice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have said, many people would find the image offensive. It is extremely obvious that the article would be no less accurate or informative if the image were at a less prominent spot in the article. Therefore, the present format violates WP:NOTCENSORED which bars use of images in a way that is needlessly offensive. It's very simple. Anyway, I have already left the article in question, and now I'll take my leave here too. Have fun!Ferrylodge (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) ... not to forget that both photos (it keeps oscillating between the guy with the silly moustache and the guy with the vibrator) also seem to demonstrate that it's a niche subject. Granted. I can accept the position that a photo should be there, because it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is denying the obvious fact that this is in the area of tension between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANITY, and categorically rejecting the slightest compromise such as putting the drawing first. It's hard to assume good faith when confronted with this stubbornness, rather than the desire to spite editors with a different background. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't we have a picture for anal sex? If you give me a couple of hours, I can make one. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could get to work on those last couple that I mentioned?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We have featured pictures for public indecency, guano, and circumcision. Durova 18:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And am working mostly on text content this week, but will keep the suggestions in mind. Durova 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Those two images would be fine. The latter is not a photo, and the former is not a close-up of a live tortured person being disemboweled, which is the primary meaning of the term.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well they happen to be the best resolution versions of the respective subjects that the Library of Congress makes available. In order to get a photograph of burning at the stake it would be difficult to locate something other than a theatrical stage depiction. Could certainly get hangings, though. Durova 18:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If I go out and burn someone at the stake (in keeping with my image), and upload a close-up photo of it to the corresponding Misplaced Pages article, I somehow doubt it will be greeted with the same glee found at the Autofellatio talk page. Anyway, I wasn't simply suggesting removing the image at the Autofellatio article. It obviously doesn't have to be at the top of the article to keep the article accurate and informative. In that sense, the current format of that article is blatantly contradictory to Misplaced Pages policy.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

It's below a comment that says: "And am working mostly on text content this week, but will keep the suggestions in mind." See the links at the end of that sentence.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Exploding Boy, I have contributed over 200 featured pictures, most of which are restorations of historic material. They cover a wide range of subjects and approximately 2% deal with hot-button subjects. Overall that's probably about the right balance. This happens to be a thread about another sensitive issue, and (at least theoretically) I would indeed support a featured picture candidate if the resolution, composition, photographic quality, etc. were of featured picture standards. Every now and then we get a low quality 'shock' image nomination, which quickly fails: FP standards are strict. But the nature of the material itself is irrelevant so long as its use is encyclopedic. Durova 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It might surprise you what Misplaced Pages does use, and even features. This video, for instance, was taken just a few years ago. Due to the circumstances it is not a close-up, but three human beings die in it. It ran on the main page and received only one complaint. Durova 19:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, Durova. The video you point to would not have been considered obscene by a majority of people anywhere in the world during the Victorian era or any other era. In contrast, there are photos available on the internet which --- even today --- a majority of people would consider extremely offensive.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically this: at FPC one of our criteria is whether the image is encyclopedic at the article it illustrates. With regard to the subject of this thread, yes, the image there is highly encyclopedic. It would be hard to imagine anywhere else on the project where it would be suitable, but at that page it does an excellent job of illustrating the subject. The value of having the article itself is more debatable than the illustration. But that would be a different discussion. Durova 19:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Thank you for providing the example. I was thinking of that but couldn't remember the name. Durova 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not offensive at all. You can barely make out what's depicted in the photo. Here's a quote from Jimbo Wales: "In general, I will simply restate the obvious: imagery in articles is often one of the most attractive points for POV-pushing of all kinds, for a couple of reasons. (1) Images can have a strong emotional impact, thus making implicitly a point that would not be possible to make in the text. (2) Images are often 'either/or' with no easy way to work for consensus. My own perspective is that many of our articles have needlessly graphic photos inserted either by POV-pushers or by people who are borderline trolling... seeing what they can get away with."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't find WP:APPEALTOAUTHORITY OR WP:THEGODKINGSAIDIT on the policy list. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why the fuck is this being argued both here and on the article's talk page? I wish someone would make their minds up where they are going to spout their conservative philosophies. --WebHamster 21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

speedy?

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

WP:COI is the first impression, one can prewrite articles in user space it is common pre election to write a up likely candidates that dont meet notabitlity unless they win. It wouldnt IMHO be a speedy candidate Gnangarra 06:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

They're new, COI writing is not forbidden but COI editors must take the greatest care in what they do, putting the encyclopedia first, these look like good faith, policy and guideline-abiding drafts in userspace, not speedies. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil remark left on my talk page

Please note this uncivil remark left on my talk page.--Chuck Marean 07:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nice...like, who the hell is he to even say that if you were editing in good faith? --Eaglestorm (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hm, okay. This is neither an endorsement or admonishment of the post.

    If there was ever, ever, a user on Misplaced Pages whose opinion I would listen to, it's Jahiegal.

    I am in no way saying that Marean is right or wrong, I would simply express that if Joe leaves you a talk note, it is good advice whether right or wrong.

    There's less than my fingers of users here that I would ultimately go to the bat for (HI MZ AND YELLOWMONKEY! et al), so please take this into consideration when dealing with the ongoing situation ITN. Jahiegal has a voucher from me concerning good faith and attempting to resolve this conflict. Happy editing. Keegan 08:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

    • I'll go a bit further - I endorse that post in its entirety, and it wasn't made in an uncivil fashion (unless I'm missing something?) Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Not uncivil. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• I direct you to User talk:ZimZalaBim#CM as well as to prior discussions of your current events editing on your own talk page and this very noticeboard. Jahiegel is quite right that this edit of yours is crossing the line from disagreement into intentional vandalism to make a point.

  I also note that you are continuing to add incorrectly dated material to current events. In this edit, for example, you added an event that occurred, as its source specifically states, on 2009-05-28 to the page for 2009-05-29. With this edit, and this edit, and this edit you did the same. ("Thursday", as stated in all three sources, was 2009-05-28. Two of the sources are even datelined 2009-05-28.) In this edit you added information to the page for 2009-05-30 that is not only not specific to that date, but that cites a source dated three days before, meaning that even if the event were date-specific it could not have possibly occurred on that date. You do the same thing in this edit. And in this edit you add an event for 2009-05-30 that the source itself explicitly says occurred on Friday 2009-05-29.

  Jahiegel isn't an administrator, but several of us in this section are. I, as one, am telling you this: Stop! People are not reverting you because they are "terrorists" or because they want "only bad news". And they aren't being "uncivil" to tell you that what you are doing is wrong. They are reverting you because your edits have descended into vandalism to make a point and adding incorrect information to the encyclopaedia, namely descriptions of events that did not in fact occur on the dates that you are stating them to have occurred. Stop, and stop now. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Chuck has a long history of edits that myself, Jahiegal, and others have monitored, and largely, summarily reverted due to a variety of reasons. The way Chuck archives his talk page makes this difficult to highlight, unfortunately. Both Jahiegal and I have assumed good faith throughout, and, IMO, shown great patience. But I'm starting to come around to the notion that Chuck has tried the patience of the entire community, since we're constantly having to monitor his edits and revert accordingly. After multiple years, he still isn't making constructive contributions, and is requiring continued supervision. None of which is helpful for the project. --ZimZalaBim 13:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov

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

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

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

• Comment This heavily involves OTRS, I no longer feel like dealing with the case myself but somebody needs to be consulted before action is taken. Tickets: otrs:2009040610066734 and otrs:2009050810050058. BJ 15:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Topic ban and unblock works for me. I note from his message that he plans to "bring latest scientific discoveries to WP-pages, and correct (quite numerous) inaccuracies" - it would be best to emphasise the WP:NOR and WP:V in any unblock message. Ironholds (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Topic ban and unblock after a week. When I can look into it more, I think I might support a topic ban for some of the others involved, unless they have clearly stopped with their own problematic editing of the Boron article. (It takes two sides to make a long-term edit war). Anyone thinking of adding their own comment to this thread may be enlightened by a quick look at WP:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy. I am glad to see that Mav has notified several others of this discussion, including User:Materialscientist (formerly NIMSoffice), for whom a topic ban might also be considered since he appears to be a real-life participant in the Gamma Boron controversy. (At least, Aoganov asserts this in the AfD discussion). Aoganov is connected to the use of sockpuppets, per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/GFZLab/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards