Namely at the article on the German actor Walter Sedlmayr. He had been murdered back in 1990, and the two perpetrators, that were sentenced in 1993, have been released by now on probation. THEY EVOKED A COURT DECISION THAT THEIR NAMES ARE NOT TO BE MENTIONED in the coverage of the murder. (see: [1], found linked at [2], both in German) I still found an German Nwepsaper article that gives their first names [3], so I only removed their last names. We probably need to see if some further edits are required, but the previous two revisions that give their full names need to be deleted, definitely. Zara1709 (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't have access to the deleted sources, however if they are reliable and do cite the full name, then I agree with you. As a note, this news page seems to use the names: [4]. It appears reliable, but I am unable to tell. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, you don' get it. If you look at the WP articles on Bruno Hauptmann, Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan, you will see that there is AT LEAST ONE biography of them linked or listed there. Concerning those two German murderers there isn't anything like that: We don't know where they grew up, we don't know their family situations, we don't even now their birth dates. Ok, there is one German documentary on the murder, which I haven't seen. If this documentary devotes only 15 of its 45 minutes to the life of these murderers before their crime, I am willing to grant that they may be notable (we should then make their names into redlinks). But there would still be a HUGE difference between those criminals you mentioned, that became famous because they murdered someone and these two guys. If a world famous aviator, the family of a world renown cinema director or a politician and the brother of a former US president is murdered, there will be someone who writes a biography of the murderer, making him notable. Concerning these two persons, there apparently isn't a biography. If there isn't anything to be said on them, aside from what would have to be said in the article of their victim, then we don't need to give their full names. And btw., German courts might be more restrictive against the media when it comes to a persons privacy, but OF COURSE they make certain distinctions. When the former RAF-terrorist Brigitte Mohnhaupt was relased on parole last year, a court denied the largest German tabloid to publish NEW photos of her; the old pictures could of course be used as historical documents. [5]

Neither does the court decision in this case amount to a "Stalin-type editing of archives" as it has been hinted in this discussion. The court explicitly left archives out in his decision: "Die Beklagte trifft nicht die Verpflichtung, ihre Archive ständig daraufhin zu kontrollieren, ob ggf. ein sich im Archiv befindlicher Beitrag entfernt oder geändert werden müsste. Insofern besteht kein Unterschied zu einem Archiv, das Printmedien aufbewahrt. Eine derartige Kontrollpflicht würde die öffentliche Aufgabe, die der Presse im Hinblick auf die Information der Öffentlichkeit über aktuelle Ereignisse zukommt, über Gebühr beeinträchtigen. Sie würde zudem (…) dem Informationsbedürfnis der Öffentlichkeit zuwiderlaufen, das auch eine Recherche nach Berichten aus vergangenen Zeiten umfasst."[6] Of course, you could try to argue that WP should be considered an archive, then. I would then hold that WP is not an archive, because it constantly is edited. But we are nowhere near a discussion that would sort out these points. Zara1709 (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English wikipedia. Translation, please. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

They can have a right to privacy only when the guy they murdered comes back to life. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

And you should take your own advice. Wikipedia is for information, and the readers have the right to know who the murderers were, in this or any other murder case. The arguments against it, all amount to censorship, and must not be tolerated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Bingo. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section-break (German court-order)

Section-break (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The self-styled "privacy" guy 3vil-Lyn has taken it upon himself to delete the names with no consensus to do so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Reindent] I have to agree with Ford MF above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1993, half-brothers Manfred Lauber and Wolfgang Werlé,[1][2][3][4] former business associates of Sedlmayr, were sentenced to life in prison for his murder. They were released on parole in 2007 and 2008.

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

Askari Mark, thank you for this well thought out post, which is refreshing! Nonetheless ;) you have not addressed how editorial judgment can cover to omit information that intrudes into an area where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also, in my opinion we shouldn't follow this essay on "do no harm" to the letter but should rather keep it's spirit. Moreover (hey I still like your post ;)) you did not address how the publics right of information might decay after an incident leaves the daily news rotation and people have served their sentence.

You are, of course, right on spot that limits on their treatment are to be found in WP:BLP as the possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement.

Can endangering rehabilitation lead to real world HARM done to a person? -> Yes.

Does omiting the names go along with a risk for public safety? According to the judge -> No.

Does public interest override our idea of "do no HARM" in every case? -> No, we wouldn't need the idea of "do no harm" (read editorial judgment) if public interest could not be restrain’d in favor of a subject's privacy where it is reasonable.

Is it reasonable TODAY to omit the names? Judge -> Yes. | You -> ? (...they broke the social contract and have no more right on privacy whatsoever?.)

Does citing old newspaper headlines and Google caches answer that question? Moi -> No ;)

Soooo, *lights a cigarette with a studied languor that Humphrey Bogart might have admired*

I got four lil questions for you ;)

1. You cited "weight the persons right of privacy against the publics right to be informed"

Why don't you do just that? ;) now instead of telling us how German jurisdiction has no effect on the English language Wikipedia or how American Law differs from German law (...which is welcome btw, you did a good job here ;))

please tell us why YOU think the privacy rights of these guys are clearly outweighed by the publics right to be informed in this particular case you know everything about thanks to Google translations of tabloid zines.

2. Do you think this Mike Godwin guy ANY editor posting here knows the case better than the judge in charge? You know the guy who personally interviewed all witnesses to understand the facts of the case... including medical and psychological opinions by experts ?

If so, why?

3. Isn't there the slightest possiblity user Ringelblume is just a disgruntled German editor who can't get her/his way on the German language Wikipedia, where such adds are currently immdiatley removed by the OTRS team and has therefore started this article here, ready to disease the article's discussion page with those names no matter the fact the supposed murderers of Walter Sedlmayr have zero notability outside Germany? What could be the motivation behind this behaviour given EVERBODY remembers these names in Germany (18 years later) like Ringelblume wants us make to believe?

4. Do you think Jimbo will be overzealously excited about the idea of having to call Mikey because he just entered German jurisdiction on some Wikipedia conference in Germany? ;) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC) ♫[reply]

• Fair enough, I'll bite: (1) My personal views, and those of any other editor, are irrelevant. Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and of civil law, are.

The notion that personal views are irrelevant in this discussion is just so amazingly completely wrong that it leaves me baffeled. We try to build consensus here (maybe even a new policy), so personal views are important when weighing reasonable privacy interests and ethical concerns (which are part of WP:BLP), something that can vary greatly with different cultural backgrounds. However this question aimed in another direction and that is whether or not you are in the position to judge sources facing the language barrier.

(2) Probably not, but that's irrelevant to the issue, as are the facts of the case or medical and psychological opinions by experts. The issue of whether it is a WP:BLP violation to report the names of convicted criminals is a basic one and does not - and should not - be affected by the particulars of the trials or the personalities of the criminals.

It is relevant to this issue to recognize that even a "lower court" judge in Germany does know a lot more about this case and has way more information to value privacy rights vs public interest than any editor posting here, which gives such order a lot of weight in my opinion. I'm basically just following TreasuryTag here, but see this not as a "courtsey" but more as a cogent reason when comparing my own limited knowledge about the circumstances with the possibilities of a judge in charge of things. Also psychological opinions by experts play a major role before some one is set free which directly counters some concerns from above (the sky is falling!). That Wikipedia isn't a criminal record database for foreign people of little notability is out of question. So, yes we should volunteer to respect the wishes of accredited judges abroad to use TreasuryTag's wording.

(3) I refer you to WP:AGF ... and you really don't want to go there, because one could just as readily ask why you are so passionately interested in keeping people from knowing about these names. There are thousands of articles about notorious crimes where the names of the perps are given, and there's no reason to presume that everyone who edits a true crime article does so out of suspect motives.

There are probably thousands of cases where German judges have given more weight to public interest than to the right of a criminal to disclose a name. However not in this case. due early release on parole, unclear motives and a new suspect out of country. Judges denied resumption of proceedings but set free earlier. As for WP:AGF I assume good faith as long as there is not evidence not do so. Looking at the history of Ringelblume we find two articles translated from the German Wikipedia, both featuring the full names not included there. The other edits and the constant claim to silence Zara1709 and just "move on" speak a clear language to me (as do the rants on the German article's discussion pages). Also I don't like to see editors who made some really good points getting scared away by people who scream censorship or post long offtopic rants (not Ringelblume though everything Feindstrafrecht is completely humbug) without addressing any of their arguments. As for offtopic, people often tell me that I am passionate in whatever I do... thanks ;)

(4) Jimbo's not the COO of the Foundation, wouldn't be making that call at all, and that's why you have an in-house counsel.  RGTraynor  15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter? One should not expose any member of the Wikipedia foundation to legal risks. Besides this one was really more on a humorus note than anything to lighten up the discussion :)

Conclusion: You condone how I indeed argue with BLP policies as the possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement.

Many more arguments have been made to omit the names, mainly about a decaying right of public interest, about the difference between a daily newspaper and an encyclopaedic record for eternity, about social sanctions not to be "prolonged" by a self-proclaimed anti censorship mob, about the idea of rehabilitation, about marginal notability of the subjects in question (WP:BLP1E), about media penetration Wikipedia vs print media, about the idea to respect the wishes of accredited judges in respected democratic countries and about language barriers when trying to understand the reasoning of a foreign court order.

We also have positions who argue some less drastic positions to omit the names like the observation that this information doesn't really add anything of value to this particular article as Neil put it, or a user named SheffieldSteel who said it might be a matter of common decency to comply with the German judge. Editor Guy notes these peeps have marginal to zero notability so the names could be left out, same goes for Zara1709 who sees no encyclopaedic reason for inclusion among privacy concerns. TreasuryTag argues for a policy addition even, which I'd favor too. To claim this dicussion has just ended with consensus or is a dead horse is way off.

The only thing that has indeed just ended is the idea it is possible to block consensus with offtopic rants (not you) or repeating the irrelevant fact that the Florida based Wikipedia can't be legally forced to comply with a foreign court order ad nauseam. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind commendations and provocative questions, 3vil-Lyn. No, I didn’t get into the particulars of my personal beliefs. After all, this is not a forum, so I tried to take a dispassionate approach to framing the issue of differing interpretations of moral responsibilities versus Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines with respect to obtaining a consensus under which Wikipedia.en is obliged to follow. Since this is not a forum, I don’t see this as the proper place for delving into personal views, as it’s a matter more of achieving consensus, which means we all give and take. So, I hope that you will forgive me if I don’t try to carry on a personal debate here, nor attempt to posture as someone especially knowledgeable about German legal and cultural mores. (Besides, I’m allergic to cigarette smoke, however languidly it may be enjoyed.)

I will point out, though, since it is relevant to the consensus regarding this issue, that “harm” and “moral weight” are relative and that any given “right” does not trump all others all of the time. I think we can agree that the harm done to the rights of Herr Sedlmayr are more grave than the prospective harm done to his murderers having to continue to carry the weight of the reputation of their crimes. Likewise, where the greater weight will fall with regard to the person’s right of privacy versus the public’s right to be informed will vary from culture to culture. No German court nor American court nor other court can enforce a universal declaration of this balance on all others. Accordingly, unless and until there is a world court of universally accepted jurisdiction that can impose one, a minority German (in this instance) “determination of weight” has no ability to trump all others. Since Wikipedia is governed by consensus, neither does it trump other traditions. As I mentioned earlier, the German court’s ruling may (or may not – I don’t know) have bearing on Wikipedia.de, but it has none such a priori effect on Wikipedia.en. For the latter, one would expect US law and custom to take precedence since it and its servers are domiciled there, with custom tempered by that prevailing more broadly in the English-speaking world. And that is what forms the consensus here in this case – to whatever degree we like it or don’t. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I figured I should answer you too though many points are addressed in the answer I gave RGTraynor. Just a small note, there is no need for an "universal declaration" like you call it, every case should get reviewed with all circumstances taken into account. The interrogation style questions (I hope you had some fun! ;) indeed should lead you the way to develop a certain sensibility when juding sources for BLPs and ultimately lead to the insight you might not know enough about the case to weigh the relevant wikipedia policies against each other like the German judge did in his own words (which, curiously enough, reflect ideas we worked into official Wikipedia policies).

By the way, the German court’s ruling has an effect on Wikipedia.de you just need to check the article in question. Too bad I have to refrain from blowing a puff of smoke in your direction now ;) Therfore I just switched the cig in favor of a multi-vitamin drop today (...one of those you can smell in a two meter distance though :) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting diff: it seems that the particular German editor went beyond what I understand is called for by German law to remove even the abbreviated names from the WP.de article. That doesn’t tell me, though, that WP.de is legally required to partially (much less fully) excise their names. Yes, I do concur that the German judge knows more about the case and German law than we do; I don’t think that anyone here has disputed that. However, no matter how perfectly he or she may have applied German case law in accordance with German cultural mores, that neither mandates nor requires its observance outside of Germany. Ipso facto, the fact that this particular German social norm is not broadly held (or enshrined in case law) among English-speaking cultures thereby does not obligate its observance through self-censorship on WP.en.

Just as a Gedankenexperiment, it’s interesting to consider what the full extension of the German approach should be if the criminal’s right to privacy is so strong. Doesn’t it then require the further expunging of all records of the murder, all the way to the point where Herr Sedlmayr’s death should be reported as just that and not a murder? After all, stating that it was a case of murder only invites someone to ask questions the time-served criminal would rather not have raised at all because of their potential harm to his future quality of life. Frankly, it’s difficult to see how such a “passive” approach to rehabilitation can be anywhere near as effective as active ones.

In any case, without a “universal declaration” of human rights (natural and derived) and their relative weight vis-à-vis one another, there is no mechanism (other than religion) for conveying moral obligation beyond national borders. To date, there is no universally accepted such definition, and even the partial lists promulgated by organizations like the United Nations are interpreted and weighed quite differently from one culture to another. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "legal risk" to English wikipedia from this, because Germany has no jurisdiction in the matter. The most they could do is to somehow prohibit the German people from accessing this website. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three points here. Keep in mind, I am not stating my POV on anything. I am only pointing out the most basic, fundamental issues of the Project that are apparently unknown to some of our editors. Please excuse my tone if it seems brusque, but, again, this is ironclad fact.

• 1) The issue of the English Wikipedia community being legally obligated in any way, shape, or form to censor essential information based on the wishes of a German court, or any foreign court, is a non-issue. Utterly. Completely. It's not even a consensus-decided policy, subject to the approval of the community. It is a Jimbo Wales, Owner-Operator, God-King decided policy. This is crystal clear per Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Legal_and_copyright and it is not up for debate. Mike Godwin is our lawyer. We are under explicit instructions from Jimbo to refer all legal issues to him. End of story. Anyone continuing to argue otherwise should be warned for disruptive editing and then blocked if they continue. Because you can't argue it away, and all you're doing is wasting our time and energy in trying to explain it to you. I'm sorry if that seems rude, but I can't say it any other way.

• 2) The issue of English Wikipedia being morally obligated to remove the names is based on consensus-determined policy, specifically WP:NOTCENSORED. This policy is widely endorsed by the community of English Wikipedia, and forms one of our core policies. It has withstood the test of time against many, many arguments for "self-censorship" similar to this one. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED for the community's definitive statement on this subject. Again, this policy is firmly and strongly supported by community consensus and has stayed this way for the entire existence of English Wikipedia. If you wish to attempt to gain the consensus necessary to overturn a core policy, you would need to take it up on the talk page of WP:NOT, with an appropriate notice at WP:AN and WP:VP. This is how we do things here. Any decision this big would need to be made after a long discussion process involving all users in the chance to comment. And once policy is supported by consensus, it is not broken except in specific instances by Jimbo himself (please see WP:OFFICE).

• 3) There are precisely zero arguments other than these two that matter. The material has been proven several times to have met WP:V pertaining to verifiable information. This "discussion" needs to be archived for posterity (or deleted) like the last 29 perennial legal proposals that have been raised because all you're doing is shouting at the rain. I'm getting sick of seeing people demand we change the color of the sky because blue offends them. It's not changing. Get over it. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 09:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Other sources do not have to abide by our policies - something that reputable news sources can get away with may completely be in violation of any number of Wikipedia's policies such as BLP (or in this case, BLP1E and it's associated sensitivity)." -- Georgewilliamherbert (found on Star Wars kid and it spares me work :)) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal interpretation of WP:BLP in the interest of sensitivity is not an end run around 7 years of rock-hard consensus and a direct order from the guy who owns the website (and his lawyer). Arguing that merely including the names of two convicted murderers in a notable, verifiable article about the man they killed violates WP:BLP (but somehow not anything else) is specious Wiki-lawyering writ large. I encourage everyone to argue whatever they feel like they ought to, but I again say that the decision to abrogate WP:CENSOR without a long discussion and a strong consensus is completely unacceptable. No one here has the right to unilaterally decide this. Three editors on WP:AIV does not cut it. Furthermore, comparisons to the star wars kid are completely specious since no one is arguing that Manfred Lauber and Wolfgang Werlé deserve their own WP:BLP articles like the star wars kid had. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 18:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line: a decision to remove this information requires one of two things: a Project-wide consensus you are not even close to achieving, or the direct intervention of Jimbo in the form of WP:OFFICE. Your chances of achieving the first are infintesimal at best, so I'd suggest you all save your breath. As for the second, why not email him or leave a note on his talk page at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales? Any action conducted to remove the names outside of those two decisions is a violation of hard consensus-endorsed policy and will be reverted. I hope this helps cut through the 99kb of bullshit. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 18:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not ending the debate like this

The moral aspect: (SKIP THIS SECTION IF YOU DON'T CARE)

I've being considering of giving up this issue for days now, put I am currently not inclined to do so. Specifically since 3vil-Lyn's comment in the edit summary : ("If I were to cut myself off from those of my brethren who sin, I would be alone." --Solomon ibn Gabirol) reminded my of why I have such strong views on this in the first place. A week ago User:Ringelblume linked on this page a German article on Feindstrafrecht [7]. Currently I am wondering whether that article quotes Jean-Jacques Rousseau correctly, because I fail to see what permanent damage a crime does to the social contract. A crime, a murder certainly, does permanent damage to its victim, but does this mean that the perpetrator has set himself PERMANENTLY outside the civil society? Can't society as a whole (not the victim of the crime) forgive the criminal? The social contract is more than the individual; In what way it is offended by a crime committed against one individual. Voltaire argued that a human being cannot offend God, if he murders his neighbour; This is a offence against his neighbour, not an offence against God. If the link between the concepts of "social contract" and " friend or foe" is made, would this mean that it was an accurate description of the theory of Thomas Hobbes to say: "The Leviathan is not God. God forgives." ?

To continue the argument I would bring in Hannah Arendt on the importance of forgiveness in politics, .. but apparently I can't attempted to solve a debate that permeates modern philosophy of law.

Outside the moral aspect:(CONTINUE TO READ HERE.) But I never attempted to justify the removal of the full names here with a moral argument anyway. I have stated that there are moral/legal/whatever reasons to respect a persons right of privacy, but I never argued that Wikipedia would morally obligatedto remove their names. On the other hand, I have found myself with the impression that several people demand the inclusion of those names for the somehow moral reason that they are dangerous criminals and the public needs to be warned about them. And in this case I am saying. No, this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Tabloids do that, but Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The argument that has been brought by Askari Mark deserves some consideration here: He quotes from wp:blp: "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.", but then I don't see how he takes the second sentence about privacy into account. That tabloids "spread of titillating claims about people's lives" is a given. What is problematic is the other aspect: The tabloids obviously see some news value in the identity of two former murderers, 18 years after the crime. This is what led to the court decision in the first place. Now, you can't be saying that everything that is in the news (and for which therefore reliable sources can be found) should be included in WP. (Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS) Despite this long debate I am still waiting for the editor who argues that there is an encyclopaedic value in giving their full names that outweighs the respect for their privacy. I am not saying that the "respect for privacy" outweighs all other aspects. I am saying that it weights more than the marginal encyclopaedic value that would be gained from giving the full names in this case.

Concerning the Gedankenexperiment done by Askari Mark: If you scroll though you will see that I actually provided a quote from the court decision that explicitly stated that archives have to be left alone.

But let me do one, too. If ca. 20 years ago a person murdered someone, probably even a small child. The murderer would be notable anyway, aside from the crime, but the crime itself doesn't have it's own article. And now the family of victim would kindly request on the talk page that the victim's name was removed. Could you deny it? Or, say, they evoked a court decision against a tabloid who did a sensationalist article that gave the identity of the victim. If someone pointed to that court decision and suggested that the full name should be removed, would you agree? I don't suppose that there would be a consensus not to remove the full name, then. What is difficult to see is not the "respect for privacy". The difficulty lies purely in the understanding of the concept of "forgiveness" or social rehabilitation.

The reason why this debate appears to be an "argument against the rain" is that these questions (of "forgiveness" and "social rehabilitation") are morally controversial. The reason is not that the application of wp:blp (privacy) is difficult. This is not a case of "Wiki-lawyering" and it should be very well possible to achieve a consensus here. After all, there is a consensus on this on the German Wikipedia. And as fas as I know, there is currently no legal order against the German Wiki on this. The only ones who should hold their breath in this debate are those who are of the opinion that criminals don't have a right of privacy. Zara1709 (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "moral aspect". If the guy who was murdered is notable, then the guys who killed him are fair game for naming. German courts have no jurisdiction over the English wikipedia, and their highly questionable social experimentation with giving murderers "privacy rights", as if they were somehow victims themselves, is of no concern to wikipedia. The repeated citation of a quote about sinners implies that all crime or "sin" is equivalent to murder, or that murder is no worse than other "sins". Wrong - and, again, irrelevant to wikipedia policies. "Forgiveness" is also irrelevant to wikipedia policy. The inclusion of the names of murderers of a notable person is perfectly in line with wikipedia policy, and hence it has implied consensus. There is no consensus for the arguments you're making. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FOR THE LEAST TIME: THE GERMAN COURT ORDER IS NOT TH REASON WHY THE FULL NAMES NEED TO BE REMOVED. We only have to be clear on question whether the marginal encyclopaedic value that is gained from mentioning their names does outweigh their right of privacy. And mentioning their names IS NOT "perfectly in line wikipedia policy"! On the German Wikipedia the consensus is the other way round! Zara1709 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for not the least but hopefully the last time, it has been explained in depth, farther up the page, why the inclusion of the names of the killers is appropriate within policy, and why there is no policy-based reason for not including them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO; NOBODY in this discussion EVEN ATTEMPTED TO ARGUE THAT the encyclopaedic value of giving their full names would outweigh the necessary "regard for the subject's privacy" WHICH IS POLICY. Closest was Askari Mark, who wrote yesterday: "I will point out, though, since it is relevant to the consensus regarding this issue, that “harm” and “moral weight” are relative and that any given “right” does not trump all others all of the time. I think we can agree that the harm done to the rights of Herr Sedlmayr are more grave than the prospective harm done to his murderers having to continue to carry the weight of the reputation of their crimes."

That the two aspects that are to be weighted are relative to each other is a given. However, since we can described the event of the murder without giving the full names of the perpetrators, the encyclopaedic importance of giving them tends towards nil. Respects for privacy does not "trump all other" aspects always, but it trumps here. But when you are writing "we can agree that the harm done to the rights of Herr Sedlmayr are more grave than the prospective harm done to his murderers having to continue to carry the weight of the reputation of their crimes" or something similar you are bringing in a principle that alien to Wikipedia. "Do not harm" applies to anyone, regardless of his personal history and background. If you follow a notion of retributive justice and want to harm former criminals by keeping their names public, you can feel free to do it, BUT YOU CAN'T DO IT ON WIKIPDEDIA! I (really) don't care if you make a copy of the article, with full names, and host it in you personal webspace; In that case you probably only shouldn't chose a provider from Germany. On you personal webspace you are only required to follow the legislation of the server's location. On Wikipedia the articles have to follow Wikipedia's POLICIES, and although those are sometimes difficult to apply, there definitely is no policy on retributive justice (like wp: do harm) and there is a policy on privacy, namely wp:blp. Considering that the article could easily do without giving the full names of the murderers, giving these names is a violation of BLP. Zara1709 (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If their names are verifiable, then there is no privacy issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this case is not completely comparable, but concerning this aspect it is: It took me 2 minutes to find a reliable source for the name of the Star Wars kid. Should I go and add it to the article? Zara1709 (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he a convicted criminal who harmed a notable person? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy rights don't apply to criminals? --Conti|✉ 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if they are of legal age and the facts are publicly available. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the users RGTraynor and Bullzeye explained this much better than I can. I would like to be done with this endless loop. Read what they've said. If you have further questions, read it again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand (talk · contribs) For using or appearing to use automated tool on hi main account in direct violation of the community sanction that is logged here. In his recent contributions I counted nearly 80 edits in 2 minute period - in addition to the edit summaries clearly indicating the use of twinkle: [8]. Viridae^Talk 10:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For full discussion, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand.

Comment on the subpage please, and add a new time stamp here to prevent archiving, if need be. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click here for current Betacommand block status. --John Nagle (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• proposal —— nixeagle 01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not to mention this repeatedly inserted on the talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The number of engrams in a Zulu would be astonishing. Moved out of his restimulative area and taught English he would escape the penalty of much of his reactive data; but in his native habitat the Zulu is only outside the bars of a madhouse because there are no madhouses provided by his tribe. It is a safe estimate, and one based on better experience than is generally available to those who have conclusions on 'modern man' by studying primitive races, that primitives are far more aberrated than civilized peoples. Their savageness, their unprogressiveness, their incidence of illness: all stem from their reactive patterns, not from their inherent personalities… The contagion of aberration, being much greater in a primitive tribe, and the falsity of the supersitious data in the engrams of such a tribe both lead to a conclusion which, observed on the scene, is carried out by actuality." - Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (1988 ed.), book 2, chapter 8, p. 183 - 'The Contagion of Aberration'

So, this quote doesn't matter then? It states clearly that the Zulu's are insane and primitive, and should be taught english in order to evolve (as per the Tech Dictionary defintion of "Homo Novis")? Secondly, that call for people to register and weigh in the TALK page can not be weighed as such since it was made after the lock. I think we should have another Admin weigh in on this one, since you being a member of the Church of Scientology could be construed as a conflict of interest. Groupsisxty (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the correct process is WP:RfC. Since you have stuck it out this long and there is no-one else from your crew helping I think we can safely say that this has devolved to a simple content dispute between the two of us and unless one of the admins wants to take my suggestion on wrapping this up, we can pursue an RfC after this closes. No hurry, the page is frozen in your preferred version. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)Is this serious? The cited quote is only evidence of what Hubbard said, and nothing more than that. As evidence for anything else it's what we academics call "a load of ficking bollocks". Any editor seeking to take it beyond that is hereby put on notice that repeated addition of such material will result in blocking for disruption, as will any addition of that material to any article in breach of WP:UNDUE. We are not a vehicle for nonsense here, on either side of a debate. The suggestion for WP:RFC has merit, but bear in mind all Scientology-related articles are still on probation. --Rodhullandemu 01:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are more citations on the talk section. Not just this one. --Groupsisxty (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free . . . Help still needed

To close this as resolved and to please comment at Talk:List of new religious movements#RfC. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, at this point I feel you are abusing your position to push your POV into this article. My inclusion in the category is sourced, and an admin has weighed in. Are you just being combative, as I have already suggetsed a citation to state "Certain Members object to this listing." Seriously here. --Groupsisxty (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the disruptive off-wiki canvassing by Groupsisxty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues (here) after warning above and has yielded the desired result of a number of SPAs effectively vote-stacking the RfC at List of new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by the continuing to add primary materials and push for WP:OR on the talk page, I am going to continue to ask for some sort of positive intervention here. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of how I have "continued" the off-wiki canvassing (If it could even be construed as such). I have even been trying to prevent vandalism to various pages through my forum. At this point, should we up this to ArbCom, or quit escalating this every time consensus has been met? Also, I have made several attempts in Good Faith to come to a consensus, including adding the RfC personally to the article. Justallofthem on the other hand has escalated this to where it is now, even after a temp ban due to the 3 revert rule. --Groupsisxty (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, Groupsisxty, you continued to ask for /b/ackup on enturb.org after I politely warned you that such would be considered disruptive canvassing. And you got /b/ackup both in what could be construed as vote-stacking the RfC and in attacking my dormant alternate account Justanother (talk · contribs) (my current account being protected against such attacks). Now I know, and please read this carefully, that you do not condone the attacks on my page and I know that you do not intend to break the rules here but by continuing to solicit support for your edits in that forum you did break the rules and you invited the subsequent edits. Hence this post. Cheers. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I erased the one problematic post and ceased doing such. In fact, every time a member of the forum suggested attacks,etc I have suggested quite the contrary.Groupsisxty (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so there are two threads on Enturb about this mess: One calls for massive editing, and is a canvassing vio. That thread last was posted to two days ago. The other thread is currently active, and has about four pages of Anon/Enturb members beating down 'The Shadow' who I assume is Groupsisxty, and telling him to abort his agenda. I have little doubt that numerous Anons are watching this thread, and those pages, and are fully aware of his actions. They seem to be doing quite a bit to rein in this teenage 'V' wanna-be. I'd suggest a short ban to stop the constant editwarring, and hopefully he'll listen to the 30 or so people telling him to knock it off. That a few other Anons seem to be assisting him doesn't say much about their willingness to listen, though. Makes me wonder if Anon isn't just turning into the Crusaders, who fought Saladin as much for their own glory as they did to oppose the spread of his religion and empire. He's certainly making the entire Anon group look like either assholes, or a group thoroughly unable to manage what's done in their name, neither of which is good. ThuranX (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not "The Shadow". In fact, I have reined in that particular user a number of times, in addition to comply with ceasing (and removing) my "canvassing" posts (See Justallofthem's comment above). Groupsisxty (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groupsisxty and "The Shadow" are, IMHO, definitely very different individuals (Groupsisxty can reveal his/her Enturb ID if s/he desires but I will not directly do so, especially after s/he has taken responsibility for the canvassing issue). Groupsisxty has been unfailing civil (even when I have been a bit short though nothing like my old days - laff) and is seeking to edit here in accordance with policy. Groupsisxty had been pushing for a bit of a POV OR inclusion but that is nothing to be too concerned over and s/he seems to get the point now re that anyway. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so Groupsisxty isn't The Shadow, good to know. I note that they've taken half my above comment and whined about how I don't understand them. So what? It seems there are a couple actual Wiki-editors there, Groupsisxty must be one, arguing about why secondary sourcing matters. Unfortunately, I see very little comprehension there. I note that none of them noted the part where I talk about most of that community trying to get 'The Shadow' to quit alienating Wikipedia and getting it hostile to Enturb and Anon, instead focusing on what I don't know about them. Until I saw how they react to criticism, I was looking into which protest on Sept 13 was closest to me and how to properly get to and into a protest safely, given their FG stories. Seemed like a fun afternoon. However, now I'm not interested. My loss? maybe, but at least I won't be hanging out with people who want to keep their club theirs.

I repeat, however: Any of their editors seeking to force consensus by meatpuppetry should be blocked on site. Wikipedia is coming into a time (both with the elections, and more slowly overall) where many outside groups are seeking to manipulate our NPOV to achieve their "True Truth". The entire Wikiproject, and En.Wiki, as the biggest wiki and biggest target, as well as a leader of the project, needs to adopt now, so it's not a sea change at a later date, a policy of zero-tolerance to outside POV shoves. If we let Anonymous get away with it, if we let the JIDF (mentioned elsewhere on AN/I) get away with it, if we let HucksArmy (now inactive but the force behind a major whitewash during the primaries) get away with it, then we're opening the door to a permanent situation where all good editors spend half their wikitime cleaning up the messes each day created by agenda pushing SIGs, then we'll see the project fail. Regular editors will abandon the project and use their time more productively, and articles will look like bathroom stall writings. Ban early, ban often. ThuranX (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the meatpuppetry is the issue - that term slipped my mind or I would have used it earlier. Thanks. These off-wiki groups need to be treated as one editor and if they can get their crap together enough to appoint one member to edit here then fine otherwise hammer down. Hopefully on this issue Groupsisxty will carry the torch and the rest will back off. This is *supposed* to be the internet-savvy bunch so if they can't do it right . . . --Justallofthem (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can not carry a "torch" so to speak. I am one editor, editing for myself, using my own research capabilities (Ok, albeit, some University Librarians and Professors :P ) I we were to rule that the forum constitute one member, then we need to ban all scientologists and anti-scientologist (Scientology has members there), and Scientology pushes it's agenda through here as well (Terryeo being a prime example)Groupsisxty (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Scientology, were it to mount a coordinated campaign, should be subject to the same harsh blocking methods. I should've been clear about that. ThuranX (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Block on Melonbarmonster2 not lifted as the block was appropriate. The block on Badagnani was lifted as an inappropriate one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I didn't notice that it was on ANI, so I contacted Georgewilliamherbert first. For the reasons noted on the user's talk page, I think that the unblock request by Badagnani should be granted. I've not reviewed the block of Melonbarmonster2, because there is no active unblock request by him or her.  Sandstein  09:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandstein. Badagnani's only edits at 22:19 and 22:38 do not amount to an edit-war - after those edits, he stopped editing the article and confined himself to the talk page for about half an hour, however heated that might have been. Then at 23:52, he was blocked - I don't think this was appropriate and Badagnani needs to be unblocked (and the unblock summary for the block log needs to state enough so that it does not prejudice administrators in future sanctions, should they be considered at a later date). If there's no response (by the blocking admin) in the next hour or so, I request someone unblock the user accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, and I have unblocked. The two reverts were different reverts, well spaced out in time, and the talk page comments from Badagnani were civil. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ncmvocalist removed my statement without permission.[9] He is neither an admin nor a certified "ANI clerk". He was warned for his unilateral archiving ANI in this month. So he should not do such thing here.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Caspian_blue continues to sprout patently nonsensical claims that wheelwarring and personal attacks have occurred when it has not, which is why his so-called statement was removed, and which was why I've loudly said that the expression 'put up or shut up' comes to mind (See here. The only reason he won't 'put up', to ArbCom or the community, is because he knows it'll be dismissed as absolute rubbish - there was no wheelwarring or personal attacks. He needs to stop creating more heat than light and stop being a constant annoyance by hounding all users who don't agree with him and unfounded accusations. Can someone please tell him to 'let it go and go do something more productive' with his time? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Still, sounds absurd. This is not a case for Arbcom, so do not let yourself indulging in your dream. The blocking admin protested to the overturn, so that becomes "WP:WHEEL" according to the policy. I also considered that unblocking only one side is unfair and Badagnani causes all the same problems to Korean related articles, so left my thought on this and you can't "put up with it". You're the one creating needless heat by yourself, and why don't you you "put up or shut up?" per your repeated saying. There is no such rule that you are allowed to remove other editor's comment without permission and denounce other' free opinion. You falsely accuse that my comment is nonsensical and has no merit. I see the contradiction on your part only. Why don't you let it go by yourself? Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wheel warring certainly is a case for the arbcom. However since it didn't happen then move along folks nothing to see here. I've removed your comment above. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, absolutely, here has nothing to see here. The two users's block are expired already. Since you're an admin with tool, I would not restore my deleted comment. However, I wonder why you calm at my request for modification on your unofficial rule but appear here. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry but I don't understand you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The confession at User:Harry "Snapper" Organs might be interesting to some around here... 71.204.176.201 (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond arritt (talk · contribs) is not banned or blocked, so he is free to return using a different account. I take the rest as a not very funny joke. Chick Bowen 03:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two possibilities (a) Raymond is just being a silly sausage or (b) "anarcho-authoritarian" is actually a word, I mean wtf... — CharlotteWebb 03:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few of us who go a bit silly on Friday afternoons (CW caught "anarcho-authoritarian" but missed "fascist liberal"). Please accept my apologies for having offended anyone. Harry "Snapper" Organs (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe she didn't miss it, maybe she's a Jonah Goldberg fan. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. — CharlotteWebb 18:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with User:Raymond arritt, but the name "Harry 'Snapper' Organs" was used by Terry Jones in skit on Monty Python's Flying Circus. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I've redirected it to the episode, if anyone cares. — CharlotteWebb 18:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That name is a rather obvious synonym for female genitals, if that matters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That it is, but the entire name is a character on Monty Python (see Piranha Brothers, part of Season 2, Episode 1). - NeutralHomer • Talk 11:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the "corresponding" acceptibility of User:Biggus Dickus? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen Monty Python's Life of Brian, so, I don't know if that was actually used. Both users should go to WP:CHU and get a new username as both have multiple meanings, both crude and both characters. The users would run into the same problems, as here, if they continued editing. - NeutralHomer • Talk 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that film and, yes, it was a name used in the film. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Oh my... I had no idea there were vulgar connotations (and I'm not entirely sure what they are, but I'll simply accept that they exist). I just thought it was a funny name from the Piranha Bros skit. Really, really sorry to have done something offensive; please know that it was entirely inadvertent. Raymond Arritt, editing for the moment as Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC) (and hoping there's nothing wrong with that name.)[reply]

The "snapper" part refers to a woman with unusual "dexterity" in that area. I'll let you figure out the rest. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always look on the bright side of these threads. Antandrus (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring (talk · contribs) has been editing this controversial article, almost entirely to change date format. [10]; [11]; [12]; and [13]. There may be others; and he seems to be arguing for the same change on other articles.

The claim that WP:DATE requires this is spurious; I cannot find anything describable as consensus on talk. (There was a discussion on talk to make this uniformly Month day, year; but I can't see any to make it day month year.)

More importantly, this article has enough problems. It is mostly Month day, year, and should probably wind up that way; but we don't need dancing Date Warriors adding to the confusion of the conflicting Georgian and Russian claims. Could someone have a word with him? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at his edits, he appears to have been doing little else than date warring. He has done so at Pope Leo XIII, Pope Benedict XIV, Pope Pius XI, and (most inappropriately for an American citizen) Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette. Some of these have been reverted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"most inappropriately for an American citizen"? What the hell does that mean? John Reaves 00:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Septentrionalis is not referring to the editor but to the subject of the article. Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette says "Lafayette was the first to be granted Honorary Citizenship to the United States." Then a US date format may be more preferred than for Italian popes (see WP:MOSNUM#Strong national ties to a topic). PrimeHunter (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: I and a group of other editors have been working assiduously on that particular article. We decided to use international date format because, although he is an honorary US citizen, he lived the majority of his life in France and is well known for his actions there, as well (in addition to being a French citizen). Further, Skyring did edit the dates, but was in no way uncivil towards me or the article's other collaborators. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a striking lack of consensus building on all sides here; see this previous discussion. I don't think administrative action is called for here. Chick Bowen 00:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that admin action is probably inappropriate. I'm very disappointed to see that anyone is getting into arguments about date formatting so soon after date-autoformatting has been deprecated at MOSNUM. I'll be yet more disappointed if Pete is going to derail what is a major change in WP's formatting practices by proving the critics right: that dispensing with the blue dates will spark edit wars. My advice to him, which I've communicated more than once, is to cool it, at least at the moment, never to edit-war over date formats, and to take issues to the experts at WT:MOSNUM—that's what they're there for. Please let go of any nationalistic fervour attached to date format: the US military uses international format; many non-US newspapers use the so-called US format; it's a mixed bag. I thank Anderson for bringing my attention to this. Tony (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to let people know outoformatting is deprecated, maybe by a watchlist notice? I've become so used to linking dates that I just do it by default. --NE2 06:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pmanderson. It seems the only reason Pete has come to 2008 South Ossetia war is to engage in enforcing a dating POV as his edits/contribs on this article seem to be only dating related.--«Javier»|Talk 07:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get a lot of pleasure from tidying up Wikipedia. Correcting spelling, tweeking grammar and so on. And yes, slotting dates into their correct format, all as per the Manual of Style. It used to be, years ago, that I could go to almost any random article on Wikipedia and find some factual error that I could fix, but nowadays, it's getting pretty hard to find easy fixes. But there are always spelling errors and dates to correct. It's not my personal POV that Georgia and Russia use day-month-year dating format. It's solid fact. Perhaps PMAnderson could explain exactly why he feels that this precise article requires American Dating format throughout and that he is prepared to edit-war against consensus and the MoS to see it so? He doesn't have support on the talk page, other editors revert his edits[14] and now he's causing disruption here. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel it needs American dating throughout - if I wanted that, it would be closer to uniformity than it is; eventually, when the article is stable, uniformity would be nice. I feel (and have said repeatedly on its talk page) that it needs to have the dating left alone; experience shows that giving single reverts to Date Warriors avoids rewarding disruptive behaviour. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you leave the dating alone then? Clearly, it's going to have International Dating rather than American Dating, and repeatedly inserting an inappropriate dating format isn't helping any. --Pete (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a good source, I find at Calendar date that both Georgia and Russia are shown as using [[Calendar_date#dd.2Fmm.2Fyyyy_or_dd.mm.yyyy_.28day.2C_month.2C_year.29}|day month year]] order. The Common Data Locale Reference project shows Russia as using day month year order for the Gregorian calendar. Look at line 2648 here. --Pete (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NE2, only more strongly. When did bluelinked dates become deprecated? I've done a few edits to put them into various articles, thinking I was being helpful. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The change occurred a few hours ago. There's been a lot of discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers). --Pete (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of threats

• Instead of responding here, as I invited him to do, Skyring has threatened to ban me; he has also fiddled with format in a different section of the South Ossetia article and in others. (Let those who edit that section deal with it.) The threat, however, seems uncalled for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I promised to report Pmanderson if he kept edit-warring against consensus. That's a bannable offence. I raised this point on the article's talk page here five days ago and as can be seen there is general agreement that International Dating format (day-month-year) is appropriate for an article relating to two countries, both of which use day-month-year format. The Manual of Style is clear on this:

• Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation; articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.
• Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable formats above should use that format.

Neither Georgia nor Russia are English-speaking nations, so the second rule applies, but in any case, the links could hardly be stronger. This is not an article about countries where American Dating is used. Pmanderson's claims of consensus for American Dating on the talk page are spurious, as a glance at the discussion shows (and thank you, Chick Bowen, for digging it up). I echo Tony's concerns about edit-warring - just how many times does Pmanderson get to undo my careful work? With the deprecation of autoformatting dates, we're going to have to stamp pretty firmly on people who insist on crusading inappropriately. I also note that Pmanderson has been removing SI units of measurement from articles, again, contrary to consensus and the Manual of Style. --Pete (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This argument misstates the situation in several wsys.

• Most seriously, it misstates our guidance; "strong assciation" is to English-speaking countries, since this guidance is a corollary of WP:ENGVAR; so the strength of association to Georgia or Russia is irrelevant. (Their WPs presumably have practices on the matter, but that's not to point here.)
• Most culpably, it misstates my arguments here. I don't claim there is a consensus on which dating format to use; I claim there isn't one, largely because the other editors are doing more important things - even the endemic Georgian-Russian revert wars are more important than Skyring's Date War. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on this precise question, initiated by me, looks like clear consensus. Half a dozen editors contributed - PMAnderson the lone dissenting voice. As pointed out, neither Georgia nor Russia are English-speaking, therefore the second guideline applies:

• Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable formats above should use that format. (My emphasis)

I can't see any other way to interpret that except that 2008 South Ossetia war should use International Dating format. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• False again. Does

  There are too many American date formats in the article, I would find it pointless to change them to the British format. Besides, Section 5.2 on the Humanitarian impact on Georgians says "makeshift centres" (British spelling) in the 7th line, and then 3 lines later it mentions "media center" (American Spelling). Would you want to enforce uniformity here too? User:Mateat 3:24, August 22 2008 (UTC)

sound like assent to the international dating system to Skyring? If so, we have a much more serious problem. There is also a renewed discussion, here, in which Slyring's contentions are even further from winning consensus.

• MOSNUM, that perpetually revert-warred opinion of a handful, is a guideline; it is even further than most guidelines from being the consensus of Wikipedia. This obscure and undesireable sentence should be ignored, as harmful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The references to removing metric conversions again are a falsehood. There is one article where I feel, as do others, that converting the same value twice contorts the prose more than the assistance to a metric readership would justify. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The conversion you removed was in the very first line of the article! --Pete (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the other (more precise) statement of the same value was in the infobox, right across from it; that's why the conversion was a redundant lump of parentheses - and so bad prose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I invite the administrators whose intervention PMAnderson requests to look at the discussion and the Manual of Style for themselves. This needs settling. If PMAnderson has a problem with the long-established wording of the MoS, he should raise it on the talk page there. In the meantime, I'll abide by the existing policy. --Pete (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so; see this section . Skyring's aggressive conduct has been deprecated, as it has been here, and on the talk page of the article on the war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find some irony in PMAnderson raising comment on another editor's behaviour when their own in this area is so consistent - seems there is a bit of an agenda there regarding variants of English, date standards and the like based on the user's own preferences and personal opinions. I happen to think Pete/Skyring is correct on this one - most of the world uses international dates, although I'm quite in favour of topics of particular US interest, or those in countries which explicitly use US dates such as East Asia, the Philippines and Canada (amongst others), using US date format as it's clearer to its most likely readers. Orderinchaos 14:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, welcome; for those who do not know this reknowned squabbler on the spelling of tennis players, he is one of those who complained bitterly when a majority chose to spell Novak Djokovic as English-speakers do in fact spell the Djoker. There is indeed a pattern here: a pattern of those who would like to use Wikipedia as a language reform institute, at any price of disruption and incomprensibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has taken it upon himself to mass-delete several non-free images with seemingly appropriate rationales, thus short-circuiting discussions he is involved in here and here. This seems to clearly contravene Wikipedia:Administrators: Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. Whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. An image I uploaded, Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg was one he nuked, which is my potential COI; I would therefore not use admin tools in connection with the matter. I invite uninvolved editors to review his actions with a view to helping him to be a better admin in future. Thanks in advance for any time you can give to this. --John (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because you don't agree with a deletion doesn't make it wrong and I see that no deletion review has actually established the action was incorrect. ANI is not the place to discuss cases like this. Raise a conduct RFC if you can find evidence of a pattern of abusive actions rather then this being a simple case of sour grapes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you may be missing the point. Try reading what I wrote again, especially the bit in italics. Again, whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. I am perfectly well aware of the function of this page and I know what a user RfC is. As I said, I am seeking uninvolved input, and if you have anything salient to say, I'd love to read it. --John (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec)According to WP:CSD#7, WP:NFCC#2 violations are 48h-notification speedies. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use provides authoritative guidance about the interpretation of that rule. All the images I speedied yesterday fell precisely under its scope. I pointed this policy out to a number of people in a number of places recently, including some IfD cases similar to the ones I closed. The fact that I told people about the policy doesn't make me "involved" in the sense of barring me from applying it. Just as an admin who explains CSD A7 to a user isn't barred from applying CSD A7 on a similar article the next day. – In the present case, there were IfD discussions about these speedy candidates, with a few "keep" votes in several cases. All the "keep" opinions boiled down to a logical confusion between necessary and sufficient criteria. We have a round dozen of NFCCs; the must all be met; but all keep votes were effectively saying that one was met so the others can be ignored. Such votes being obviously outside policy, they must be discarded just like you would ignore a "hangon – but they have a page on Myspace!" tag as an objection to a A7-band speedy. It's just irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • That is your interpretation of policy. It is not shared by others and discussion is in progress about this. You didn't "advise" you plainly !voted delete. You were a participant; then you used admin tools as an involved editor. Ty 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ecx2) First a user mass noms images on a contentious point. Fut. Perfect participates in some of these discussions, agreeing with the nom. Then he deletes others, where there is debate still in progress, and there's still 3 days of the IfD to run. It's a blatant abuse of admin tools. Ty 06:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and he is being pretty economical with the truth here as well; he didn't just "[tell] people about the policy", he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and even edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before abusing his admin tools to delete the images in question. If this is allowable, why would we even have an IFD process? --John (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Edit-warring? Get your facts straight. I removed the original image, perfectly within process; then a user – instead of contacting me – immediately uploaded a new version of the same image under a new filename and reinserted it. Of course I deleted that again (duly removing the redlink from the article), and told him to take it to DRV. That's the normal thing to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is an ongoing problem with Fut Per. He once threatened to block anyone who dared readd an image he removed from an article, and closed an IfD as delete where every one of the three recommendations was a policy-based "keep." He's using his admin tools as a weapon to enforce his disputed view of image policy, which is completely unacceptable, and needs to stop immediately. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 07:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, what's apparent from this discussion is that John and Ty think that FP's deletions were invalid and FP disagrees. The place to debate that is obviously deletion review. Also John and Ty claim that FP misused his tools in a content dispute, which FP denies. If they want this charge to be considered, John or Ty will have to document the content dispute with diffs. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, Steven, just a couple of sections above. Here are sample diffs again, bolded this time since you missed them: he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and also edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before he mass-deleted the images in question. He has since lied, or at best been highly disingenuous in this very discussion, claiming only to have "told people about the policy", when in fact he was highly involved in the matter. If I ever abused my tools in this way, I hope that someone would pick me up for it. I also hope I would be more responsive than FPS has been. Cut to the chase; I don't want to be a part of a project which condones an admin treating other good-faith users and long-standing policy with contempt like this. This isn't about image policy any more, it's about an admin who says on his user page he wants to be a rouge admin and has invited others here to "quarter" him. These are not indicative of the sort of clue we expect an admin to possess. --John (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been the victim of this editor deleting an image when the consensus was clearly that the image should be kept. I believe I gave an adequate summary of why the image counted as fair use in the rationale given when I uploaded the image - used in the Chillenden Windmill article. I'd like to know how to go about restoring the image to the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that nothing's changed in the world of policy wikilawyering whilst I've been gone. Claiming that a policy is "disputed" because there's a conversation going on about it is quite neat - on that basis I could claim that any policy with a talkpage is disputed. The editor two above me is entirely correct - DRV is the place for this, not here. Black Kite 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, if an admin is unilaterally reinterpreting a policy consenus on their own, then that is a AN or ANI problem. And that's what's claime here. And I tend to agree there's a problem - The foundation had Mike take a look at non-free fair use and his response was (to greatly paraphrase) that we're not in any danger of being sued for what we're hosting, that our standing policy is far stricter than it needs to be from that standpoint. Reinterpreting NFCC to include "no press image can be reused as it might infringe on someone's future profits" is a pretty big deal, and contrary to policy guidance (informal and nonspecific as it was) from on high. So, I think there's a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link please? And by the way, I'm not "reinterpreting" a policy consensus. I'm applying a policy that has always been in place. I can remember at least three DRVs where speedy deletions of mine of just this kind have been upheld, and that's talking of my own deletions alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if there is a problem, it belongs on the talkpage of the policy (NFCC#2 has needed clarifying for ages, IMO), at DRV for the image, or at the very most at an RFC. What is more of a problem is what has been happening for ages - a group of editors blindly ignores NFCC and plasters copyright violations all over Wikipedia, and when an admin steps in and fixes the problem, they are accused of "re-interpreting a policy against consensus" when what is actually happening is that they are correctly interpreting it. Then an argument starts on WT:NFCC and the group of editors cries "but it's a disputed policy!" and have to be quietly told that "A disputed policy" does not mean "A policy that you disagree with". Now this might not fully fit what is happening here, but we really do need to decide whether this is a Free Encyclopedia or not, and then either (a) get NFCC tightened up completely to prevent these sorts of shenganigans or (b) throw the majority of it out of the window. Having policies that are "open to interpretation" (even if those interpreters are being wilfully obtuse) doesn't do anyone any favours. Black Kite 10:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is those images shouldn't have been deleted until the dispute was settled. There were far more keeps than opposes and this administrator has shown a clear disrespect to the views of others and abused his tools by deleting them. The Bald One ^{White cat} 10:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of the following in normal circumstances would have been quite clear. To keep it. Hpwever this was not the case:

• I said a couple days ago that Future's behavior might need looking into, given an IfD was in progress at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_21#Image:Chillenden_windmill_blown_down.jpg and that he was involved in a discussion on this part of the NFCC rules, it does seem rather inappropriate for him to have deleted the image, tagging it for speedy deletion would've been one thing if he disagreed on an I7 basis, but he really ought not to have deleted it outright. MBisanz ^talk 10:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but at the same time it's become common practice to short-circuit AFD discussions by declaring that BLP applies, and that it can only be overturned through deletion review or arbcom, and regardless of how many people are convinced that the deleter is misinterpreting policy and/or smoking crack. Copyright policy is of at least equal gravity (greater, I would argue) but "process" is decidedly streamlined against those enforcing it. Something's gotta give here. — CharlotteWebb 13:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright isn't up for a vote

The argument that the outcome "would have been quite clear: to keep it." is sort of weird. You can't out-vote our copyright policies. If 100 Wikipedia editors vote to keep a copyrighted image for which there is no fair use claim, for example, any admin is justified in coming along and deleting it. Now, there seems to be a good faith dispute about whether this image violates the policies. The place to resolve that dispute is WP:DRV, not here. Nandesuka (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of vote stacking, three administrators clearly expressed that they believed the image was justified for use and we could claim usage of it. The use of the image was disputable and 3 administrators believed it wasn't a clear cut copyvio as the image was irreplaceable. The deleter clearly showed a disrespect to his fellow administrators by not reaching an agreement first. If "Copyright isn't up for a vote" why do we have an IFD process?? Many of the images placed there are copywrighted images so what is the point in other editors joining in a discussion and the keep/delete process?? It is there because some images have disputable fair use claims which need sorting out and coming to a general conclusion on whether they should be kept. The deleter has completely gone against the IFD procedure and deleted something just because he thinks it is a copyvio. If we based on decisions on wikipedia on the basis of one editors view we would be in complete disorder. The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, as a number of people have pointed out. Black Kite 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some weird notions about process here too. It is a perfectly normal thing to shorten an IfD on a speedy basis, it happens every day. And I don't need to "tag" something for speedy and then let somebody else do the deletion either - the whole point about speedies is that they can be handled by a single admin without consultation. That's why we have speedy criteria, and these images matched the speedy criteria exactly. What if the nominator hadn't brought the images to IfD but just {{dfu}}'d them? We'd have the same result: the images would legitimately have hit the deletion queue after 48h and would be gone now. As I said, all objections were of the type: It passes NFCC xyz, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't pass the others. Such objections are not ground for a legitimate debate, they are simply, self-evidently, wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'll be away for most of the rest of the day and much of the next few days, so if anybody wants to draw and quarter me in my absence, feel free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chillenden image's original source is here. I fully accept that it's a copyright image - that is not the issue. It's been mentioned above about images without fair use rationales. The image I uploaded did have a fair use rationale, and one that I believe was a valid one. It seems to have been targeted because it was from a news agency, the other copyright images used in the article have not been touched. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Images deletion has been asked to be reviewed Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See, that's his tactic it seems: delete the image anyway, and force it to go to DRV, where he can claim the burden of proof is on those wishing to overturn the deletion. It's out-of-process, as the burden of proof for deletion is on those calling for deletion. Yet the same ones who always defend Fut Per's actions are here doing so now, so I highly doubt anything will change. As for Fut Per's statemento of "willing martyrdom" about being "drawn and quartered", perhaps he should take a step back for awhile. All people are asking for is that he quit misusing his tools to enforce his own narrow view of a disputed policy. If he stops doing that, no one will be starting threads at ANI about him. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drawing and quartering would not be a good idea, because then there would be *four* of him. As with the brainless starfish. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree four of me would be unbearable. I would be forever getting into edit conflicts with myself over which of me would get to press the delete button first. Please don't quarter me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this image is a bad example, as it does actually need to be deleted under WP:NFCC. See howcheng's point in the original discussion. I've said more at the deletion review and at WT:NFC. Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For fun and bedtime reading further examples, I would suggest:disputes FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Consensus isn't up for a vote

We have a policy here that we discuss things and agree them before changing them, except in the most egregious cases where a living person is being defamed or where the foundation is at risk of legal action. We have no evidence whatsoever that this is even close to being an example of this. We also have a policy here that admins do not exercise their tools in cases where they have been involved. Without wiki-lawyering about what "involved" means here, which other admins here would have used their tools in a dispute like this? I would not, and I can't believe that anybody would think this was ok. Maybe it is me who is out of step. What do others think? --John (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. When those entrusted to administer things practice unilateralism, thinking they are beyond some of the rules because they alone know what other rules mean, all process breaks down and we have a free for all. - Wikidemo (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. Future's actions were perfectly in line with longstanding policy and precedent. Kelly ^hi! 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, can you point me to the "longstanding policy and precedent" that FPS's actions were perfectly in line with? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd point toward this discussion at WT:NFC, which explains the history fairly well. Future's actions were in line with the policy as it has long been understood (Jimbo has made deletions under the same interpretation). Whether the policy needs changing is another matter, but Future shouldn't be sanctioned for following policy as it exists. Kelly ^hi! 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Has Jimbo personally deleted images he was involved in discussion with, do you know? If he has I would have similar qualms to those I hold in this case. It seems vital to me that an admin doesn't take admin action in areas he/she has been involved in discussing, and policy seems to agree with me. --John (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from. However, when it comes to clear policy violations, I think we have a different interpretation of "involved admin". Just because Future Perfect pointed out policy during the discussion does not disqualify him from taking action in the same case. If an admin were to opine that a particular fact was a violation of WP:BLP in a particular biography, this does not bar her from blocking the BLP-violating editor or protecting the article. The overall community consensus of site policy overrides the individual consensus of involved editors in cases like this. Kelly ^hi! 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I think I understand where you are coming from too. In cases of WP:BLP or WP:OFFICE I would agree with you. I guess we disagree over the seriousness of this particular issue; I really don't think this rises to the urgency of these examples, and I do think there is legitimate discussion to be had. This was ongoing and so no action should be taken until it is complete and a consensus emerges. --John (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Thanks, John. Kelly ^hi! 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sorry, but the resolution allows us to set our policies about fair use and as such consensus does dictate each on a case-by-case basis. Using a mis-application of CSD to bypass consensus and/or force a DRV (which is much harder to pass and thus favors that of the deleting admin) is gaming the system. MBianz is a respected image specialist and he made an excellent argument for keeping. FPAS was sore because he didn't get his way and we shouldn't be condoning his behavior. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Fut Per does this all too frequently, and it's not appropriate in any way. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 17:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Some comments above state that Future Perfect is enforcing policy. He is not. There is nothing in the policy WP:NFCC about press agencies. He is applying the guideline WP:NFC, which does not have the same force and is open to discussion about its application in particular cases. Ty 00:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, WP:NFCC#2 specifically addresses this issue. It's policy, all right. Kelly ^hi! 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, WP:NFCC does not mention press agencies. If you think it does, then please quote that mention. Ty 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As an admin myself, I sometimes think that "policy" is used as a poor defence for individual rational judgement. However, rational judgement in the absence of a clear consensus on a particular issue is simply IAR, and the question then goes to whether it improves the encyclopaedia. I think we're looking at a case of admin burnout, sadly, based on the last couple of months of evidence. Some incivility and failure to discuss is also a problem, as is acting as an involved admin in a dispute - which our basic principles kind of discourage in a big way. I'm not overly willing to criticise Fut Perf too hard though, as I myself had a little episode of the same over a school article a month or so ago. Orderinchaos 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Presently uninvolved but mindful that admin actions can be detrimental if consensus and basic decorum are not respected. Bzuk (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Support Future Perfect's take on NFCC enforcement is extreme and controversial, and he has no compunctions about applying it unilaterally in the face of a consensus that finds otherwise. (Note: Not an admin.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who thinks this editor is the most dangerous threat to wikipedia we've ever had. Note I am talking in terms of content not incivility with other editors. Not only is his bot extremely lethal and deletionist in tone but its owner also shows a lack of insight to what is appropriate for wikipedia and a lack of understanding of what qualifies as a speedy deletion. Bulgarian Center for Not-For-Profit Law was speedy deleted under his request and he gave no notification to myself the creator to try to expand it or even go down an afd route initially but removed it. He has now filed an afd which would have been the appropriate course of action or to prod warn it. If this is his action towards articles like this I dread to think how much content and images he has removed with that blessed bot of his. If he was going around prodding poor quality articles for improvement rathing than speedying any he comes across I would support him. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should add this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand, even if it's not directly related to the incident there, it concerns the same user's actions. SoWhy 14:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The version that Betacommand tagged for deletion didn't really assert any notability and was even spammy in tone ("BCNL pursues its mission with the strong belief that developing the legal framework for non-profit organizations is fundamental to the creation of an independent and more prosperous civil society."). I wouldn't have tagged it for speedy myself, but this is merely an example of something only being a problem because it was Betacommand that tagged it. Indeed, one could argue that the speedy has been useful because it's prompted the improvement of the article. Black Kite 14:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a very generous view of a clearly inappropriate tagging. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 14:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't "clearly inappropriate" at all. As mentioned below, it was a borderline speedy which needed improvement. Black Kite 14:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it wasn't a "borderline speedy" in any way. Db-corp requires no assertion of notability, and there was an assertion made. It was a very poor call on BC's part. It's not just him, though. There's a speedy-tagging race that happens at NPP that is unhealthy and completely unwiki in my view. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not really something to criticise Betacommand for. Even if this was a bad mistake, it is the deleting admin's decision to make. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And the article wasn't tagged on NPP - it had existed for 2 years with little claim of notability. Black Kite 15:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Korn is correct, you cannot blame the bot for any deletions, it's the admins who delete those articles or images. The bot does not delete anything after all... SoWhy 16:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you retire over a hissfit regarding fair use? You seem hardly the type to neutrally evaluate BC's actions. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would describe it more accurately as giving myself a break from dealing with the difficult. (Oh, and this thread has got bugger all to do with fair use, in case you hadn't noticed...) Black Kite 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's changed, if anything the movement for more liberal fair use has expanded. Writing off those who oppose your views as clueless will not get you far. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it "difficult" instead, then. I don't much care, I've given up with the community's inability to enforce fair use and won't be bothering in that area. It's clearly pointless when those that drive a coach and horses through policy are enabled by those that should know better, right up to the highest levels of Wikimedia. Black Kite 17:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c x2)You do realize BetacommandBot hasn't edited in 3 months? And I would suggest you look at the version of that article before it was tagged. It was a borderline A7 case. And how is speedy deletion speedy if we have to ask the creator to expand it and take it to AFD before tagging it? Mr.Z-man 14:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was agged as A7, which is clearly innappropriate, given that the article is about a company. And yes, BetacommandBot has quite recently edited under Betacommand. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 14:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 applies to companies as well - {{db-corp}}. It was mistagged, but the coding is correct. Black Kite 14:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And no it hasn't as far as you or I know. Check your facts, brush up on WP:CSD and don't make false accusations. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite recently? Where? BC's last edit to a page in the Image namespace, deleted or not, was over a month ago. Mr.Z-man 14:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He edited at lunch time today and has made over 500 edits in three days and no Z man the article was speedy deleted first. It is where it is now because I requested that it be restored. Its just I have encountered many situations where Beta has seemed to threaten a lot of wikipedia content, mostly with the bot and spamming peoples talk pages even when they had adequate rationales but I have sene numerous instances where he has acted in an inappropriate manner in regards to content. This is why I said about "dangerous" because in every instance I have ever come across BetaCommand on here is is because of an immminent deletion. The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that his edits are a mix of PRODs, speedies, and AFDs should make it pretty clear that he is manually reviewing the articles. I know it was speedy deleted first. I was replying to your initial comment where you said "he gave no notification to myself the creator to try to expand it or even go down an afd route initially" - If we have to ask the creator to expand it first, it isn't a speedy deletion, and if we have to go through AFD first it completely defeats the purpose. Mr.Z-man 18:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think you probably are the only one who thinks Betacommand is even approaching "the most dangerous threat to wikipedia we've ever had". At least one person has been jailed for stalking editors and article subjects, Betacommand is not even on the radar as far a s danger goes. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, BetacommandBot (talk · contribs), Betacommand2 (talk · contribs), and Betacommand's sock account were indef blocked several months ago. Betacommand's own account is subject to the restriction that he not use automated tools on it to make edits in bulk. Betacommand was blocked recently for violating that restriction with a semi-automated tool, then unblocked; there's some argument over exactly how much semi-automation Betacommand is allowed to use. He has a track record of making error-prone bulk edits which then must be checked and cleaned up by others. Click here for current Betacommand block history and status. --John Nagle (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John is correct. Betacommand is like CarolSpears, he sometimes does good work and has good intentions, but his edits are much too unreliable to trust in bulk. Betacommand needs to seriously limit himself in the number of edits he makes at one time. I would also suggest he actually try improving some articles rather then just doing silly work which is not really necessary. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfair and frankly offensive to compare him to a serial copyright violator. CarolSpears was a much more "dangerous threat to Wikipedia" than Betacommand ever will be. — CharlotteWebb 17:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that bc has gone from disrupting the project with malfunctioning bots and bad image nominations to disrupting the project through bad article deletion noms. He has been prodding and afd-ing at a prodigious rate and my spot check suggests that only a fraction of the nome are even plausible. That's disrespectful to more serious editors' time in that every nomination bc spends a few minutes thinking (or not thinking) about wastes several hours of other people's time. As before bc is leaving a mess that takes dozens of editors to clean up. In all fairness it's too early to tell and somebody should try talking to him first before proclaiming it a huge problem. But if all other attempts to stop the bad deletion noms fail a ban against making them may be in order. Bc would do well to consider making positive contributions to the encyclopedia instead of fixing things that aren't broken. -Wikidemo (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be more accurate, he was tagging for speedy a number of articles, some of which were completely correct, some should've gone via PROD or AFD, and some were admittedly just wrong. When some of the speedies were declined, he went via PROD/AFD, which he should've done to begin with. To be fair, the majority of the articles did have some problem or other, and a fair few do probably need deleting. Beta needs to ensure he's more careful with the speedy tags, though. Black Kite 16:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't that he is right or wrong in particular cases, it is that he is doing these operations in a careless and capricious manner. I'm loath to say it, but I suspect that the deleting administrator is not verifying Beta's prods because they assume he knows what he is doing. Betacommand needs to be more careful in the future. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he isn't careful. He has been told countless times about the errors he makes and he never shows an ounce of understanding to editors who are concerned. Speedy deleting articles based on his judgement is potentially dangerous and shows little consideration to the editors who created or the possibility they might improve the article to an acceptable level. The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If admins are speedy deleting articles based on Beta's incorrect tagging, that's a problem with with the administrator, not only Beta. We all make mistakes, but admins should be checking every deletion carefully, not assuming on the basis of who tagged it. Black Kite 17:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with BK. This is the article that Beta saw and went to AfD over, which I might have also (most of the sources are primary too; but it looks better). Since then, there have been approx 37 edits made by Blofeld of SPECTRE. While I applaud the expansion of the article, I think this is just wasting time (see here). Someone should also close the AfD. Synergy 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about the one article. If I was just here to complain about a single incident I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't have normally said anything but I know that he makes many similar deletions and operates a bot capable of making tens of edits or deletion tags a minute and quite rightly am concerned that he is not following the correct procedure across wikipedia and we are losing a lot of articles which could be expanded similiarly but he is chosing to speedy. The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but his bots have nothing to do with this. Its an egregious waste of time (notice the second header currently listed here; from only a few days ago). If you were that concerned about Beta, you would have talked it over with him on this talk page, which is where you should have gone first. Initially you only mentioned one article and also, starting off a conversation with Am I the only one who thinks this editor is the most dangerous threat to wikipedia we've ever had. is not the best way to open up dialogue. Regards. Synergy 17:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to speak to him personally in the past and has always appeared uncooperative. Basically I am asking people if they are aware of the errors he makes which would consider him a danger (also a play on the huge Danger box on his user page). Clearly by the blocking and this I'm not the only one to notice it so my notice was not to no avail as his editing has been picked up on by other concerned editors. If he runs a bot with the capability of mass deletions and changes which we know he mainly focuses on on wikipedia, then I am quite rightly anxious about what he is capable of. Anyway see ya' all The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably ignore you, too, if you called me the most dangerous threat to wikipedia we've ever had. Corvus cornix_talk 20:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be true, if this was any other user generating this much controversy don't you think they would have been indef blocked by now? I think this is the problem a lot of people see. There is a group of individuals around betacommand who seem to give him validation but the rest of the community is tired of him. The amount of chances given to him are unprecedented and he continues not to get it.--Crossmr (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other user? Yes. Some other users? No. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand is a witch! He turned me into a newt! x_x JuJube (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old same one--Caspian blue (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld of SPECTRE (The Bald One), could you point out where Betacommand is running an admin bot with the "...capability of mass deletions..."? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting off any thread with "this editor is the most dangerous threat" should make anyone realize the overuse of rhetoric to attempt a leverage of one's opinion. As another poster in this thread noted, Betacommand's not even on the radar. Also, the article as tagged by Betacommand was a blatant copyright violation of [15]. It should have been zapped as a copyvio a long time ago. Enough of the rhetoric please, and stop the witch hunt. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#SOAExpert1_Wikistalking

Articles

• List of SOA related products
• Service-oriented architecture

Spammed links

• 68.180.151.29 = thesoablog.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• 216.39.58.169 = kpitech.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Please note that the ip addresses to the spammed links are similar to the ip addresses being used for these disruptions

Accounts

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

SPA - warned for minor soapboxing and personal attack.

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

SPA - indef blocked for advertising against coi.

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

SPA - indef blocked for wikistalking and harassment

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

SPA - blocked 3 mo for vandalism

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

Shared ip? - blocked 1 week for continued spamming

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

SPA - blocked 72 hours - wikistalking

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

SPA - warned - wikistalking

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

SPA - warned - wikistalking

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

SPA - warned - wikistalking

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

Shared ip? - blocked 24 hours for advertising

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

SPA - warned - advertising and spamming

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

Shared ip - warned - spamming and harassment

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

Shared ip - bloced 48 hours - spamming

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

Shared ip - warned - advertising

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

Shared ip - warned - advertising

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

Shared ip - warned - advertising

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

Shared ip - warned - advertising

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

Shared ip - warned - spamming and advertising

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

Shared ip - blocked 24 hours - advertising and harassment

Comments

Mostly, I'm trying to document all the problems here so that it's easier for others to see what has been happening.

206.53.144.x looks like a dynamic address block used by a single editor for advertising, spamming, and harassment.

216.9.250.x looks like a shared, dynamic address block.

List of SOA related products has been protected once, and will likely be deleted.

Service-oriented architecture has been protected for the second time as a result of these problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a good candidate for the spam blacklist; or do you suspect that it is a joe job? Kuru ^talk 22:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, obviously you already did that. Most of the ranges above are blackberry - std. stuff would be pretty ineffectual without a large range block. I've added the page to my watchlist and will assist. Kuru ^talk 01:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger across the project. These edits are removing her name from articles such as feminism, Aesthetics, Gender studies and many more. Ettinger is a feminist psychoanalystist, academic and artist - she is not a hoax (see Google scholar[16] to verify). This IP user has put her bio page up for PROD as well.

Also with this edit they seem to claim to be a sock puppet of MArina T.[17]

The IPs are switching fast so it seems extremely likely that this is either someone using open proxies.

I could do with some help here, since my time is limited. I expect there will be further edits done while I'm offline so could sysop keep a set of eyes on this.

I'm going to semi-protected the effected articles. And I'm blocking the IPs for 3 days. But I'd appreciate if somebody could keep an eye on things. The IPs are:

• 89.138.176.28 (talk · contribs)
• 89.138.226.204 (talk · contribs)
• 93.172.16.153 (talk · contribs)
• 85.250.87.108 (talk · contribs)
• 89.0.14.111 (talk · contribs)

The articles in question are:

• Gender studies
• Women artists
• Bracha L. Ettinger
• Human female sexuality
• Culture of Israel
• Psychoanalysis
• Jacques Lacan
• Feminism in France
• Feminist philosophy
• List of feminists
• List of French artists
• Women artists
• Film theory
• List_of_feminists
• Twentieth-century French philosophy

--Cailil ^talk 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the case of Lacan, this was a lone edit - I don't see why a week of protection is called for here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions Phil - but this removal is happening across many more pages than I originally thought and this is the 2nd time today that this has occurred on a number of the pages. On top of that this user a) knows what they're doing and b) is uisng open proxies. If anyone have any ideas on how to handle this better I'm all ears--Cailil ^talk 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Marina T, Marina T is a sock of Nimrod Kamer, a known Israeli troll who was banned both from English and Hebrew Wikipedia.

Marina T used to promote this non-notable woman ([18] [19]) and link her from unrelated articles. I'm here to clear Marina T (=Nimrod Kamer and his sock puppets) carp.

Bracha L. Ettinger was created by Marina T [20] (who was banned from Wikipedia). 89.0.6.132 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with the trolling case of Marina T/Nimrod Kamer but at a glance I'd say Ms Ettinger is probably notable. A dissertation included her and her body of academic and art work seems significant and somewhat influential. If there are undue weight references to Ettinger's work in many different articles, then these need to be evaluated/addressed individually and modified or removed. Wholesale wiki-wide reversion of even a troll's work should be considered carefully on its merits. (Although at least some of them are so jargon-filled as to be impenetrable to an outsider to Lacanian theory.) I'm going to try to look over the articles in question and perhaps report back here if I come to any firmer conclusions. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Drawing Center, where I was dealing with an IP's changes before I saw this thread. TravellingCari 20:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely seems like drive-by and indiscriminate removal of all references to Ettinger. 89.138.176.28 (talk · contribs) marks all the removals as "spam" when this is not so obvious to me. Some are removal of references that include Ettinger's publications on academic/university presses. This seems more a content dispute over Ettinger's importance but when an IP-shifting editor quickly does this serially to all mentions of her, I'd have to call it vandalism. I think protecting the articles was a little overreactive for just a couple of reverts on some of them but it's also hard to talk to a shifting IP. Cailil did try[21] without success. The IP above merely cites two Google searches (4,560 and 5,840 hits) as evidence of Ettinger's non-notability but I think the Google Scholar search [22] is somewhat more telling with 23 hits. All in all, I think Cailil is handling it about right considering the IP(s) don't seem to be overly communicative on talk pages. Cheers, Pigman☿ 22:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pigman. I have no problem unprotecting everything if people feel that semi-protection was an over-reaction. But I could see no other solution - the IPs jump too far and too fast. Any help looking fater this would be much appreciated--Cailil ^talk 22:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, some of the removals were on target. Ettinger, for instance, was probably unduly represented in Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva. Similarly, in Film theory it amounted to adding a mention of an essay by Ettinger. Fine, but there are so many essays of film theory that we can't go adding every one, and Ettinger would make few people's top 20 lists. Ettinger is notable enough for an article, but it looks like her name was spread around a bit more than is wholly appropriate, and it would not surprise me if it were done to spam. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Phil. Unfortunately, I don't feel qualified to evaluate which references to her in Wiki-articles are good and which are overstating her influence. It's just not in my areas of knowledge. However, blanket removal of all refs and PRODding her bio article seemed a tad over the top. It's clear to me from her article that she's notable by WP standards; her actual influence, importance and pertinence to these other articles is another matter. I can't judge that. When the IP editor insisted she was non-notable despite her fairly impressive list of art showings and publications on academic presses, it lowers the IP's credibility in my eyes.

Cailil, I think the semi-protection is fine for the moment. It would certainly help if the IP would come forward with a consistent account, even if only the same IP account, to discuss the matter. In lieu of that, I'm just hoping people with a better grasp of Ettinger's influence (or non-influence) will look more closely at these mentions listed at the top of this thread. Cheers, Pigman☿ 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Phil some of the removals seemed in-line with undue. Nevertheless the problem is when somebody using open-proxies begins prod-ing a bio article (that demonstrates notability properly) and launches a crusade to remove all references to that person from wikipedia. Yes the level of Ettinger's representation is problematic but this IP's behaviour is just as bad. If this person were doing this in good faith they wouldn't be using open proxies and they wouldn't be prod-ing perfectly notable articles.
The fact is that Ettinger is notable - I'm personally not a fan of her's and I do think she was being listed too often. She is most notable in gender studies and psychoanalysis but I agree she may be over-represented on WP. However, one does not address undue weight by giving an edit-summary of "SPAM". And also the IP began removing more than just references to Ettinger - see here & here - that's just blanking. The lines removed in the 1st diff might be unsourced but it is perfectly sourcable. Then there were the removals of Ettinger's name from the lists of artists and lists of feminists - which are just as bizarre as the prod-ing of the bio.

And just to be clear the semi-protection is only for a week in all cases but that can be reviewed--Cailil ^talk 11:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this: [23] [24] (1600 hits on Wikipedia) [25] (hundreds of hits on flickr). This is a proof it is a spam and she is non-notable academic (evey prof has publication).

She is so famous she has only article in the French Wikipedia (create by the same troll Nimrod Kamer). This troll liked to her from major articles like psychoanalysis, women in art, art history, feminism, aesthetics and so on. This article should be deleted.

I have good faith. I'm not using open proxies, I just changing my IP after each edit for security reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.14.238 (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that you get an account, as account users can only have their IP's checked by Checkusers. Plus, it makes it easier to talk to you, if you keep resetting the modem. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's faculty at the European Graduate School: [26]. They do not tend to add non-notable people. Similarly, she has a book out with Minnesota - one of the best academic presses in her field. Again, a sign of notability. I believe you that she's been spammed across Wikipedia, but it is transparently clear, as a grad student in her field, that she is notable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Ettinger is plenty notable - but she may be given too much weight in a few too many articles. However, that's possibly a systemic bias, or (more likley) an undue weight issue, rather than a "spam" problem. Her work is pertinent to aesthetics, feminism, psychoanalysis & gender studies - since that's exactly what it's about. This multiple IP user has claimed that a) Ettinger is a hoax (in the prod of the bio article); b) that Ettinger is non-notable (here); c) claimed that every reference to her is "spam" and d) that she was being added in a "self-promotional" effort and e) that it is all the work of an Israeli sock-puppeteer & "troll". The last point might be partially true, but the others are verifiably incorrect and as such are major red-flags--Cailil ^talk 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I apologize for accusing you of using Open proxies - I was incorrect. But using dynamic IPs to avoid scrutiny is a problem - getting an account would indeed be a good idea--Cailil ^talk 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well now, User:Ori Redler has just started doing exactly the same thing as the IPs (see their recent contribs). MOdernist has just asked for an explanation--Cailil ^talk 15:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Ettinger is notable, but she's not a household name. She was initially overly placed in certain articles and her importance as a figure in the art world was exaggerated. She appears in several articles about cutting edge contemporary art and philosophy. That said - she does belong in several of the articles and I've restored her to most of the articles and lists from which she had been deleted. She appears to be both a published scholar and an exhibiting artist...and it looks like a concerted effort to delete her from this encyclopedia is under way. Modernist (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I got an account.
2. Ori Radler is a good and respected wikipedian, mainly active on Hebrew Wikipedia
3. Please help him cleaning Nimrod Kamer's crap.
4. She is non-notable
5. Even if she is notable this article should be deleted because it was written by a known troll (Nimrod Kamer) who was banned from ALL Wikimedia projects.
6. At least delete ALL his spam links and unlock the articles - you all agree she's been spammed.
7. @Phil Sandifer: In any field you know her? --NZQRC (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - As we proceed we will be careful and circumspect about Ettinger's appearances where she does not belong. She's been removed from Women Artists and Postmodern art, certain places she belongs others not. Modernist (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to do. Special:WhatLinksHere/Bracha_L._Ettinger. She's been spammed in the French Wikipedia too. Someone should notice them. --NZQRC (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be that Ettinger is mildly notable as an artist and writer. She can stay on lists of contemporary artists for example. However she can be removed from inclusions that indicate an exaggerated position of importance and expertise. Any removals should be careful and indicate on the Talk Page of the article why the removal is taking place, in case of a dispute - discuss on the talk page....Modernist (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NZQRC, thanks for registering an account. It makes communication much easier. Re Ettinger: I think it's a mistake to dismiss her just because of who added the info to WP. At this point more people are examining the wiki-links/wiki-refs to her for validity and that should help to balance out the "spamming". Looking at the supporting online sources and documentation, I think you're fighting a losing battle to claim she is non-notable. The sources are too varied and substantive to be dismissed out of hand as you seem to be asking us to do. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy now removing her link at the drawing center citing this thread in edit summary here. I've semi'ed the article (only one on my watch list) until this gets figured out because I'm sick or reverting and the truth is, no other new editors or anyone else have shown an interest lately. We're not hampering progress. I think her exhibit at the Drawing Center was an notable exhibit for the Drawing Center. Thoughts on that? I'm not opposed to its removal if its proved to be n-n but this was getting ridiculous. TravellingCari 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NZQRC - or whoever you and all the other IPs are STOP THE BLANKING you are in complete violation of this noticeboard discussion and any agreements you just keep blanking, frankly you are all out of control! Modernist (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of Bracha L. Ettinger is a topic for Talk:Bracha L. Ettinger, not for the noticeboard. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about this non-notable woman. This is about trolling, spamming, self promoting and abusing Wikipedia. --NZQRC (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly this thread is about inappropriate deletions and inappropriate blanking of articles - not the notability of Ettinger, although that has been discussed...Modernist (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story of Nimrod Kamer and his friends floats every few months in the Hebrew Wikipedia and Israel-related talk pages in other language 'pedias. Poking fun at Kamer's pathetic stabs at self-promotion and stardom is entertaining, but some of the articles about his gang are actually reasonable.

I thoroughly cleaned up excessive Marina T./Nimrod Kamer/Shmila cruft half a year ago, and since then there was only some action around the Ettinger article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Now this is getting to be thoroughly annoying. Looking through this WP specific Google search, I'm finding that IPs are systematically removing all mentions of Ettinger. At a glance, the few links/references I've looked at seem contextually appropriate to their articles. I'm sure some aren't but this strikes me as more of a purge than corrections or adjustments. Of course Ettinger is just the one that we're aware of. It wouldn't surprise me to find that similar removals are going on with other "Nimrod Kamer" additions. With the shifting IPs there's no easy way to track such a varied and concerted effort. As I said, this really is a content question but the method puts it more under the heading of vandalism. Deliberately masking these efforts to evade normal editorial discussion is not being bold but violating WP processes. (As an informal and completely unencyclopedic point of reference, two of my housemates seem to have heard of Ettinger. Neither are in Ettinger's field(s). Proves nothing but still worth noting.) Some of these removals are being done very poorly as well. [27] shows the removal of Ettinger from the Eurydice article but leaves info about Ettinger's exhibit venues and dates, now without any context. Sloppy work that will need to be cleaned up. Hmph! Pigman☿ 23:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NZQRC's method, besides the bad faith of using multiple IPs and ignoring this thread, breaks WP:EP's core - "remove bias but retain content". All of us here can see that there may be an undue weight problem but NZQRC's behaviour is too disruptive to the project and is moving from a minor irritation to a blitz attack on articles. I've mentioned in the other thread that I'm bordering on blocking NZQRC for continuing to use multiple IPs to indulge in this same behaviour--Cailil ^talk 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it would be good if we could agree on a process for dealing with this problem. For instance should we revert and semi-protect every article these IPs edit then block the IP? This is my preferred option. This gives us time and breathing space to a)figure out what needs o be review (per WP:UNDUE) and b) it prevents recurrence of attacks where the info is due. Any thoughts--Cailil ^talk 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with that. Ty 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – indef blocked sock puppeteer Toddst1 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon editor 76.181.224.82 made several remarks on Talk:Fethullah Gülen signed by Philscirel (a regular on that article)

Philscirel is currently blocked. So either this is blatant (and stupid) block evasion, or the anon editor is trying to steal Philscirels username and make edits in his name. In either case, something is very wrong with this IP's edits. Arnoutf (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i realized that my block is extended from 1 to 2 days and then 1 week, for some reasons unknown to me. i somehow can edit with ip if i do not sign in. i quit for a week after i realize this situation. --Philscirel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.224.82 (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block review of User:Philscirel

Resolved

 – thanks Toddst1 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating subheading as this is related. I would like a review of my block here:

I blocked Philscirel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)for 3RR on Fethullah Gülen . Since then he has edited under two different IPsocks (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Philscirel). I extended the block to 1 week after first instance of ipsocking - Note that 76.181.224.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continued editing the article that Phil was blocked for. The ip's have been removing sock puppet tags and have made quite a few edits related to the 3RR issue. I thought this warranted an indef block but I want more eyes on this. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me; not particularly subtle socking. — Coren ^(talk) 22:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – talk page is now protected HalfShadow 21:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[28]. Most of the IP edits are of a person who was angered when i reverted his vandalism a while back. All of his posts (from different IPs) have been harassing me, calling me a "child rapist", "little girl raper", and other unpleasent things. Being a minor, I'm a little uncomfortable with this. What can be done? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See about getting your talk page semi-protected. IPs can't edit a semi-protected page. HalfShadow 21:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm searching your talk page history now but not seeing anything so far.... Exploding Boy (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there it is. You could temporarily protect your talk page, maybe? Exploding Boy (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2 and 3 —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User-talk page is now protected HalfShadow 21:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it; thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the target account comments that they are a minor, is there any point in making a report to the ISP? If Shapiro10 is also a US citizen, and the Whois points to a US locality for the vandal, then there may be some traction to be gained in reporting this there. It may be a further deterrence to the individual, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--Whois points to Greenville, SC. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4.244.3.40 is in St Louis, Missouri. 75.77.27.50 location points to Greenville, South Carolina but WHOIS mentions "St. Louis Customer Market Allocation" (it also mentions what may be the name of a company, and suggests it is a static IP). Another IP probably used by the same vandal is 71.85.206.227 (in Ridge, Maryland) but again WHOIS mentions St Louis, so that is the most likely location. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 03:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost definitely Greenville, South Carolina, in zip code 29615 (use the "Geolocate" function). Nuvox Communications does have a large presence there. If Shapiros10 is serious about this, and no reason they should not be, they should have their parents/guardians contact the City of Greenville Police Department, who can subpoena Nuvox for verification. — Satori Son 17:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am reposting this because it was automatically archived as being older than 24 hours; however, no admins either took any action or commented upon it.  RGTraynor  22:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: 65.216.70.60 has been cutting a wide swath in the last few month, being involved in a 3RR violation on the Gemstone IV article, edit warring on the Superman (film series) article, edit warring with severe WP:BLP violations on the Ray Carver (darts player) article, vandalization of user pages [29] and numerous hostile and uncivil edit summaries and user talk page posts to myself and several other editors [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], both from that IP address and two other IP addresses to which he has access - Special:Contributions/68.239.20.96 and Special:Contributions/72.72.118.129, discernable by editing one IP's talk page from another, from two of the accounts editing the Gemstone article and all three reverting on the Carver and Superman articles, and indiscriminately posting to user talk pages. The 65.216.70.60 address has been blocked three times within the last week for some of these violations, only to open up again directly after the expiration of each block, and is now under a two week block; nonetheless, he's using the 72.72.118.129 address for more harassment [39].  RGTraynor  03:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And make that yet another one. [40].  RGTraynor  23:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another one. [41]  RGTraynor  14:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Special:Contributions/72.72.118.129 for 2 weeks to match the block on User: 65.216.70.60. The other IP has not edited for a while now, so maybe the user has lost access to that one. Kevin (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that any further examples, if a rangeblock is deemed inappropriate, should be reported to AIV for a faster response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, at this point, this fellow not only is a serial vandal and just doesn't figure that any of the civility or content rules apply to him, but he'll just keep on coming, so yeah, that sounds about right.  RGTraynor  02:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see external thread - here and repeated disruptive editing on the talk page of List of new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by IP and likely the same as Richard Rolles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well as vandalism of my old user page by the same user. This is a continuation of the issue I raised previously here that was never really addressed. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the big issue here? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Richard Rolles indefinitely. bibliomaniac15 03:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Richard Rolles"? Clever name, and endorse block. Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block. User continued flagrant WP:NPA violations after warning. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse block. That's not the way to go about things. Durova^Charge! 05:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block. Note: he's made an informal unblock request, but I don't think it should be granted until he understands policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The request was made formal, but was rightly declined due to the threat. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annnnnnd 10 more administrators have added this page to their watchlist, making any possibility of vandalizing it utterly impossible. Sometimes I lol, like right now. --mboverload@ 06:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably see also this thread.Geni 12:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the thread that I originally refer to in my earlier topic here on "off-wiki 'assault'". --Justallofthem (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No administrative intervention required.

Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopened - does not appear to be resolved. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small group of experienced editors are effectively hijacking WP:MOSNUM, claiming their point of view reflects consensus when in fact it does not. They are using their modifications to MOSNUM to justify many edits elsewhere, which are not in compliance with the consensus view of "date autoformatting." These editors are well-intentioned, but over-hasty in claiming consensus. (sdsds - talk) 10:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey! Can you be more specific, give diffs and explain what you are asking admin intervention for? --Pete (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand reading all of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) can be a bit daunting! This edit shows the debate was closed as "resolved" when in fact it was not. Moreover, it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's best practices for an editor who was active in a debate to close it. If there was consensus, a non-involved editor should have "made the call." (sdsds - talk) 11:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Arguments for and against where one of the leads in introducing discussion Tony1 has carefully set out the reasons for considering an optional change wherein autodatelinking is deprecated. No one is forcing anyone nor cutting off constructive criticism or debate while the virulent opponents to change have the temerity to go about bandying claims of "hijacking". The issue is being resolved and if a consensus has not been reached, it is a developing consensus that is obviously going one way, despite the cries of "foul" from some individuals. FWiW, this is another attempt to stifle discourse when "things don't go their way". Bzuk (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

For context, an example of one of these edits is here - delinking dates (to get rid of the blue I suppose) that will inadvertently stop the software from fulfilling date display preferences. This contradicts recent practice (ie over the last few years) so although I don't think admins can do anything specifically about this, since it is a large change in behaviour perhaps the Community noticeboard should be used for an announcement.--Commander Keane (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reading through the back story, this has been a two-year long discussion on the value of having autodate linking that may not be used by the majority of Wikipedia readers (as well as providing non-content links). FWiW, regardless of the "practise", the discussion clearly indicated that only a tiny percentage of users even had date preferences set in their browsers. BTW, is this even the proper forum to discuss essentially a "content issue"? I do not see examples of malefeasance as claimed. Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Commander K, it was flagged at the VP, at numerous WikiProject pages, and more than 100 article talk pages. There were many responses, and apart from a few clusters of ill-will, they were overwhelmingly positive about the proposal (I can provide a centralised link if you wish); this is in addition to the ongoing debate at MOSNUM talk (the central location for such debates) over some six weeks, which cam to a head in the calls for consensus. Tony (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a case of a clash between ideals and reality. We all, I think, want auto date formats. As in, it is the desire of pretty much everyone in the debate that each reader can see the dates in their own preferred form. Sadly, the fact is that the autolinking method, which is presently the only way to achieve automation of date formats according to preferences on Wikipedia, doesn't live up to its promises. Firstly, it doesn't work for the great majority of readers who don't have an account or sign in, or who do but don't activate preferences. Secondly, it allows editors to type in inconsistent dates in an article and not see how it will look to the great majority because *their* preferences are set to a particular format. Furthermore it leads to an unfortunate "blue sea" effect which denigrates the quality or "standout" value of actual links in the article, and the links if clicked on are monumentally useless in all but a few very major articles of moment (eg World War Two). At the end of the day our objective should be a readable encyclopaedia and, short of some sort of developer hack which is never going to happen, the proposal Tony and others have put forward is the best way forward so long as fights over date formats between editors don't become a problem as a result. It's probably worth noting that I initially opposed the proposal. Orderinchaos 15:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Orderinchaos's statement "we all, I think, want auto date formats." Given that various national varieties of English will always be used in Wikipedia, I prefer to see consistency within an article, and that includes the date format. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The example Channel Tunnel provides an excellent illustration of one of the problems caused by autoformatting. The mix of date formats is regarded as an error that ordinary readers will see but are concealed from the view of editors that use autoformatting - the very editors that are needed to correct the concealed error. Some editors now report that they turn preference to 'No preference' so that concealed errors are revealed. Furthermore, it turns out that autoformatting contains a technical error whereby it cannot be used on non-Gregorian dates. Other errors include date range munging like: '12 - March 15'. Do we really need to have the whole debate one more time in ANI? If so, I am sure the decision will be the same, the facts have not changed. Lightmouse (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Coming here and starting an entire ANI is an overblown, knee-jerk over-reaction. The editors who’ve “hijacked” MOSNUM have been engaged in this debate for a long, long time. As a result, they’ve seen the epiphany editors have recently had over how date autoformatting only masks editorial content problems from editors and doesn’t benefit 99.9% of our readership (I.P. users) whatsoever. Some of the editors who were part of this new consensus said *what?* and turned off their user date setting in their user preferences in order to understand the junk we were forcing regular readers to look at. In some cases, we editors thought a date was a wonderful-looking June 6, 2005 when, really, 99.9% of Wikipedia’s readership were looking at 2005-06-06.

  User sdsds has been largely absent from this discussion. He weighed in once on 16:14, 15 August 2008, and was completely silent—and, I assume, totally clueless to the developing consensus—until 23:22, 24 August 2008 when he became extraordinarily active and quite animated about the new direction we were heading.

  This is the second time (for me) in last few months that an editor has been absent from large portions of a discussion, and when they come back and are thunderstruck at the new consensus, they don’t go with the flow at all well. If our previous experience with the other editor in that other issue is any indication, dealing with sdsds is going to be difficult; he has simply missed out on all that goings-on that transpired, and sorting through it with an open mind would be difficult for anyone.

  Finally, since when can a small group of editors “hijack” any article? I think this term tends to be thrown around when there are only a few, highly motivated editors driving the issue through to a conclusion, and the majority of editors think it’s probably a good idea. “Change” on Wikipedia is never easy and there will always be editors who don’t agree; particularly when they’ve been absent from the vast majority of the discussion. Greg L (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When only a small group of editors edit it, and they do not hesitate to revert war; MOSNUM has been protected at least twice because of disputes on other issues. There is sentiment, among several of us half-dozen regulars, that autoformatting is not the best idea; there is no consensus to deprecate it - indeed there have been objections on the talk page (not only from sdsd) in the last twelve hours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was solid consensus for deprecation after a long, long debate. Anderson loves to twist and spin with language, and the use of "half-dozen" serves his purposes well. Go look there for yourself. And if that's not enough, a collection of supportive statements from many talk pages is here. But I don't know why we're turning this into a complete duplicate of the debate at MOSNUM. This is ANI. No administrator action appears remotely relevant. I suggest that this page be closed. Tony (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you have claimed elsewhere; please provide a link. That three editors have vociferously complained in the four hours since MOSNUM read not encouraged does seem to throw some doubt on the widespread nature of this alleged consensus. (We would be better off if autoformatting had never existed; but deprecation of this long-established practice, as opposed to presenting the arguments against it, requires very wide-spread consensus.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to occur all the time. The proponents take read of the general consensus from a number of middle-of-the-road editors, who write things along the lines of “I didn’t know autoformatting was doing that to regular I.P. users, this makes sense to me to no longer use them”, and there seems to always be an editor or two who are awfully vociferous on the issue (starting an ANI over it, as if the proponent editors strapped C4 to their bodies when they “hijacked” all of MOSNUM). This is particularly true when this sdsds editor doesn’t even participate in the bulk of the deliberations and has a WTF reaction to what’s been going on after a decision has been made. That tends to produce absurd allegations like those of sdsds.

  But just because an editor is perfectly willing to don orange robes and set themselves alight over an issue is insufficient to require that we all go over the entire deliberation process—he simply missed out. And do we need his buy-in? No. A consensus on Wikipedia does not require that 100% of editors are in complete agreement, and it never did—particularly for an editor who didn’t even participate in the bulk of the discussions.

  Finally, a consensus is reached by considering the various opinions of all the editors and hashing out what seems like the wisest course. Sound and rational reasoning must be put forth to hold sway with others. The arguments advanced by sdsds, while highly impassioned, are simply not persuasive. Greg L (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is rare for any topic to be discussed as long and thoroughly as this one. I poke my nose into Talk:MosNum and the pot is still bubbling. Has been for months, if not years. I haven't checked, but I dare say that several of the participants are admins. So I'm not sure why AN/I reporting is needed. Perhaps to get eyes on the topic that are unfamiliar with the long debate. I've been religiously autoformatting dates for years. I turned off my date preferences a year or so back so that I could see what most Wikipedia users see - the unlovely mish-mash of date formats - and correct them. Whenever I got the urge, I'd check the then crop of FAs, and guess what, there'd always be a few with differing date formats. Our best articles, looking unprofessional, and worse, full of links for users to click and end up on a page utterly unrelated to the article's subject. Recently Tony summarised the drawbacks of autoformatting and I was a convert. I'm not going to go out and remove every autoformatted date I see, but when I change or insert a date, I don't wikilink it. I urge all editors to check out MosNum from time to time, weigh in on discussion, and keep up to date with current thinking. I don't think that the debate has been hijacked to an early end. I think it went on for about a year too long, and it came to the logical conclusion, because there are simply no good reasons for supporting what was originally a developer's hack. --Pete (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• When I wrote above of “middle-of-the-road editors” and of “hashing out what seems like the wisest course”, I was referring to editors like Pete here. Greg L (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what urgent administrative intervention is required on this topic? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an anon contributor from a dynamically-assigned IP network. I don't usually engage in talk-page discussion but am currently involved in a heated move-related discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland. As part of that discussion, one editor (User:Pureditor) has posted a comment encouraging other's to ignore my contributions, "No its just an ip editor, he or she 'chooses' to be anon. I reckon we ignore it for obvious reasons." He/she had earlier removed my contributions to the page with the comment, "Ip address's first post, with knowledge of Wikipedia protocol = an obvious sockpuppet".

On the first occasion, I posted a message to his/her talk page. On the second occasion, I replied on Talk:Republic of Ireland. In repose to that message, User:Pureditor replied on the talk page for the dynamic IP I was using at the time say that, "Ignoring ip addresses editors is standard practice in important discussions like this. Sorry, but thats just the way it is."

I do not wish to create a user name. I contribute without a user name, as is my right. I understand the benefits of having a user name, but I do not want one. Anonymous IP-based contribution have been a cornerstone of WP since it's inception and I do not see why my contributions to one section of WP should be removed or ignored because of that.

Can we please have some clarity with regard to IP-based contributions? --89.19.82.127 (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

As far as I am aware you are allowed to edit wikipedia from Anonymous IP addresses. It is only when the IP starts to vandalise the Wiki when you find yourself getting into trouble. I am not to sure about your case but I know that you are free to contribute and talk in the talk pages if you wish. If I am wrong feel free to correct me. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sock is a major worry and consideration here. I have participated in many discussions and always ip votes have been discounted as they are prone to dispute. This is not a one of case or one editor 'being picked on'. They are several othe editors in this discussion also worried about these ip votes. The only place for this to be sorted out is the respective talk page where the discussion is taking place.Pureditor 11:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (edit conflict) I am the only IP-based contributor to the discussion. The only other editor to have remarked (politely and with a tone of regret) was Red King, who said in his experience he had noticed that there was a danger that IP-based contributions may not carry the same weight as a user-name based contributions. All other editors engaged properly and civilly with me.

Red King's concerns are not in question. What is in question is User:Pureditor blanking of my contributions and encouraging of others to ignore my contributions because I am an IP-based editor.

My mistake sorry. Yes I see what you are saying User:Pureditor WP:Sock is very strict on what can and cant be done in votes. It was my misunderstanding I didnt realise that it was a vote. In this case User talk:89.19.82.127 you will have to not take part in this as it is a vote from which IP votes are not generally counted as it can be open to abuse. Carried the debate on the related talkpage. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bounty, with your reference to WP:SOCK are you inferring that I am a sock? Please assume good faith or run a check-user if you are suspicious. Where does WP:SOCK say that an IP cannot be involved in a discussion/poll? You say that it is "very strict on what can and cant be done in votes." If it is so, please indicate where. (BTW there is no such thing as a "vote" on WP - WP:NOT a democracy).

Specifically, I am enquiring with reference to comments made that IP-based contributions should be ignored/removed? --78.152.209.11 (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bounty, I see from your user page that you are somewhat eager to become an admin. While that certainly is a noble pursuit, if you wish to have any realistic chances of passing an RfA, you should make sure you actually understand core policy (in this case, WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, and, even more importantly, actually read, then comprehend, what is being said before rushing to talk pages. Badger Drink (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two major misunderstandings here: the discussion is not a vote - weight of numbers (logged-in or not) is not a substitute for quality of argument. More pressingly, WP:SOCK says nothing to restrict non-logged-in editors from participating in discussions - they have the same right in this regard as logged-in editors. WP:SOCK just says there is to be no sockpuppetry, i.e. deceitful multiple voting, and I see no insinuation or evidence of that in the discussion. Indeed, sockpuppetry is no less of a problem with logged-in accounts. There is nothing whatsoever in policy or common practice preventing an editor from participating merely because they choose not to log in - BountyHunter2008 is mistaken. Knepflerle (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Knepflerle. As I wrote before, what is in question is User:Pureditor blanking of my contributions and encouraging of others to ignore my contributions because I am an IP-based editor. Talk of the counting of "votes" is neither here-nor-there. We are participating in a discussion. --78.152.211.51 (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New policy?

Arising from the comments made by BountyHunter above, Pureditor has further stuck out my comments on Talk:Republic of Ireand. BountyHunter, are we creating new policy here? Please be careful to cite correct policy correctly. --78.152.209.11 (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be accurate, your vote was struck out. That's it. The 'strike' was moved correctly to the right place almost immediately.Pureditor 11:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have commented there, any striking out is entirely premature. Please wait until this post has had some more input, there is no mad rush to act here. Knepflerle (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was accurate. You "further stuck out my comments". --78.152.211.51 (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Democracy, and as such, we do not "vote" on issues. We do often preface our statements with a simplification of our position - "support" / "oppose" / whatever - but no changes are to be made based on a simple majority vote. Pureditor - as has been said above, please do not confuse "consensus" with "majority", and please understand that strength of argument always trumps simple numbers. Your actions are ignorant of policy and seem borderline hostile towards a good-faith contributor. Badger Drink (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors who understand policy are first-class citizens in any debates regarding article content. I'm also worried about the talk of the discussion being a vote. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPs have the same weight for consensus building as registered. Does the accusation of socking arise because this is a dynamic IP? Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All theoretically true, but in practice, IP's and redlinks draw suspicion from users who have been around for awhile, especially if their work looks similar to a known registered user. I'm not at all saying that's the case here, nor am I saying it isn't; it's just a general statement of reality. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it out to be. A redlink may catch someone's eye, but in practice, if and when the content posted is confirmed to be well-reasoned, the suspicion quickly dries up. Any admin who would automatically discount the statements of an I.P. or redlink, or place said comments at an arbitrary "lower weight" solely on the basis of being from an I.P. or redlink, should be removed from his or her administrative capacity at once. Badger Drink (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see of the talk page history, the IP in question has fully disclosed the dynamic nature of his IP and when it changed. Yet their comments were struck under an unclear understanding of WP:SOCK. Reviews of that, and WP:CONS, might be in order. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And they shouldn't. If people spent less time standing on tall stools and shrieking because they thought an anonymous argument had been announced by a BANZORRED!!!11 user then we'd all have a better time of things. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Does the accusation of socking arise because this is a dynamic IP?" From the comments made in one of the edit summaries, I would say it could play a part (because each dynamically-generated IP address has little or no contribution history). Coupled with my obvious understanding of WP beyond a first time users, that's a reasonable mistake if someone is not familiar with dynamic IPs, but by-passes Assume Good Faith. My contribution however were full, lengthy, thought-out and explained posts - not mere "Support/Oppose" vote-rigging - nor was there any suspicion that I was engage in tag-teaming or building straw men, so there was no further reason to suspect be as a sock. --78.152.212.210 (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be compelling evidence for sockpuppetry, either through checkuser or at least through comparison of content and writing style. It is inappropriate to automatically disregard an IP as a sockpuppet, and an admin or someone who wants to be an admin should know that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the only problem comes when an editor tries to obtain undue weight for his views by falsely making them appear to have more popular support. This can happen whether editors are logged in or not - see WP:SSP. As far as I am aware, this misrepresentation has not occurred here - the editor in question has openly disclosed which edits are his (though a short "signature" that is common to each would clarify things somewhat - perhaps initials or a motto). It is somewhat harder to check the good standing of an editor using DHCP and keep up a sustained dialogue with them due to the lack of static talk page, hence the slightly elevated suspicion. But when there is no evidence of misrepresentation, there's no reason not to afford IP's the same good faith and respect we give to logged-in editors. Knepflerle (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this ANI thing, could've been avoided, if the anon would simply become a registered user. As I've asked him/her before, what are ya afraid of? at least you'd end any suspicions of sock-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be fine, except for that whole "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" thing... UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But signing in would help (at least it wouldn't hurt). GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly sympathize with reg editors dealing with contentious articles and past socking finding it difficult to give IPs the good faith they may afford reg accounts. This is distinct from using an editor's IP status against him in a dispute. Commenting on content not contributor is generally a sound principle. "Sign up" is the default response to any issue any IP encounters: it is a response counter to policy, which leaves the issues outstanding regardless of what that particular IP does. 86.44.28.41 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly support the above contribution (from a different anon). (Posted by the original IP contributor.) --78.152.202.221 (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still wish (both of you) would reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly pertinent background-related information

The scuffle seems to originate from a proposal to move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state). Pureditor strongly supports, while the I.P. opposes. AGF is great and all that, but this seems to be a case of an editor on side "a" of the fence doing whatever he or she can to undermine editors on side "b" of the fence (probably due to a misconstrued notion that majority votes dictate policy). Oddly enough, Pureditor, who himself said "address's first post, with knowledge of Wikipedia protocol = an obvious sockpuppet", started off on Wikipedia by creating a redirect - not exactly beginning-level editing. A case of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one! Badger Drink (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The background be as it may; as long as it is agreed the anonymous editor has a right to participate in discussion and that his edits will not be automatically struck out, there is no need for admin intervention here. I think the policy misunderstanding has been cleared up now and the content discussion can proceed as before. Knepflerle (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: Pureditor is blocked for 48 hours, see his talk page. Thatcher 15:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I utterly non-surprised? Badger Drink (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would've been all avoidable, if the anon became a registerd user. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not a requirement (and I'd personally fight very hard for it to remain this way). And I'm not sure that would have prevented Pureditor to attribute his own logged out edit to another editor, per checkuser -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss something here? You are saying that Pureditor would not have resorted to sockpuppetry had the IP editors registered an account? That is ridiculous, to say the least. You should write on your user page 100 times IP editors can have valuable opinions too, and are allowed to express them, just like me. No cut & paste allowed. Kevin (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre behavior from Pureditor. I was about to respond and put my agreement behind Knepflerie's summary that there is no need for admin intervention. I would have liked to have heard word back from Pureditor that he would respect my (and any other IP-based contributors) contributions at the same level that he would resect any other editor - I didn't have time to make this post earlier, but had read Knepflerie's post - but I see that this sentiment has since been over taken by events. Utterly bizarre. Thank you Thatcher for your diligenence. (Posted by the original IP contributor) --89.19.88.228 (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]