Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive645

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

False use of "Vandalism" edit summary when involved in a content dispute[edit]

I've been asked(1) to bring this matter here. User:Tmorton166 reverted my good faith edit with a summary noting that my good faith contribution, one which reinstated(2) a fellow Wikpedia editor's contribution, was simply "Vandalism".(3)

Tmorton166 is directly (4) involved in a content discussion regarding this very subject and is well aware that my good faith contribution, in support of other Wikipedia editors, is anything but "Vandalism". This is unacceptable and should not be excused, it is precisely this type of abuse that degrades the project, injects incivility and turns away both the contributor directly targeted as well as third parties considering contributing. For the record, this is not a "newbie" issue, I am a long time contributor and have for the last several years had a dynamic ip beginning with 99. I am not a SPA by any stretch of the imagination.

The callous lie, application of twinkle and or whatever else has now been triggered in addition to my "revert on sight"(5) vandal status has now caused my edits to be reverted by vandalism patrollers(6), which Tmorton166 himself has noted.(7)

It's easy to Game or wikilawyer someone opposing you on content into a little useless ball of "revert", but it's neither ethical nor does it further the project. My edits were good faith, civil and well supported. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good faith or not, I count 4 reverts in less than 24 hours by you between your different IPs, which constitutes as edit warring per WP:3RR. Nymf hideliho! 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It may be good faith, 99, but you're edit-warring to restore a completely unacceptable section header for a BLP. Please read that policy; it's important. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Overview: This IP is persistently editing in a BLP violation claiming (incorrectly) consensus for inclusion on the talk page. I gave them the benefit of the doubt the first few times but persistent re-addition despite numerous requests to desist means I don;t believe he is acting in good faith and the edits are an attempt to BLP vandalise the page. I point out I used Twinkle to revert these changes (not rollback) and although Twinkle refers to this directly as vandlism I used it deliberately to make a point about the escalating severity of my reverting. After the user posted a pretty aggressive message on my talk ending with the words, the utter lack of intellectual integrity you quite obviously possess., I pointed them at AN/I who could weigh in on my actions and hopefully bring more eyes to the article and the header issue. I admit, that on reviewing WP:VAND it may be that this is in fact Tendentious editing (which is no better ;)), however I have no issues reverting it as vandalism with Twinkle - so as a more general question, is this the right approach? --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Everyone needs to go read WP:VAND#NOT, but remember: just because something isn't vandalism, that doesn't mean it's not inappropriate. 3RR is a bright line: do not cross the line unless you understand the narrow limitations for doing so. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)The OP's edits are not necessarily deliberate vandalism, so the OP has a point. It would be better to label such edits as "BLP violation", for which the OP will have no defense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I strongly consider this a bad faith deliberate attempt to vandalise the article, the IP did not seem to "get it", hence escalating the type of Twinkle revert. However, point taken, so I retract specifically calling it Vandalism and instead substitute "Gross and deliberate BLP violation, tendentious editing". --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 16:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) That's nonsense, my edit restored another editors contribution and is the current, ongoing and long standing subject of discussion. The ONLY opposition to the addition found on the talk page previously consisted of "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence." These are not substantive arguments on which one can base such an outrageous mis-characterization such as the bullshit, "Gross and deliberate BLP violation, tendentious editing". What was it that Joseph Welch said? It seems it would be appropriate here.99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You've got the same problem there, by saying "deliberate BLP violation", unless you can find statements from the OP admitting to it. Whether it's good faith or bad faith, a BLP violation is a BLP violation. There has been an allegation of rape, but there has been no legal finding that a rape actually occurred. The OP may not understand that distinction. So unless you can find the OP specifically saying, "I don't care, the guy's a rapist, end of story", then AGF requires that you regard his position as good-faith but wrong-headed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, if the overwhelming insistence is that I retract such an opinion, I will have to do so. But I extremely strongly disagree. AGF is not a license, it is not infinite. The editor reinserted a variation on a header that various IP's (I do not believe this IP) have been trying to get into the article for a while. They were told very clearly a number of times about why the header was innapropriate and they still insisted on inserting it, claiming there was no opposition, they had consensus, it was supported by RS's or that it was censorship to remove it. I was happy to consider it misguided initially, but now (given their clear understanding of WP policy and admission of longer editing history) I believe they are editing in bad faith. shrug, I want them to be aware of why the heading is 100% inappropriate. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that, for the record, the text I supported, and that was introduced by another editor, read: "Investigation of alleged rape". That is all. .99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Make no mistake, that wording was only introduced as your first header was less than neutral. Nymf hideliho! 16:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand you. Is this now neither vandalism nor a BLP violation? It is the only edit that is at issue, it is the edit that you two have been reverting. The previous one was "Rape investigation". .99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no comment on that as I have never reverted you, unless you have any undisclosed accounts or IPs. Nymf hideliho! 16:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"Rape investigation" is POV-pushing and a BLP issue. "Investigation of alleged rape" is legalistically neutral, as there is an ongoing investigation, and there has been no legal finding that a rape actually occurred. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The main issue with the header is that it is trying to draw attention to the section, which is inappropriate per BLP policy. There is no need for a heading at all, and this was agreed on the talk several times. I will step back from the issue and as a compromise offer this;

  • If the other editors feel strongly that I should retract all insinuation of bad faith I will do so and apologise
  • and will not revert further additions but push it to the BLP board for better discussion.

However, I do feel my actions were reasonable and appropriate, if my use of the Vandalism revert a little strong. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 16:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Though a long standing technique, misdirection does not make a thing so. Your claim, "this was agreed on the talk several times", is false and has been demonstrably shown(1)(2) to be so on the article talk page. But then, unsupported allegations, mis-characterization and empty rhetoric seem to be a recurring theme here. They do seem to work, but then they're based upon your abuse of AGF, people just assume what you say is supportable. I prefer sourced ref's. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Funny you should say that. Looking at the talk page I see Talk:Julian Assange#Hypocracy and Talk:Julian Assange#Section "title" for section dealing with the Rape allegations/investigation/charges. Your diffs "demonstrably showing this to be false" appear to be <ahem> nothing of the sort. There does appear to be a talkpage consensus, it doesn't appear to support your assertion, nor your belief that this heading - in either of the forms you've used - should be used. And what do sourced refs have to do with section headings? TFOWR 16:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Also there is quite extensive discussion of the whole section in the archive, that plus the edit history from the time shows we hashed this out quite extensively. There have been various attempts to re-insert a pointy header in that section but it has been reverted as a BLP issue each time. There are also a couple of threads from the [{WP:BLP/N|BLP noticeboard]] but I don't have much time to hunt them down now. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"Investigation of alleged rape" is the only edit at issue. It is the contribution of another editor that I supported and is the edit reverted as "Vandalism" under discussion here. There are no additional content edits under dispute.99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"Rape investigation" is also an edit at issue. TFOWR 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No it's not. It's a Red Herring, textbook application. No one is seeking to reintroduce that edit, you're simply acting as an auctioneer taking bids from the Chandelier. Consensus appears to be for "Investigation of alleged rape". 99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
My point was that the text I supported, and that was introduced by another editor, read: "Investigation of alleged rape" gives the impression that you didn't introduce the heading "Rape investigation". TFOWR 17:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually Sherlock, I was trying to neutralize previous headings, "Rape Charges" and "Rape Arrest", it's the Wiki-Way. I change text, others tweak me, we arrive at consensus. The other editor's tweak on me was an improvement. My edits also improved on the past. Your point? 99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The editor who introduced the new wording only did it as a way to compromise. It does in no way imply consensus (or a specific stance) for mentioning rape in the header. Nymf hideliho! 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, "Sherlock", no. You added a heading. Describing that edit as "neutralizing" is disingenuous. TFOWR 17:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec)If consensus says "no heading", then it should be safe to delete the heading outright, with the edit summary "as per consensus". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The ONLY opposition to the addition found on the talk page previously consisted of "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence." This is not the basis for either a supportable argument or a consensus. It is however a strong argument for lack of neutrality, POV and WP:OR. Bias is not the sole province of IP accounts. And the abusive mis-characterization of my honest, good faith, neutral and well supported edit is still troubling, the underlying content dispute is minor - the Gaming and beatdown attempted there is not. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, even if there is issues over good/bad faith, I don't think you can support the edit as neutral and well-supported. If you review the history of the article you will note it is not well supported, and it is definitely not neutral. It is, in fact, very pointy. I'd also point out that the thing you keep quoting is not any part of the rationale for removing the header - it was a reply from another editor to a wider discussion about the section. Several of us made it very clear the policies and guidance under which the header was removed/disputed --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The OP's contrib history indicates that he re-introduced both versions of the header at different times. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to neutralize previous headings, "Rape Charges" and "Rape Arrest", Rape and Assault, etc, many of which passed through multiple edits and contributors without question until a tweak or change, it's the Wiki-Way. I change text, others tweak me, we arrive at consensus. The other editor's tweak on me was an improvement. My edits also improved on the past. I simply support the last change made by another third-party editor, and have done so unequivocally since his addition.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
So until he's at least arrested or something, why is a heading needed at all? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
99, you have not used this argument before, so I'm afraid to me it looks like an argument in retrospect. When you re-added it on the 18th with accusations of apologists and spin etc. your rationale (on talk) was as follows: "Section title "Rape investigation" or "Rape allegation" or "Rape charges" and topic are notable, well ref'd and quite significant - and accurately surmises the section - a header summarizing section contents is quite standard. Topic is simply what it is.". I believe this states a clear aim to add a section header with this content come what may. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I'm going to have to stand by my apparently controversial claim, at least according to you, that, "a header summarizing section contents is quite standard.". It's like Red Herring Fest here today. But the Game rewards a furious offense doesn't it? Substance is over rated apparently.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


The section is extensive, notable, well supported and properly summarized by the succinct heading noted above:


On 20 August 2010, an investigation was opened against Assange in Sweden in connection with an allegation that he had raped a woman in Enköping on the weekend of 14 August after a seminar, and two days later had sexually harassed a second woman he had been staying with in Stockholm,[1][2] but within 24 hours of the investigation opening prosecutors withdrew the warrant to arrest him saying the accusations against him lacked substance. The chief prosecutor Eva Finné said there was no reason to suspect he had committed rape "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape". He was still being investigated for harassment,[3]which covers reckless conduct or inappropriate physical contact, a charge not serious enough to trigger an arrest warrant. The second woman belonged to the Brotherhood, a Christian affiliate of the country's Social Democratic Party, and was acting as Assange's spokeswoman.[4] Assange said "the charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing"; his supporters claim he is the victim of a smear campaign.[5] he acknowledged having had sex with the women, but said it was consensual.[4] He was questioned by police for an hour on 31 August,[6] and on 1 September a senior Swedish prosecutor re-opened the rape investigation saying new information had come in. The women's lawyer, Claes Borgström, had earlier appealed against the decision not to proceed.[7]
There are few paths to proper copyedit available when faced with such prose. Misdirection and obscuring are not within our remit. The subject is not pleasant, but it simply is what it is.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


It seems I've allowed myself to be derailed. This is not a content dispute, this was User:Tmorton166 reverting my good faith edit with a summary noting that my good faith contribution, one which reinstated(2) a fellow Wikpedia editor's contribution, was simply "Vandalism".(3)

Tmorton166 is directly (4) involved in a content discussion regarding this very subject and is well aware that my good faith contribution, in support of other Wikipedia editors, is anything but "Vandalism". This is unacceptable and should not be excused, it is precisely this type of abuse that degrades the project, injects incivility and turns away both the contributor directly targeted as well as third parties considering contributing. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, a report at ANI runs the very real risk that your own conduct will be scrutinised. Tmorton166 should not have described your edit as vandalism. You should not be claiming a lack of consensus, when the talkpage shows a clear consensus. You should not be edit warring against consensus. Tmorton166 deserves to be slapped with a {{trout}}. I don't believe blocking you would be effective: I'd recommend another admin give consideration to protecting the article - if you persist. TFOWR 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Side note: Since I'm the unnamed editor in question who changed the IP's POV header to a more neutral version I would like to say that I'm not supporting my own or any other heading in this section. The main header/section title does indeed cover it well enough and there's also no separate header for the first paragraph in this article's section.TMCk (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Consensus? Numerous editors have introduced, reintroduced, supported, or tweaked a variety of direct summarizations of the section. No substantive argument has been presented in opposition. Most of the argument for silence comes from apologists and partisans on record as supporting obscuring or removal based upon, "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence." Not quite the Wiki-Way. Multiple long term edits by numerous editor's to support concise accurate summarization are not trumped by screams of Vandal or empty reverts by a couple of partisans.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
BLP rules are the wiki way, and they do trump many other considerations. TFOWR at 17:40 above summarizes the situation well. The article should neither make a big thing of this nor try to bury it. The separate heading is a step in the direction of making a big thing of it. Now, if he gets arrested, that's a different matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"No substantive argument has been presented in opposition." In your opinion. Above, you presented diffs of two of your talkpage edits as "proof" of the lack of consensus; I then linked to the actual talkpage threads. Multiple editors on the talkpage disagreed with you. Dismissing editors who disagree with you as "apologists and partisans" - I can tell you for free: that's not "the Wiki-way". TFOWR 17:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I did not dismiss them. I quoted them, "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence.". There was a time when such public proclamation's of pure partisanship were noticed, and rejected for what they were. I guess this is just another milestone in the ever-evolving set of acceptable standards as we whittle our contributors down to the last man standing. .99.144.244.4 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Your being disigneous when you say Actually, I did not dismiss them. I accused you of Dismissing editors who disagree with you as "apologists and partisans" because you said Most of the argument for silence comes from apologists and partisans. The standards here are consensus and WP:BLP. Neither of these are new, neither should come as any surprise. TFOWR 18:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP supports reporting notable events, as is the case here. consensus includes all those numerous editors that have contributed, or supported, section headings as noted above. It is not I that am turning a blind eye to the contributions and discussion regarding the article. And it is not I that have claimed this to be a closed topic no longer up for discussion - nor have I rejected contributions as Vandalism. I have honestly supported a civil and substantive discussion of the issue(1) The record is clear and supports my contention that I am not a Vandal and have engaged in a GF effort to substantively discuss the issue. The same an not be said for all participants.99.144.244.4 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The event is reported. The issue (which you are misdirecting this from) is that the header is undue and a BLP violation in drawing attention to the event. It is not particularly significant in his biography, and the addition of it is quite pointy. I have a groundswell of patience, but you used it up very quickly by being aggressive, rude and ignoring points we were raising. Classic example: your persistent quoting of a badly worded reply on the talk page which was actually unrelated to the header we were discussing and ignoring the points I (and another) consistently raised with you. However, AN/I is not for disputes. I was wrong to use the Vandalism revert, that has been made clear to me, I have apologised. I suggest we take the content dispute to the article talk again and involve editors from WP:BLP/N. Otherwise this looks at risk of going downhill -Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) You are indeed not a vandal, and I believe I had already made that clear. WP:BLP does indeed support reporting notable events: that is not at issue - what is at issue is you adding a header. No one is attempting to prevent the reporting of notable events, and I am surprised you would describe this as such. WP:CON involves discussion, not drive-by editors dropping by to re-add their favourite header while ignoring talkpage discussions. You're to be commended for at least participating in the talkpage discussion; however, edit warring against the obvious consensus there is far less commendable. TFOWR 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If you check back, most of the headings along the lines of what you added were added by IP or new editors - and were reverted by long term editors under BLP policy. This is consistent in the article history. You, on the other hand, have consistently mis-characterised a consensus for including the header, quoted that above text which is unrelated to the header issue (and I agre badly argued), heaped abuse on my talk page, the article talk etc. and made wide accusations of "apologists", gaming, wiki-lawyering, censorship and so on. This is the main reason I don't find your work on this article constructive. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, TFOWR is someone I very much trust over this (along wiht BB and Jclemens), so I do apologise for using Vandalism revert on that edit. It was a decision made in the heat of the moment in light of the attitude exhibited by this IP, I am sure that others will attest that I am not usually so vindictive. However, I still feel that the IP is pushing to have the header for POV reasons, as backed up by his comments/language --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I'd say that if the IP makes one more harsh and/or disruptive edit with one of their IP's let's go for a wide range-block as far as technically possible of not less than a month (like one of their IP's already received today).TMCk (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit I believe you're referring to, and referred to in this edit summary(1) from the article mainpage as "Excessive sock puppetry: IP hopping vandal persistantly adding WP:BLP material" is not from me - nor does the coincidentally 99.* prefixed IP address geo-locate to the same area as mine. The two quick incidents of juvenile vandalism hardly rated a ten-day lock, especially as a block was made and appeared to stop the offender. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


An editor is insisting on inserting material from a propagada website[edit]

Resolved

At 2010 Chechen Parliament attack, User:Lihaas is insisting[1] on inserting material from Kavkazcenter, an Islamist propaganda website. The consensus in these[2][3] WP:RSN discussions is that Kavkazcenter is not a WP:RS and should not be used as a source for the kind of info Lihaas is using. Normally, I would wait until more editors arrive and agree, but unfortunately the article is on the main page (ITN) and I'm very concerned that it currently contains propaganda/misinformation from the Kavkazcenter website. Please see my comments on the article talk page. Could we please get more eyes in this article? I do not wish to edit war. Offliner (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you supposed to warn the editor a discussion pertaining to him is ongoing, which you havent dont (see the tag on editing this very page)
Secondly, kavkaz center has been quoted on wikipedia, has its own wikipedia page, is not illegal outside russia, and per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:Consensus as to discussion on the page, there are 2 editors who didnt find a problem with the edit (despite offliner introducing the debate), and yet he removes on his whim that he doesnt like. If consensus is against the edit then its one thing, but consensus is clearly and demonstrably in favour of it at this moment. That said WP:Consensus can change, and it is in your right to seek further debate, but it is not in your right to WP:Censorship when others think otherwise. Furthermore, another editor reverted the edit without giving a reason or discussing on the talk page. His edit has been duly removed pending consensus.(Lihaas (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC));

Look here, Lihaas, my edit was explained on the talk page you just didn't bother to look. S.G.(GH) ping! 08:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Anywho, I edit conflicted him but when I saw that message I posted only to correct his mistake which he has now compounded on three pages. Anyway, as I was saying, consensus as I read it accepts only direct attribution of the site's own views, not using the site as a citation for any facts without attribution. I reverted his change on those grounds and advised him to re-edit attributing only the direct views of the site itself. S.G.(GH) ping! 08:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to your allegation that the source cites "fact" instead of due caveat. the original addition does come with the due caveat that "kavkaz center" says, which can be seen in the history and shows that you clearly "blindly reverted" without reading it. Consensus accepts the regards of editors through discussion, not a few people who feel otherwise. Once again, 2 editors had already accepted, another opposed, then you said you opposed because it needs caveat and not as truth. Well it does have the caveatLihaas (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, blindly, etc. I've replied on the talk page - only one of the edits had attribution the other two were uncited or given as fact. There's no point continuing the discussion in two places so deal with some consensus over there, but if any WP:3RR or whatever arises that can be dealt with here or this can be closed if it's resolved. S.G.(GH) ping! 08:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, seems like its solved on the talk page of the articel and sggh talk page.
Kudos, just as we were on the verge of incivility ;)Lihaas (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Incivilty on Wikipedia? That's un-possible! :) S.G.(GH) ping! 09:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not resolved as Lihaas simply reinserted the Kavkazcenter material. I also feel that he is ignoring my comments on talk. I'm afraid to make any more edits on the article since I am too near 3RR. Offliner (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll just make sure the attribution is there. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mangled URLs in writer infobox[edit]

Resolved: Problem was been located and fixed. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Ray Bradbury, Stephen King, etc... there's a bad issue with how the website field acts if "http://" is entered on the line rather than just the plain url-less address. There was a change a month ago to Template:Infobox writer to use Template:Url instead of Template:Official to handle this field, but I can't imagine this has gone unnoticed for that long. Someone tried reverting the last change to the Url template today in an attempt to fix this, but self-reverted as it apparently did not work. Anyone more versed in this sorta thing see the problem? Tarc (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Found the issue at {{Str right}} and fixed with this. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Good work, thanks. :) Tarc (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Massacre of Lviv professors[edit]

Resolved: Content dispute, submitter blocked for edit-warring.  Sandstein  16:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Moved from WP:AN: GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Faustian inserted into the article the text claiming that the Polish university professors who were massacred by the Nazi were selected to be massacred because "they actively collaborated with the Soviets" and that "they were in talks with Stalin(!) to form a pro-Soviet government." Since such claims that the professors were in such talks with the force who occupied completely defames their memory and furthermore goes against the commonly accepted fact they were murdered because they were of Jewish origin, I removed the claim from the article requesting solid sources in compliance with the wikipedia policy as described here: [4]. The only source Faustian provided is a pdf document in Ukrainian and he claims it is "fact". I am constantly being accused of going against policy and removing "fact" from the article. I request wikipedia administrators remove said text. J.kunikowski (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page for details. Here: [5]. The source is online here: [6]. The book is K Patrylyak. (2004). Military activities of the OUN (B) in the years 1940-1942. Kiev, Ukraine: Shevchenko University \ Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. The wikipedia article states "The lists were prepared by their Ukrainian students[2]. According to the Ukrainian scholar I.K. Patrylyak, out of approximately 160 Polish professors living in Lviv in June 1941, the professors chosen for execution were specifically those who actively cooperated with the Soviet regime between 1940-1941, such as members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or members of a delegation that met with Stalin and discussed the possible formation of a pro-Soviet Polish government. [3]" The original source states " Important is the fact that the professors who were shot in Lviv belonged to the group of the Polish intelligentsia, who between 1940 and 1941 actively worked with the Soviet regime. They were members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or delegates from Lviv's Polish community who in August 1940 visited Stalin and conducted talks on the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish government in oppostion to the government-in-exile in London. Therefore, the murdered professors could be intereprested by the OUN as supporters of the 'Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism.' So, out of the 160 Polish professors who lived in Lviv in June 1941, only those who stood out for their cooperation with the Stalinist regime were chosen for destruction." Hope this helps.Faustian (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The merits of this text are a content matter unsuited for discussion on this noticeboard. Please use WP:DR, e.g. WP:3O, to resolve this. I have blocked J.kunikowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for edit-warring. There's nothing more to do here.  Sandstein  16:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
My bad for not noticing that it's just a content dispute; I saw it on AN and noticed it was about a specific incident and moved it here without delving into the details. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Content dispute? Not at all, this was a violation of the exceptional claims require exceptional sources policy. Please note the policy states that exceptional sources (plural!) are needed. So far there is only a single PDF to for the claim (presented as fact), and neither do we have a complete translation of the text. At this the claim should not even be in the article IMO. Wikipedia policy requires sources for a reason. J.kunikowski (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Fustian's claim is indeed extraordinary, not backed by any other sources but this PDF article in Ukrainian. Basically it states that professors were murdered by the Nazis because they collaborated with the Soviets. To my knowledge it is completely not true. This is a very serious allegation but I'm sure it will be resolved one day.--Jacurek (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats from COI SPA user BrainGym Webmaster[edit]

Resolved

BrainGym Webmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), an obvious continuation of blocked account Braingym1 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is making legal threats against "Anyone who seeks to block this 'BrainGym Webmaster' Wikipedia user account." I know that it reads in the instructions for reporting issues on this page that "[t]o start a ban discussion, see the administrators' noticeboard", but this being a newly created SPA I figured this was the most appropriate venue nevertheless. I could be wrong. __meco (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked indef as self-promotion-only account, quite apart from the legal threats and socking.  Sandstein  20:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User needs to take a break[edit]

Resolved: MuZemike 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rhiannon Taylor (talk · contribs) has had her talk page peppered with warnings about inappropriate files uploaded to Wikipedia, along with a few very clearly worded warnings about why her editing pattern is a problem. She appears to be ignoring her talk page and moving forward with uploading copyrighted images. I think a 24 or 48 hour block might give her the pause she needs to read the guidelines. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 3 days. –MuZemike 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruption past 3RR at article Ed Miliband[edit]

Resolved: Full-protected one week. –MuZemike 21:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Lots of users appear to be edit-warring with each other over this, going past 3RR regarding sourced material, etc. Might be time for some blocks. Deferring to other admins about that. -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

  • This might also be relevant. The point of contention involves whether Miliband is a Jew or an atheist and was already discussed here just above. --John (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see if temporary full-protection is feasible, if those here are fine with that. –MuZemike 21:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Something should be done to stop the continuous and chronic disruption at the page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Full-protected for a week. Ucucha 21:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
"Jew or Atheist"? He could be both. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs and The Political Cesspool[edit]

I'm already somewhat involved in this article, so any action from me would be inappropriate. It appears an editor with a dynamic IP is trolling the talk page. Laser brain (talk · contribs) partially protected the article, but the talk page banter is going nowhere. A couple weeks ago it was 74.226.66.138 (talk · contribs). Today it appears to be 74.226.118.59 (talk · contribs). I blocked User talk:74.226.68.227 (talk · contribs) for attempting to WP:OUT Stonemason89 (talk · contribs) several weeks ago.

I refer you to the talk page. Multiple threads, several of which have been started by the IP today. --Moni3 (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

74.226.64.0/18 blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 22:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Range of bad IPs[edit]

It has come to my atention today that a range of IPs in the Philippines have been adding false information to articles on bands and musicans (adding incorrect record labels and labeling J-Pop bands such as FLOW and JAM Project as christian rock bands). All of the edits come from the same range. The IPs are as follows:

The IPs are all registered as belonging to "DIGITEL GSM 3G IP POOL". And considering that there are only two /24s being used here, I think it would be beneficial to Wikipedia to block these two ranges for an extended period of time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like Gerald Gonzales to me. If any admin is interested, the ranges of the IPs above are 115.147.230.0/24 and 115.147.202.0/24. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the crossover with Gonzales.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
These are DjJosh (not verified via CU). I will note though, that these ranges are far too busy to block. Tiptoety talk 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, I don't see what that connection is. Also are the ranges (the two /24 ranges) that busy that they can't be anonblocked?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There are quite a few anon users editing from those ranges as well, but most of edits appear to be vandalism. I would be careful about implementing them, but if you are going to, start out with short blocks. Tiptoety talk 05:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats?[edit]

Does anyone else see legal threats here? Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 10:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any legal threats (lots of talk about current legal actions, but bo legal threats against Wikipedia or any of its editors at first glance), but it clearly was a G10 attack page, so deleted. Fram (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There's more that's problematic, in the history of the article. I've written to the author. -- Hoary (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Harbough is only here to publicize dirt about his political/financial adversaries. Toddst1 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Xanderliptak, redux[edit]

Resolved: Nothing going on that needs admin intervention at this moment; policy conversation is underway. If issues persist, another venue may be better, unless immediate admin intervention is required. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Xanderliptak (talk · contribs)

I saw this edit on my watchlist, and reverted it, as I see no reason for the removal.

I then looked at his contribs and saw a problem. He is systematically removing all images he has uploaded to Commons from use here, and has requested speedy deletion of same on Commons (which cannot obviously be dealt with here; I included this detail merely for background). Not wishing to create intense drama, I have not reverted the latest edits; I believe this is symptomatic of behaviour that has been going on for quite some time. (See also, from almost a year ago, very similar situation). Namely, this user appears to be labouring under the misapprehension that he gets to control use of images he has created after he has uploaded them. Beyond that I cannot speculate as to motivation.

I am honestly not sure what the course of action here needs to be. This is clearly problematic, and repeated, behaviour. User has been notified. → ROUX  05:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I jut came across this through a page on my watchlist. I note that Xander and Roux have some history, so I thought I would, as an uninvolved party, concur with Roux's reading of the situation. As it happens I think the one example of an edit that Roux provides is not a good one because (for unrelated reasons) that content should not be there. But the broader issue still stands. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The edit I provided is simply the one I ran across first (I use a hack on my watchlist to only display changes since the last time I loaded the page, then scroll to the bottom and work my way up). There were other edits, but seeing that there was a pattern I refrained from reverting them all and instead brought the issue here. Agreed that the specific first edit I provided can and should be discussed on the relevant talk page; the general issue is what needs to be examined here. → ROUX  05:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the past history; Roux has suffered quite a bit of abuse in this interaction. I would say Roux is correct that there is a behaviour issue, but I've also seen XL change behaviour when approached the right way. The core issue currently seems to be a licensing dispute. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear I did not attempt to discuss this with Xanderliptak, as discussion with him has proven to be less than fruitful. I figured better to gain the attention of uninvolved people. → ROUX  06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The images he uploads to Commons are freely licensed. The licenses are not revocable. So we can use them, whether he wants us to or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 12:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That was the core issue that came up a few days ago. Presumably Xander figures if he can't get what he wants, then he'll delete them and then nobody can have what they want. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't presume tell people what I want. You showed up late to a discussion and tried to talk about things that the discussion was not even concerned about. Again, you are here talking about issues no one else has even brought up. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Roux reverted the edit here: [7] and when Hamiltonstone complained on the talk page, Roux explained his rationale here: [8] I don't see any need for this board, but rather, discussion should begin on the article talk page. Xandarliptak is as free to edit, and be bold as any other Wikipedia editor. Every edit he makes that Roux does not agree with cannot be brought here. It should be on the article talk page.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
See below. You have clearly not paid any attention to what I wrote or what is happening here. → ROUX  18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What is this ANI even about? People complain about the images in the article, I have to argue to keep them in. More people complain, so I take them out. Then those that wanted them out complain I take them out? What kind of logic is that? What is all the Commons talk and "we can use them even if he doesn't want us to"? I was the one always arguing to use hem, ROUX and others were saying we should not. I just finally gave in and said take them out. ROUX should have been happy. Side note, I did get what I wanted on Commons. ROUX and Beyond My Ken were trying to pull up past arguments, but Commons ignored them. The Commons issue had nothing to do with using or not using images, but about what the licensing summary being deficient. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That was on one article where the inclusion of unsupported elements was the nature of the dispute, not the inclusion of the coat of arms in general. 'All this Commons talk' is merely, as I said, background; you are attempting to have images which you freely and irrevocably licenced deleted, an issue that will be dealt with on Commons. I never tried to pull up past arguments on Commons, because I did not make a single comment on Commons; once again you appear to be unable to comprehend that you must provide diffs of alleged behaviour and not merely say whatever you want. This ANI is about approximately thirty instances of you removing images you have created from articles where they very clearly belong. The same images you are attempting to have deleted. The same behaviour you engaged in nine months ago (discussed here, you may also wish to see your own talk page to refresh your memory). → ROUX  18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It is hard to tell what you really want, since you change your story so often. :) But why all this excitement over drawings of family crests and such? This ain't Rembrant stuff, you know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The better question is why is Roux following Xanderliptak? And why is Hamiltonstone claiming he got here from his watchlist when everybody can read this exchange for themselves:

I do not understand why there is any information about the Kennedy coat of arms on this page, which is about the surname, and serves as a disambig page for people to locate relevant Kennedys as subjects of WP articles. Move it to an article called Kennedy (coats of arms) or to the pages relating to relevant individuals or families, but surely get it off this page? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it is useful information (though I may be biased). My concern with the removal, and why I reverted it, is partly a matter of WP:BRD, and partly a matter of a posting to ANI that will be up momentarily. → ROUX  05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I see that now. I'd like to keep this separate. It isn't that the information may not be useful, but I don't see why discussion of a range of coats of arms of different Kennedy individuals or families should be on the surname page rather than on the pages of the relevant people (or indeed a page about the coats of arms, if there are a few relevatn secondary sources to satisfy notability). But this is a bit of a new area for me, so if there are contra arguments, I'd like to hear them. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Even assuming good faith here, Roux appears to be saying he wants to keep the material just so he can come here. It looks a lot like canvassing, hounding, and a lack of AGF on Roux's part. On Xanderliptak's side, it appears he's just being bold. My suggestion would be to stop this before it gets to look like you're setting the dogs on Xanderliptak. He's removing the images people have fought to get rid of, but now inexplicably are fighting to have restored. Might be time to reassess your own behavior.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

<belated response to comment by Malke about me:> "why is Hamiltonstone claiming he got here from his watchlist when everybody can read this exchange for themselves". The answer is: I have Kennedy (surname) on my watchlist. The removal of the coats or arms seemed like a good idea; its reversion by Roux seemed a bad one. But as heraldry etc is not my area, I thought I would raise the issue on the article talk page and draw that discussion thread to the attention of the two involved editors at their talk pages: [9] [10]. It was only when I did that that I discovered there was a broader issue, and i thought I should mention that at ANI, since a thread had already been opened and some uninvolved comment appeared to be desirable. I don't appreciate the slur implicit in your comment Malke: you could have checked the diffs, where the timestamps would have made it clear that this was the simplest explanation. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Um... did you read anything I posted here? Seriously, don't post without reading what is going on. → ROUX  18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be an echo in this section, namely someone griping about Xander being "followed". Some editors don't like being watched, and rung up for what they're doing, since they have this notion that they should be able to do whatever they want, unimpeded. They come here and complain that they're being "harassed"... by multiple users. At some point, the possibility might arise that the editor is being followed because he needs to be followed. Hanlon's razor might figure into this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, this actually makes me somewhat angry. You do not understand a single thing that is going on here. You clearly have not bothered to read a single thing I wrote, and certainly haven't looked at the links I provided. I am not saying 'keep the material so I can come to ANI.' In terms of that specific article it is simply the first one I saw on my watchlist. Then I looked at Xanderliptak's contribs, and saw he has removed every instance of every image he uploaded to Commons. Further, on Commons, he has requested speedy deletion of all his images. (Something he can't do, not for the reason he has given.) Nobody has 'fought' to get rid of [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41], almost all of which are articles about nobility, for whom coats of arms are a fairly important subject, recording as they do marriages, alliances, elevations (or demotions) in station, etc. The removal here of one of his images from the talk page of WP:WPHV is particularly noteworthy as well.
Xanderliptak is, quite simply, attempting to remove all of his images from use on enwiki, with concomitant attempt at deleting them from Commons. This is a problem that is related to ownership behaviour from over a year ago detailed here and here, which you would know if you had read the links I had initially posted.
In all seriousness, please do not comment when you have demonstrably not familiarized yourself with the details of what is going on. I bear no personal animus towards Xanderliptak, my concern is with widespread disruption arising from his repeated attempts to control the end result of images which he has freely contributed to the project. → ROUX  18:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Nobody has "fought to get rid of" Xander's images. The issue, as Roux states, is that he wants to maintain control of them, and since he can't do so, he's working on getting rid of them. (I'm sure they'll bring him a healthy profit on the black market.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
This would be a good place to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to advise Mr. Xander to that effect. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Malke, I tried saying this politely. Apparently you didn't read it. I'll be more blunt: you do not understand what is going on, you have obviously not looked at a single link or diff provided, and your contributions to this discussion are completely and totally unhelpful and off base. Please stop commenting. → ROUX  23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Roux, I understand perfectly what is happening here. I don't see Xanderliptak doing anything but being bold in his edits. I don't see anything wrong with his removing the images. If editors want them back, they're free to put them back, or find other images, or they can take the articles off their watchlists. Focus on the edit, not the editor. And chill about it. It's time to let this go. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The way I understand it (and Roux, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), this guy is not "being bold", he's trying to assert ownership over his own creations, in defiance of the license rules. And he's been getting irritated because the rule-followers keep impeding him. I never heard of that guy until this past week, but it didn't take long to figure out what he was up to. How do you figure other editors are "free to put them back"? These are designs of family crests or something, which he himself created. So no one else could claim them as their own, and hence they couldn't upload them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you do not, Malke. Xanderliptak is not being WP:BOLD. of course you would know this if you had read the diffs I had provided, including practically identical behaviour from almost a year ago. Your insistence that you understand what is going on is clearly indicating that you have not read the diffs. The edits you have made to this discussion are beyond useless. Until you can indicate that you have actually read the diffs and links provided, I urge anyone else reading this to pay not the slightest bit of attention to anything you have to say on this matter. → ROUX  23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)First, it's never wise to assume you know what his motives are. And second, if he created the image and is now removing it, what is the big deal here? If an editor makes an edit to an article, but then comes back and removes the edit and then puts in something else, or decides that the edit wasn't really a good one, who is to say he can't do that? Images come and go on Wikipedia. Nothing here is permanent. A week from now none of you will care about any of this.
Imagining what Xanderliptak's motives are appears to be the central problem here. There's a reason we have this guideline. Try it out in real life and you'll see what I mean. We can always assign motive based on our own prejudices and beliefs, but at the end of the day, we don't really know for certain what anybody's motive is, or is not. This whole thread was started based on an assumption that didn't take into account other things that might be going on. The previous arguments are now old. This new argument should have been addressed first on Xanderliptak's talk page and/or the various article talk pages. Not here. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
AGF is not a suicide pact. Again you are demonstrating that you have not familiarized yourself with the history. Addressing this problem with Xanderliptak directly would have been less than fruitful--again, if you had familiarized yourself with the history you would know this. Addressing the issue on 30+ talk pages would have been similarly useless. I beg you, stop inserting your uninformed commentary. It only obscures the situation. → ROUX  00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
History is past. Today is all you have. Forget about it and move on.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest that Malke moves on since he seems so spectacularly clueless about this issue. Jon (217.44.188.123 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC).
If you actually read some of the stuff Xander has said recently, you don't have to "imagine" his motives, as he's right out there with it. He was trying to apply the "moral right" principle to his little creations, and he was told repeatedly that it doesn't apply. Having finally apparently gotten that message, he's going through and trying to get them zapped on dubious grounds. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If a rights holder didn't really understand and intend the implications of a CC licensing for an image, then we have sometimes deleted the image. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If editors have had issues with that guy for a year, it's probably not that simple. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
That is, however, not his stated intention. He has stated, variously, that they 'were intended to be quick sketches and I will replace them one by one with better versions' (paraphrase, not his exact words, but very close; of course that still doesn't explain why he is seeking deletion. He could simply upload new versions over the old ones), and 'these images have caused trouble so I may as well remove them until the new versions are ready' (again paraphrase. And ignoring the fact that the images are not the problem, his behaviour is). These are things he has said on Commons, and I can provide diffs if requested, as he has said nothing on enwiki about his motivations. Moving back to the original point of this post: there are severe behavioural issues with Xanderliptak, namely:
  • Repeated application of WP:IDHT (visible in every recent dispute/discussion he has taken part in, both here and on Commons
  • Repeated allegations against fellow editors and refusal to provide diffs of the alleged behaviour despite repeated requests
  • Repeated misrepresentation of tenor, tone, and content of discussions and what other editors have said with, again, refusal to provide diffs backing up what he says despite repeated and unambiguous requests to provide same
  • Repeated refusal to provide references backing up what he has stated
  • Ownership behaviour of his images (diffs provided above setting the context as an ongoing issue for almost a year, not new)
  • I will provide diffs of all the above if asked, I just don't have the energy right now to comb through that many pages.
I don't deny that Xanderliptak has made valuable contributions. Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry is spotty at best, and it is one of those areas where visual cues are practically mandatory for understanding the subject. However, the above issues, none of which are new, are a distinct problem and need to be addressed in totally unambiguous terms. I had proposed an editing restriction for Xanderliptak to address some of those issues; Prodego's premature archiving of the thread prevented discussion that might well have prevented this set of circumstances from occurring.
Several other editors who have bothered to read the history here seem, unless I am mistaken, to agree that there is a problem. A solution needs to be found, please, to prevent further disruption. → ROUX  02:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Roux, there is an issue. I thought the dispute about one image was just getting resolved (leaving out three shields) - with an "out" provided on a silver platter - and I was disheartened when the dispute simply shifted to something else. I do think XL's image contributions are extremely valuable, but if XL wants to remove the images, my suggestion is to just let that happen. So long as XL only removes XL's own images and nobody else picks a fight, I suspect XL would eventually restore those or better images and the project will see a net benefit. And if that turns out to be false optimism, the issues get resolved another way. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I have zero faith whatsoever that those images will ever be replaced. My AGF reserves here are fully depleted. Also as a general principle I think it is a bad idea for Wikipedia to indulge the "I'm taking my toys and going home" behaviour when it comes to encyclopedic content. The precedent it sets for disgruntled editors to remove content they have contributed is... bad. → ROUX  03:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I have zero faith whatsoever that taking up this many kilobytes with what amounts to "Someone needs to talk to the user, but Roux has a past history with him" is conducive to anyone staying with the project. With regard to the deletion of images, if we're talking about him wanting to make a newer, better version, that's fine; I reverted the diffs linked above because I was under the impression the user was ragequitting over his inability to modify the licensing. If the images are going to be mass-deleted for whatever reason in the future, a bot should unlink them with an explanation. This will avoid confusion and have the added benefit of not annoying people with the articles on their watchlists. Recognizance (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The good thing is that Xander's edits were reverted - the images are back in the articles. I think just about all of his speedy deletions were overturned by the admins over on the Commons. It sucks when a contributor throws a hissyfit and spitefully starts destroying all their contributions as some sort of payback - holds their contributions/images hostage. That's where we need admins to step in and set the record straight - that you can't disrupt the project that way. Maybe this thread ought to be marked 'resolved' because really Malke is pointlessly winding Roux up. I think we should just leave this issue be, it's been dealt with. I doubt Xander will pull the same stunt again.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, if Roux is 'wound up' he did it to himself. It was Roux's choice to come here and make this complaint which doesn't need admin action. He could have done nothing, especially as Hamiltonstone didn't even want the image on the page in question. Roux could have waited. There's no emergency on Wikipedia, least of all with the deletion of images. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. And ignoring the obvious lack of WP:AGF, WP:CANVASS, and WP:HOUND, makes this thread seem like an even bigger hissyfit than anything Xanderliptak has done. Stop hounding the guy. Nobody here likes his images anyway.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, look. Three people now have told you that you don't know what you're talking about. I have pointed out repeatedly that you clearly haven't read any of the links or diffs provided. If you had, you would know that this is really not about the single page which Hamiltonstone is involved with, that was merely the first one where I noticed this problem. Could you please just shut up until you know what you're talking about? → ROUX  16:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I do see your points. But what I'm talking about is, you should not have come here as your first move. If you really want to start the process, start an RfC/U. Don't come here with every bit you find. Stop looking at his contributions. You're too involved here. I'm actually very sympathetic to you that you are so upset by this. I saw your request for an unblock and I felt very bad for you. But you're coming here first is not a good move. Do you see any admins here doing anything? Xanderliptak has disengaged on this thread. You should do the same. Everybody should do the same. For now, a good solution might be a self-imposed interaction ban, for say three weeks, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Facepalm. There is no other option for a first move here. Discussion with Xanderliptak is pointless. RFC/U is less than pointless, it's just a delay of a month while more disruption can occur. I looked at his contributions solely because I saw one weird removal and wanted to know what was going on. You really, really don't have a clue what is going on here, and what has been going on for almost a year. Please cease your uninformed commentary. → ROUX  17:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I have looked at all your diffs, etc. Believe, me, I know exactly what has been going on. Xanderliptak should stop removing images, and you should take a break from this. If you don't look at his contributions, you won't be upset. Let someone else notice things. And how do you know, maybe your comments have made an impression on him. Now it's time to wait and see.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke 2010. Xanderliptak has pissed off more than just Roux, and more than just Roux have been restoring all the images he has deleted from articles, declining all the speedies on commons etc. This isn't about two editors arguing, this is about one editor behaving in an out of order way by trying to control the onward disposition of images that they uploaded.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved party passing through: If other contributors have been pissed off then it would probably be best if they make the complaint and follow up on it. Rightly or wrongly, considering their history, Roux's reporting of Xanderliptak here and forceful argumentation against Xanderliptak after the initial notification can give the impression of hounding. Notice of Xanderliptak's actions has been give to the admins here; a continuing prosecution would seem to be unnecessary. Lambanog (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hard to argue with that. Xander certainly has pissed more people off, but it may well be that they have concluded that the horse is already dead. Perhaps it's time to close up here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Fine. The next time that Xanderliptak pulls something like this--and the next, and the next--I will bring up this thread and the last one, and remind you lot that you had a chance to stop the disruption but ignored it. This editor has attacked others, been rabidly dishonest about others, attempted to own content, been disruptive, etc etc etc, with total impunity. I suggest that admins familiarise themselves with the concept of 'enabling.' → ROUX  21:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Edit wars now occurring here, here, here, apparently over an effort to use Xanderliptak's versions of images instead of other versions. (And before anybody says anything tiresome about stalking, I have had User talk:Fry1989 on my watchlist since this edit, saw Xanderliptak's warning, and decided to take a look given Xanderliptak's penchant for... well, for being Xanderliptak). → ROUX  02:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, this section almost made it to the archive point, anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the item Xanderlip is edit warring to have removed, is the same entry he himself posted back in February. It's the same old story - ownership. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I find this concerning. :/ To an uninvolved party, it looks less to be edit-warring to remove something than to add something. The older image was altered at one point in August, with a "transparency added and secret watermark removed with gimp". The new image has been protested in part because it displays the artist's name. While Xander has shrunk the thumbnail to obscure it, it's still there. You can see it clearly here and here. Xanderliptak, you seem to be a talented artist; why not create an image that does not contain your signature since it is being protested? People who contribute text to Wikipedia--no matter how good their work--do not get to "sign" their articles. WP:WATERMARK indicates images should not "have any credits in the image itself." This is policy on Wikipedia. It seems like it would be a simple matter to comply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
        • See here. This is not a new issue; Xander has been told before that he's not allowed to sign his work. → ROUX  21:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Facepalm And that is enWiki specific. Roux, can you or anyone else point to a specific Commons guide/policy that would get Xanderliptak's contribs there removed and him a talking to by a Commons admin? In an odd way it may get him part of what he wants - his old images off of Wikipedia. (His release of the rights... well that's someone else's problem at that point.) But that is still a Commons argument waged in the wrong place. - J Greb (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
            • I have pretty clearly tried to stay away from Commons issues, saying as I did in my first paragraph that Commons issues needed to be decided on Commons. I have tried to focus on Xander's behaviour here, which is severely problematic in multiple ways. → ROUX  21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Watermark[edit]

I have reverted User:Xanderliptak's changes because of the credits embedded in the image, as this is against local policy. I have suggested he create a new version of the images without the problem, but also cautioned him about edit warring, as he has reverted several different contributors across these three pages. I know he has been blocked several times before for edit warring, but hopefully it will not be necessary this time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a watermark, the image does not have credits added nor is it distorted. It is a signature, so that policy does not apply here. It is also beyond the purview of the English Wikipedia to determine what may be uploaded to Commons.
Please note that both images used are my work. The image first used on the Ghana pages was deleted for copyright violation, so I created what was meant to be a temporary file and used that to meet the immediate need of an image, which was then replaced by the detailed image I recently finished. Fry1989 is edit warring merely because he uploaded the copyvio image again, which I found and brought to the attention of Commons admins, and he took it personally. He vowed to replace my work no matter what, apparently unaware that the image he used to replace my work was also my work. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
What is the current price of those images on the black market? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Wait, you think a signature is NOT a credit? Really?
Do what you like on Commons, but locally, en.wikipedia doesn't do credits -- which signatures, most assuredly, are -- so yes, which images are actually used on WIKIPEDIA is most certainly within the purview of Wikipedia. I'm sensing more convenient misunderstandings. --Calton | Talk 03:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

WTF is the black market?

Anyways, it is the purview of the English Wikipedia to launch an ANI about whether an image is uploaded to Commons with a signature? So Commons lets me sign my work, but if I do, I could receive punishment from admins on the English Wikipedia for doing something on Commons allowed by Commons? I am not seeing how this is exactly an issue here.

A signature is not the same as credit, though a signature does almost always give credit. A signature gives provenance to a work of art, which is legally understood to mean an artist claims the work his own by adding his sign to it. Credit merely states the parties responsible for a work and usually the role they played in creating it, and is done in a list form and not signed by every contributor. It is an odd discussion to have; that little yellow block is the signature, which is barely discernible anyways. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the overall situation, and really don't care, but the situation comes down to this: while the image may be perfectly acceptable on Commons, and may be useful for other Wikimedia projects and languages, if consensus or whatever else determines that an image is not acceptable in a given article on this project, then it doesn't have to be used. Just because an image resides on Commons does not mean it must be acceptable everywhere. I'm sorry that the local editors don't believe your image is useful here, but perhaps it will be used elsewhere. Huntster (t @ c) 05:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That is fine, but there has been no consensus or even discussion. The editor, Fry1989, making the change is upset that I noticed an image he uploaded was a copyright violation that had already been deleted from Commons. His actions are more retaliatory than anything; the reason he gave for removing the image which had already been in the article was to protect me from the Government of Ghana from either arresting or suing me here in the U.S., which clearly makes no sense because of jurisdiction issues and is a poor attempt at a reason. The other editor listed no reason for upholding Fry1989's revert. Both images are my work and one is inferior to the other, so I placed the superior image in the article. A clear reason for the edits; however, no reason given for the reverts by the two other editors. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The image has not been marked for deletion on Commons (well, not by me); it has been removed from Wikipedia articles. A definition of "watermark" you find elsewhere is irrelevant. This project's policy for image use is that "Free images should not...have any credits in the image itself". If you believe that policy should be redefined to allow content creators to imbed credits within their works, you need to recommend an alteration to policy and find consensus for it. Alternatively, if you believe the image is superior, you can remove the credit and it will no longer be a problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]

Obviously, there's a long-standing dispute, here; one that stretches back for months. So where are the attempts at dispute resolution? Where's the mediation? Where's the RFC? Please point to these things; because all that I'm seeing are a procession of attempts to mis-use this noticeboard as a club, some not-exactly-stellar discussions at User talk:Moonriddengirl and some other user talk pages, and a lot of Commons deletion discussions. Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The dispute appears to be about a contributor trying to own his contributions. What's the resolution to a situation like that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Uncle G. This is what I've been saying from the start. Using this noticeboard is not the place to begin dispute resolution, it's the end point. Start an RfC/U, otherwise, leave the guy alone.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It was probably to be hoped that could be avoided. But since the editor insists on putting his own spin on the rules at every turn, it will probably be necessary. What I don't get is why the author has such ownership issues, as if he were creating priceless works of art or something. If he were to put his little designs on eBay, they would probably bring in considerably less money than the average painting of Elvis on velvet, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
If you have nothing of value to contribute, don't contribute. Your entire attempts here have been to ridicule and provoke me, you add no value to the conversation. Perhaps it is you who has the spin on the policies (they are policies, not rules, there is a difference), or perhaps since everyone is coming to so many different conclusions as to what the policies mean, the policies need to be clarified. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The rules are clear enough, you just don't like them. So, how much would your precious drawings bring, if you were to try to sell them on eBay? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
They're only 11 by 8.5 inches, so about $400-$850 depending on which drawing. Why? Are you interested in some art? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Got any? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Noelemahc[edit]

PLEASE NOTE: This discussion was originally posted by 204.153.84.10 on the WikiProject Comics talk page. I've moved it here, as this seems like a much more appropriate place to discuss the situation. Friginator (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


I'm not sure if this editor is learning English, or if they just have bad grammar problems, but most of what they have been adding to articles has been difficult to read at best, and incomprehensible at worst. A few different editors have come along and tried to fix what they have written (not an easy task, guessing what they are trying to say), and I was content to help out. Then today, they began making comments like this, which seem to indicate that they feel other editors should be relied upon to fix the mess. I don't know about anyone else, but while I don't mind making corrections and fixes here and there, I don't have time to be checking all of someone's edits, especially when they respond with my criticism with a revert and somewhat rude edit summary. Just please, if you have the time, keep an eye on this editor's contributions, and help them understand why it is important to write intelligibly. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that the writing quality of the original text ("When Spider-Man has been away, Chameleon got the infant"?!) I'm not sure what the problem is. GDallimore (Talk) 06:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
My mistake, that poor text was added by the same user. I have no solution. Ignore me. GDallimore (Talk) 06:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a new user adding equally bad blocks of text. Is this a WP:DUCK case, trying to avoid scrutiny, or just a coincidence? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was someone learning English or who had bad English education I don't think you would see the confrontational attitude that editors have already posted about what he puts in the edit summary. Can this be considered vandalism and something he can be blocked for? Or do we as a group have to stalk his posts to try to correct his work, and hopefully correct his behavior eventually? Spidey104contribs 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't personally think this is vandalism, but it's certainly not constructive. I admit I've been watching his contribution history very closely, simply because many of his edits need to be reverted. This isn't a new problem, though. I've run into several other editors (mostly on comics articles, actually) whose English is deplorable. Whether this is a case of sockpuppetry, I have no idea. Also, it's important to note that Noelemahc's contributions aren't all nonconstructive. Friginator (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
A user whose name is "Chameleon" spelled backwards might be a sock? Ya think??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hah! I hadn't even noticed that. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I think he may even have a new sockpuppet: as Noelemahc Hpwertyumdxfghj's first edit. Spidey104contribs 13:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, so now we have two possible socks - time for SPI? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't create from other user.-Noelemahc (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Methinks thou dost protest much. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

MuZemike 21:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of antisemitism[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no admin action needed here at this time. Involved editors are advised to stay away from each other when possible. –MuZemike 23:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity has accused me of being an anti semite, I totally repute this and commented as such and as I know he simply doesn't like me and has attacked me personally before with comments such as I have no reading comprehension and other comments I struck the allegation and left him a note on his talkpage letting him know and informing him that I would report him if he repeated it and he has un-struck the antisemite allegation and replaced it. I should not be personally attacked in this way by a user, I would like the accusation struck, it is completely false and attacking. The section is here and the history here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

its out of line most likely and should be struck but it seems lost in translation. It looks like Nomo misinterpreted when Rob said the term "Jew" was kinda derogatory (Which i have certianly heard used that way). Nomo Seems to have over reacted by assuming it is he meant calling some one Jewish is Derogatory and there is nothing wrong with being jewish. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing at all out of line. I specifically did not say "Off2riorob is an anti-Semite". I said that believing that someone has to be protected from being called a Jew is to hold the view that being a Jew is somehow a problem and "verges on anti-Semitism". If one is not allowed to make that kind of observation on Wikipedia then this place has real problems. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You "specifically did not say x" is terrible way to defend your self as it translates to "gosh i was careful with the way i said it so I could avoid being call out on it." Implied statements often say alot more than explicit statement. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)The issue that turns up in many, many biographies here is whether someone's religion or ethnic group "has anything to do with anything". It certainly would be fair to call Myron Cohen a Jewish comedian, since much of his work centered around Jewishness. It would be less fair to Jack Benny, because all or most of his work was religion-neutral, i.e. he was a comedian who happened to be Jewish. I admit to sharing Rob's uncomfortableness with the term "a Jew", as opposed to "Jewish", but if you, who are Jewish, are OK with the term "a Jew", then we might be oversensitive. However, it calls to mind the Nazis painting the German word for "Jew" on Jewish storefronts. Except that does not necessarily impeach the word itself, but just the Nazis' usage of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Whilst Off2riorob's statement was clumsily phrased, it clearly wasn't anti-semitic in the slightest. It's fairly obvious what point he's trying to make. I would suggest that Nomoskedasticity strike that allegation. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
And editors opinions on these issues don't really matter do they. Content is based on sources. The time would be better spent improving Jew_(word)#Changes_in_use based on reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate the comment striking as I am in no way an antisemitic at all and where I work my account is known by people and such a weakly claimed allegation could well have real life issues, it is illegal in my area. Please retract it, if the user refuses to retract it imo it is a personal attack and he should be blocked. The discussion and issue has brought up points that we have unclear issues with at wikipedia and I fully intent to discuss the issue on a policy page, when I find the best location.Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You haven't shown any awareness that there is a problem in your attitude, and frankly I was thinking of starting a thread on AN/I myself about it. You have clearly implied that there is something wrong with referring to someone as a Jew. There isn't, and it isn't something to protect someone from. If you don't get that, then there's a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, my binary friends. Is it offensive to call someone a Jew? Yes. Is it an honorable and inoffensive thing to be called? Yes! Consider the following: "That Jew lawyer cheated me." Appropriate or inappropriate use? Or, "Mayor Bloomberg is a Jew who isn't particularly devout." How bout that one? Context kids.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Or Groucho Marx, in reference to himself and his brothers and their stage and film work, "We were just four Jews trying to get a laugh." That statement at once contains elements of pride and self-deprecation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well precisely. And to make it clear what is at stake here, Rob has a problem with the notion that Ed Miliband is a "British Jew". Context indeed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Bali ultimate ia heading this in a rational direction. Let's summarise. There is absolutely nothing wrong with BEING a Jew, but some racists and/or bigots DO use the term in a derogatory way. The second part of that sentence is NOT anti semitic in the slightest. It is anti racist. HiLo48 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I had a similar concern before when an unreferenced statement that an individual was gay was removed as an attack on the individual; it's unfortunate that calling someone gay could be considered a personal attack, but it's used as one frequently. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sadly the first meaning most kids learn for the word gay these days is the negative one, long before they have any understanding of sexuality. It would be much rarer, but would still happen in some circles for the word Jew. And I still hear occasional use of the word to negatively (but sometimes humorously intended) describe someone who is tight with their money. It's all in the context. HiLo48 (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
A wise person many years ago said, "Meanings are not in words; meanings are in people." It's not the word necessarily, it's how it's used. Kids nowadays say, "That's so gay!" the way kids in my generation said, "That's so queer!" So as a word, "gay" can be either good or bad, depending on who's using it. An extreme example is to hear one black person greet another with, "How you doing, you old n*gg*r?" in an affectionate way, but something very hurtful if I were to say it. (And by the way, "black" is also both pejorative and prideful, depending on how it's used.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Well, rather than the meaning of the word "gay" which the current generation uses (which I consider to be a completely different term really; I know plenty of people who use it synonymously with "lame", and harmlessly, but who aren't homophobic), I meant that stating that someone is homosexual is a BLP violation as it's contentious; I find it a little unfortunate that homosexuality is considered something which is offensive unless true (or indeed verifiable), but with homophobia still unfortunately prevalent, it has to be considered a BLP vio despite the fact that "heterosexual" wouldn't be considered one, and in fact would probably be considered implied if not stated otherwise. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Using it as a synonym for "lame" also suggests "unmanly", although it's possible those using it that way haven't really stopped to think what they're saying, it's just a popular expression. There has been a lot of progress in the last few decades, but until we get to the point where nobody cares, labeling a straight person as gay is still a slur. Labeling an openly gay person as straight is not exactly a slur, more like a joke... as in "pssst... Harvey Fierstein is a closet heterosexual... pass it on!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I regretfully agree that calling someone homosexual is taken as a slur whereas the inverse usually isn't, which is what I was getting at. Regarding the synonymity with "lame" though, I'm not referring to calling a person "gay" synonymously with "lame", rather an inanimate thing: "Maths is gay" or "Maths is lame". There's no implication that it's "unmanly", and I don't think there's any actual connection to homosexuality at all beyond the fact that the usage probably originally arose from homophobia, with kids calling everything negative "gay". Nowadays I don't think that's the case though, at least not in the context in which I've heard it. This is a bit of a tangential discussion though, so probably best to stick to the issue at hand. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, we had a misunderstanding. I think Rio and Nomo should both acknowledge they spoke in a way that was taken wrongly by the other person, whether they truly believe that or not. All in the interest of eliminating more drama. I can understand Nomo's point of view as a Jew (and yes, I use the word Jew for that is what I am, ethnically and religiously, being "Jewish" I personally hold for those that are religiously Jewish but are not ethnically, such as converts). As a Jew I get frustrated with individuals, who always are non-Jews btw, who think Jews need special protection and everyone needs to be on their toes and look out. We have survived your hatred on our own, so thanks but let us defend ourselves, if we dont want to be called something, if we find something offensive, if we dont like someone being labeled a Jew, trust me, we'll tell you; we aren't shy about telling those that do things we dont like where to shove it (just ask the Jordanian army, or the Syrian airforce, or the Lebanese, or the Egyptian, and so on and so on, so many wars in 52 years). I can also understand Rob being insulted by being called an anti-semite, I understand that would hurt and be quite insulting especially if you were trying to be helpful. I'm sure Rob understands there are REAL anti-semites here on Wikipedia whose only edits are to create or expand anti-Jewish propaganda pieces and he does not wish to be lumped in with them. Just as Im sure since Rob understands those editors are quite real that it is understandable the heightened level of security that Nomo may be editing under. So, in the words of the 20th century's greatest American philosopher- Can't we all just get along? Camelbinky (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I am not really interested in all that. User:Nomoskedasticity has personally attacked me with a vile insult and it is false utterly false. As I see it he is attempting to slur me to remove me from the discussion. Actually I thought for some time that he is an antisemitic as I have encountered him repeatedly adding negative content about Jews to multiple articles. I will tell you, in my real life no one insults me like that to my face and he shouldn't be supported in that here either. If he stood in front of me and said it I would beat the living daylights out of him, he wouldn't have the guts to say it to my face that is for certain.Off2riorob (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I think both parties need to acknowledge there was a misunderstanding. I think Nomoskedasticity should have AGF on your comment and asked, rather than assumed, what you meant. But such misunderstandings will happen in a text-only environment. The edit warring you admitted to in that same discussion probably didn't help in the AGF thing ("Well, a little warring is not the end of the world"). Can you both agree no one person was at fault here and move on? Hobit (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
      • If he stood in front of me and said it I would beat the living daylights out of him — Then that's part of the problem, here. You do not use non-violent and purely verbal means to address these problems outwith Wikipedia, and thus are stymied when they occur in a form where your only means to resolve them is non-violent and purely verbal. You talked about the image that your contributions here give to your co-workers, before. What image is what you are saying right here presenting to them? Battery may have "real-life issues" and may be "illegal in your area", too, remember.

        Nomoskedasticity said that xe considered your views to be verging on the anti-Semitic. You've refuted that, as a "vile insult" that is "utterly false". The next step, for civilized people, is not getting one's fists out. The next step, it seems to me, is clueing Nomoskedasticity in to the fact that boosterism — religious, nationalistic, academic, and even town — is a real problem at Wikipedia; and that we combat it by not going around labelling everyone with any religious, national, university, or town affiliation that we can find even just the barest of speculation for (just to show how great those LGBT Grand Fenwickian Buddhist graduates from Stanford University all are), but rather by applying high standards for the inclusion of such information. It doesn't pay to be pulling out the "I think that your views verge on the anti-Semitic." card in the face of people who want good sources and proper fact checking for statements of religious affiliations. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha, well said, thank you. I struck that comment, I was very upset. boosterism indeed.Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I shall sleep easier tonight for that. As for misunderstanding on my part -- perhaps. I certainly accept that O2RR did not set out to express an anti-Semitic view -- but then, who does? Unfortunately, what we have now from this editor is a succession of edits (at the article talk page and BLPN) using the phrase "Jewish blood", which I'm afraid only reinforces the impression that led to my initial comment. It is possible to verge on being anti-Semitic inadvertently, after all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Blood> Is it antisemite to mention Jewish blood, laughable, yawn. What a disgusting thing to claim that it is possible to be antisemite inadvertently, get over it. The issue is in your head only. Off2riorob (talk) 16