Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive650

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Smooth0707[edit]

This user nominated an article for speedy deletion. When I contested it, he deleted the "hang on" notice.[1] I'd like someone to tell him that this, and his general tone, are not appropriate.

He objected to a page move I made (I redirected 'bounty killer' to 'bounty hunter' and moved the original page to 'bounty killer (musician)). After several unapologetically blustering messages on the talk page and on my user talk[2], he nominated the new redirect for speedy deletion. BillMasen (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • You both have something to learn: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and the general basic English conventions that cover the capitalization of proper nouns. Smooth0707 thinks that the common noun bounty killer should not redirect to bounty hunter, having nominated it for deletion, and that's wrong. You think that the proper noun Bounty Killer should not be the person whose (stage) name that is, and that's wrong. Go and read our article title guidelines, both of you. They even say what to do in almost this specific sitation. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Done. BillMasen (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I had already left a note about removing the hangon tag but I suppose a extra note from an admin won't do any harm (JamesBWatson has left one). As for Uncle G's comment I don't think they quite describe the situation properly. After quite a long discussion (RfC) a year or two ago the wording of that convention was specifically decided on so as it allowed, but not require, disambiguation in this way. At the end of the day it's what causes less surprise to the reader that's important and one can easily imagine that one topic (say Topic Alpha) will be so much more searched for than the other (say Topic alpha) that a reader using Topic alpha is still more likely to want Topic Alpha than Topic alpha and hence Topic alpha should be a "redirect" to Topic Alpha. Hence the reason that this guideline says the disambiguation by capitalisation should not always happen. In this case I think the right decision has probably been reached. Dpmuk (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Prince William's wedding[edit]

Resolved: Articles merged and kept at AfD

Anybody want to be bold and deletehistmerge one of the duplicate articles on the subject while the AfD decides the existence of the other? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We've a problem folks. The duplicate article's AfD has a majority of 'keep', my assumption is that alot of editors there, aren't aware of the original article. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • There's only the one AFD discussion page. There weren't two. Both articles pointed to the same page. MickMacNee knew what xe was doing. And it's fairly easy to work out from, say, this what editors' intentions are in the event of there being just one article. ☺ Feel free to use the user talk pages of any editors, requesting them to revisit the discussion, whose opinions in the eventuality of there being just the one page to discuss aren't blazingly obvious. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Very tempted to propose an uninvolved admin pick one, move all content there, and salt the other. But that would be ignoring community based processes. But it would sure work.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be cleaning things up so that the community-based processes could actually work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPs that seem to be mostly vandalism[edit]

Resolved: Moved to WP:BLP/N

While looking through the contributions of a vandal I was reverting recently, I found vandalism to Ileana D'Cruz (a BLP; I reverted it and thought nothing more of it. However, I tend to look through changes to articles I've edited, to see how they've changed since, and found something worrying; not only was it frequently being vandalised, but in most cases, the version that was being vandalised was subtle vandalism itself. (For instance, upon seeing this suspicious-looking edit, my first thought was to revert; but I checked the references linked from the article and found that the actual date was something quite different (and additionally, one of the references given there didn't contain the date at all, and thus didn't reference the text). I'm still not entirely certain that my edit was correct, though; what if the source in question was lying?

More generally, the issue is that I'm no longer confident anything in the article is correct; the whole thing seems to be made out of layers on layers of vandalism, and references are only going so far in helping with this (I already had to blank a section as unsourced because I had no way to tell what the correct version was). By taking it here to AN/I presumably I have a chance of bringing more attention to the article (I suspect it's only me watching it, out of active/semi-active people, and I have no idea what to do with it...; if I had to handle it by myself, I'd reduce it to an over-sourced stub in the hope that at least then it would probably be accurate), but more worryingly, I think it's entirely possible there are other BLPs like this which nobody's looking at at all. (Note that, at first sight, the article appears entirely sensible; it's apparently sourced, etc.)

Does anyone here have suggestions for a) the article in question, b) the issue as a whole? --ais523 15:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • The same suggestion for both: There are people who hang out at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard who focus upon this very thing. See a problem with a BLP that's hard to pick apart, with potentially subtle and deep problems, that you want other people to look at; take it to the BLP Noticeboard. That's for both the specific and the general case. Uncle G (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll take this there. --ais523 16:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Catherine Smith (novelist)[edit]

Resolved: Thanks, folks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)

A determined anon has twice converted this little watched article into a page ridiculing a woman he dislikes. The initial vandalism lasted three yeas without notice, and was replaced shortly after I removed it. That the guy was still checking that his vandalism was intact after three years is disturbing as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think revdel is needed there. If it was you should email one of CAT:RFRD rather than advertising it here. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing RevDel worthy in the edits to that article. The "drama queen" part is just common vandalism. Stickee (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I doubt there's a need to RevDel on behalf of someone who's been dead for over a century. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I dunno; those dead types can get pretty surly... HalfShadow 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Just don't turn your back on them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I am seeking approval for a bot that will activate one day after my death and tell everyone on Wikipedia what I really think. I'm considering NoTravellerReturnsBot for the name, keep an eye on your watchlist (but hopefully you won't see it for a long time). Franamax (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The article has a banner saying it's an orphan. What would be an appropriate article to link it from? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • While the subject of the legitimate article is indeed long-dead, the target of the vandalism is living, and potentially recognizable from the information added to the vandalized version. Since the living person is apparently private, I think we should err on the side of caution and remove what appears to be ridicule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've indefinitely semi-protected, but because the name of the target of the vandalism (clearly not the article subject but a namesake) is fairly common and the nature of the claim pretty mild, I don't think RevDel is warranted. Rd232 talk 23:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Just for kicks, I spent a brief while searching for a good biographical source to cite for that article. I couldn't find one. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User Dead-or-Red edit warring and sockpuppetry[edit]

Dead-or-Red (talk · contribs) is engaging in a silly edit war at Taunton and now he isn't getting his own way is resorting to using a sock IP account (that has been used once before for edit warring) 94.173.226.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Several editors have been trying to engage in a civilised conversation about the inclusion of certain content within the article at Talk:Taunton#Notable_people_2. This editor persists in pushing his point of view by simply reverting other users, and in two cases completely blanking the article. The first time this was done I decided to AGF, especially as the user cited finger trouble on a smartphone, but then it happened again. Now the user has reverted to his sock account to once again revert the content instead of engaging in the discussion and reaching consensus. If you look at this editor's history you will see a pattern of disruptive editing. I'm not looking for a ban, just for someone to step in and stop the madness until a full and frank discussion can be had at the article's talk page.to reach consensus. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • The debate there is not quite as lame as the swimming pool debate from a few days ago, but it's definitely in the neighborhood. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Neighborhood swimming pool? –MuZemike 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sarcastic comments by a non admin on an admin page are not especially helpful. Lame or not, we are attempting to discuss content and reach consensus in the proper way, but are being hampered by this user. --Simple Bob (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • You could probably learn something about WP:LAME. It's a valid description of the overall argument going on over there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • So, you approve of sarcastic comments by an admin? Well, that is an example of equality in action in the "encyclopedia anyone can edit"... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Does wikipedia have any standards as regards who qualifies as a "notable resident" of a given city? Obviously, the citizen has to already be notable, so the core issue is defining what a "resident" is. What is the minimum number of days/weeks/months/years that are needed in order to qualify? Or is it on a city-by-city basis? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Even though we have some notable people already, if Stephen Spielberg moved to Ottawa, he would become a notable resident of the city on the very day the moving van unloaded his first Oscar onto his new mantle. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm sure that we have, and it looks like people are trying to apply them. Someone who has never verifiably been a resident of the place at all is not a notable resident, for example. Uncle G (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Another sock perhaps? 62.239.159.5 (talk · contribs) Same "vandalism by simple bob" comment - (diff) --Simple Bob (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pergamon[edit]

Resolved: Says he'll stop.

Acroterion (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Two of us are having persistent problems with an editor on Pergamon. He appears to be using IP sockpuppets which we are at loss to counter or report. See his actual name, possible sockpuppet, another possible sockpuppet

The problem, however, is editing waring. We agree on a untouched photo representing the monument. See our agreed photo. The other editor wishes to place a doctored photo which can be seen in the refs above. I have checked, and doctored photos (very artistic BTW) are contrary to policy.

We would agree to a total lock, but there is no point in locking in his changes which usually happens in these cases! :) He will just move on and not return until the article becomes unlocked. It is his only interest. Student7 (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • "Doctored" is an understatement. "Posterized to death" would be more like it. I have no problem with protecting the page with the encyclopedic image agreed upon by consensus and dealing with the edit-warring editor - this is close to image vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I've semi-protected the article for two weeks to keep the IPs under control and warned Omulazimoglu (talk · contribs); if he resumes, a block for edit-warring and disruption would be appropriate. He seems to be trying the same sort of thing in other articles, replacing encyclopedic images with his favored images, then reverting challenges to these changes. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I think that it's more subtle than that. According to the information for commons:File:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg the original uploader was tr:Kullanıcı:Mulazimoglu. The modified image commons:File:Pergamon, Turkey.jpg was uploaded by commons:User:Ozgurmulazimoglu who claims to be mulazimoglu on Flickr and who has been identified here as a sockpuppet of User:Omulazimoglu. This seems to be one person expressing ownership as to which of two images that xe uploaded is the proper one. And my goodness it should have been taken to talk pages a fortnight ago!

        commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alanyaancientshipyard.jpg makes for interesting reading, too, as it seems to demonstrate the conflict of value systems at work here. Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

        • I've been looking at this over at Commons too. I get the general impression that Omulazimoglu/Mulazimoglu is campaigning for FP status for many of these images and is placing them in articles here since actual use in an article is a criterion for FP. I don't see that for the modified Pergamon image - from his participation at Commons he really ought to know better. Acroterion (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Hello Guys. Do you really think that i am a bad guy on the criters of wikipedia family. If i am really doing more harm than good on wikipedia pls use other alternative. But i am feeling like i am being biten. I am contributing to wikipedia with lots of images and etc. Is that a bad thing? I have rights to make edits on the articles as every other user. Why i am the only one to be warned after an edit war? Is this fair? Or pls check out if you guys are fair? Thank you MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's right: he's being biten by criters. Only on Wikipedia, folks. HalfShadow 18:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • May you pls tell what you mean by this words? My english is pretty weak. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I was tempted to state that the correct phrase, as everyone knows, is "nibbled to death by cats", but I thought that that would only increase the confusion.

        I don't know why the Turkish Wikipedia banned you, but Commons is telling you that it wants free content images, and that its featured images actually have to be more than just easy on the eye, and the English Wikipedia is telling you that an encyclopaedia wants images that actually depict the things being discussed in the article, in their true colours. Uncle G (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added comments at Omulazimoglu's talkpage; as noted farther up by Uncle G, I don't think Omulazimoglu understands that this is an encyclopedia, not a gallery for interesting images. Acroterion (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia? Just noticed. Thanks Acroterion. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Suppression of request for comment at WP:MOSNUM[edit]

User:Greg L has twice removed a request for comment tag at WP:MOSNUM#Example of non-standard abbreviation for SI unit before a reasonable time for a significant number of editors to even become aware of the issue, much less for consensus to be established that the discussion is over. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • This is just an edit dispute. Jc3s5h’s conduct is bordering on tendentious disruption. He didn’t agree with a statement about “cc”s being used in “automotive” articles so the wording in the proposal was changed to one of “Honda motorcycle engines.” As shown here on WT:MOSNUM, he isn’t being told he can’t have an RfC; he’s being told the wording and basis for the old RfC is moot and if he disputes the facts behind the new wording, he simply needs to start a new RfC that speaks to the current wording. Greg L (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Hey,

      Took a quick look at this. It strikes me that removing the RfC tag was not appropriate, and probably violates Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. If you had a problem with it Greg L you could have explained it in response to the RfC. If the RfC was truly disruptive, take to ANI or the Etiquette pages. Bottom line is that you should be extremely cautious when changing anything another editor has put on a talk page. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

      • Yeah, content dispute. Though I would suggest that any editor suggesting that "cc" isn't the standard unit when discussing automotive engine capacity needs to have a good long look at their editing. This is an encyclopedia, not ascientific paper. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Closure of AfD for 2010 Shanghai Fire as it was on the Main page[edit]

Resolved: Closed as snow keep. Jehochman Talk 20:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can this be speed-kept please? There is a large consensus in favour and it was on the main page when the AfD request was made, which seems rather inappropriate. I've discussed it with HJ Mitchell on his talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I can't see why it should be closed early. There are a couple of valid deletes there, and having been on the main page isn't one of the criteria under speedy keep as far as I can see. AniMate 19:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It seems like it is at or is heading towards a SNOW keep though. NW (Talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Wait, one delete (not counting the nominator, obviously) counts as a couple of valid deletes now? I sure wish I had gotten that memo. ----Divebomb is not British 19:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • If the nominator gives a valid reason for deletion then yes, the nom plus another valid delete does = a couple of valid deletes. This is moot, though, as it's clearly going to be kept and should probably be closed (I've already commented, so can't). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Animate, there is only one other delete vote besides the nomination and it just cites WP:NOTNEWS. The only strong vote is the nomination one and no one seems to agree with that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
            • If it is closed can it be put back on ITN please? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Catherine Smith (novelist)[edit]

Resolved: Thanks, folks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)

A determined anon has twice converted this little watched article into a page ridiculing a woman he dislikes. The initial vandalism lasted three yeas without notice, and was replaced shortly after I removed it. That the guy was still checking that his vandalism was intact after three years is disturbing as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think revdel is needed there. If it was you should email one of CAT:RFRD rather than advertising it here. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing RevDel worthy in the edits to that article. The "drama queen" part is just common vandalism. Stickee (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I doubt there's a need to RevDel on behalf of someone who's been dead for over a century. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I dunno; those dead types can get pretty surly... HalfShadow 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Just don't turn your back on them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I am seeking approval for a bot that will activate one day after my death and tell everyone on Wikipedia what I really think. I'm considering NoTravellerReturnsBot for the name, keep an eye on your watchlist (but hopefully you won't see it for a long time). Franamax (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The article has a banner saying it's an orphan. What would be an appropriate article to link it from? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • While the subject of the legitimate article is indeed long-dead, the target of the vandalism is living, and potentially recognizable from the information added to the vandalized version. Since the living person is apparently private, I think we should err on the side of caution and remove what appears to be ridicule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've indefinitely semi-protected, but because the name of the target of the vandalism (clearly not the article subject but a namesake) is fairly common and the nature of the claim pretty mild, I don't think RevDel is warranted. Rd232 talk 23:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Just for kicks, I spent a brief while searching for a good biographical source to cite for that article. I couldn't find one. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User Dead-or-Red edit warring and sockpuppetry[edit]

Dead-or-Red (talk · contribs) is engaging in a silly edit war at Taunton and now he isn't getting his own way is resorting to using a sock IP account (that has been used once before for edit warring) 94.173.226.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Several editors have been trying to engage in a civilised conversation about the inclusion of certain content within the article at Talk:Taunton#Notable_people_2. This editor persists in pushing his point of view by simply reverting other users, and in two cases completely blanking the article. The first time this was done I decided to AGF, especially as the user cited finger trouble on a smartphone, but then it happened again. Now the user has reverted to his sock account to once again revert the content instead of engaging in the discussion and reaching consensus. If you look at this editor's history you will see a pattern of disruptive editing. I'm not looking for a ban, just for someone to step in and stop the madness until a full and frank discussion can be had at the article's talk page.to reach consensus. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • The debate there is not quite as lame as the swimming pool debate from a few days ago, but it's definitely in the neighborhood. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Neighborhood swimming pool? –MuZemike 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sarcastic comments by a non admin on an admin page are not especially helpful. Lame or not, we are attempting to discuss content and reach consensus in the proper way, but are being hampered by this user. --Simple Bob (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • You could probably learn something about WP:LAME. It's a valid description of the overall argument going on over there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • So, you approve of sarcastic comments by an admin? Well, that is an example of equality in action in the "encyclopedia anyone can edit"... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Does wikipedia have any standards as regards who qualifies as a "notable resident" of a given city? Obviously, the citizen has to already be notable, so the core issue is defining what a "resident" is. What is the minimum number of days/weeks/months/years that are needed in order to qualify? Or is it on a city-by-city basis? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Even though we have some notable people already, if Stephen Spielberg moved to Ottawa, he would become a notable resident of the city on the very day the moving van unloaded his first Oscar onto his new mantle. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm sure that we have, and it looks like people are trying to apply them. Someone who has never verifiably been a resident of the place at all is not a notable resident, for example. Uncle G (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Another sock perhaps? 62.239.159.5 (talk · contribs) Same "vandalism by simple bob" comment - (diff) --Simple Bob (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pergamon[edit]

Resolved: Says he'll stop.

Acroterion (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Two of us are having persistent problems with an editor on Pergamon. He appears to be using IP sockpuppets which we are at loss to counter or report. See his actual name, possible sockpuppet, another possible sockpuppet

The problem, however, is editing waring. We agree on a untouched photo representing the monument. See our agreed photo. The other editor wishes to place a doctored photo which can be seen in the refs above. I have checked, and doctored photos (very artistic BTW) are contrary to policy.

We would agree to a total lock, but there is no point in locking in his changes which usually happens in these cases! :) He will just move on and not return until the article becomes unlocked. It is his only interest. Student7 (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • "Doctored" is an understatement. "Posterized to death" would be more like it. I have no problem with protecting the page with the encyclopedic image agreed upon by consensus and dealing with the edit-warring editor - this is close to image vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I've semi-protected the article for two weeks to keep the IPs under control and warned Omulazimoglu (talk · contribs); if he resumes, a block for edit-warring and disruption would be appropriate. He seems to be trying the same sort of thing in other articles, replacing encyclopedic images with his favored images, then reverting challenges to these changes. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I think that it's more subtle than that. According to the information for commons:File:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg the original uploader was tr:Kullanıcı:Mulazimoglu. The modified image commons:File:Pergamon, Turkey.jpg was uploaded by commons:User:Ozgurmulazimoglu who claims to be {{flickr}} and who has been identified here as a sockpuppet of User:Omulazimoglu. This seems to be one person expressing ownership as to which of two images that xe uploaded is the proper one. And my goodness it should have been taken to talk pages a fortnight ago!

        commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alanyaancientshipyard.jpg makes for interesting reading, too, as it seems to demonstrate the conflict of value systems at work here. Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

        • I've been looking at this over at Commons too. I get the general impression that Omulazimoglu/Mulazimoglu is campaigning for FP status for many of these images and is placing them in articles here since actual use in an article is a criterion for FP. I don't see that for the modified Pergamon image - from his participation at Commons he really ought to know better. Acroterion (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Hello Guys. Do you really think that i am a bad guy on the criters of wikipedia family. If i am really doing more harm than good on wikipedia pls use other alternative. But i am feeling like i am being biten. I am contributing to wikipedia with lots of images and etc. Is that a bad thing? I have rights to make edits on the articles as every other user. Why i am the only one to be warned after an edit war? Is this fair? Or pls check out if you guys are fair? Thank you MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's right: he's being biten by criters. Only on Wikipedia, folks. HalfShadow 18:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • May you pls tell what you mean by this words? My english is pretty weak. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I was tempted to state that the correct phrase, as everyone knows, is "nibbled to death by cats", but I thought that that would only increase the confusion.

        I don't know why the Turkish Wikipedia banned you, but Commons is telling you that it wants free content images, and that its featured images actually have to be more than just easy on the eye, and the English Wikipedia is telling you that an encyclopaedia wants images that actually depict the things being discussed in the article, in their true colours. Uncle G (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added comments at Omulazimoglu's talkpage; as noted farther up by Uncle G, I don't think Omulazimoglu understands that this is an encyclopedia, not a gallery for interesting images. Acroterion (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia? Just noticed. Thanks Acroterion. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Suppression of request for comment at WP:MOSNUM[edit]

User:Greg L has twice removed a request for comment tag at WP:MOSNUM#Example of non-standard abbreviation for SI unit before a reasonable time for a significant number of editors to even become aware of the issue, much less for consensus to be established that the discussion is over. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • This is just an edit dispute. Jc3s5h’s conduct is bordering on tendentious disruption. He didn’t agree with a statement about “cc”s being used in “automotive” articles so the wording in the proposal was changed to one of “Honda motorcycle engines.” As shown here on WT:MOSNUM, he isn’t being told he can’t have an RfC; he’s being told the wording and basis for the old RfC is moot and if he disputes the facts behind the new wording, he simply needs to start a new RfC that speaks to the current wording. Greg L (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Hey,

      Took a quick look at this. It strikes me that removing the RfC tag was not appropriate, and probably violates Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. If you had a problem with it Greg L you could have explained it in response to the RfC. If the RfC was truly disruptive, take to ANI or the Etiquette pages. Bottom line is that you should be extremely cautious when changing anything another editor has put on a talk page. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

      • Yeah, content dispute. Though I would suggest that any editor suggesting that "cc" isn't the standard unit when discussing automotive engine capacity needs to have a good long look at their editing. This is an encyclopedia, not ascientific paper. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Closure of AfD for 2010 Shanghai Fire as it was on the Main page[edit]

Resolved: Closed as snow keep. Jehochman Talk 20:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can this be speed-kept please? There is a large consensus in favour and it was on the main page when the AfD request was made, which seems rather inappropriate. I've discussed it with HJ Mitchell on his talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I can't see why it should be closed early. There are a couple of valid deletes there, and having been on the main page isn't one of the criteria under speedy keep as far as I can see. AniMate 19:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It seems like it is at or is heading towards a SNOW keep though. NW (Talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Wait, one delete (not counting the nominator, obviously) counts as a couple of valid deletes now? I sure wish I had gotten that memo. ----Divebomb is not British 19:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • If the nominator gives a valid reason for deletion then yes, the nom plus another valid delete does = a couple of valid deletes. This is moot, though, as it's clearly going to be kept and should probably be closed (I've already commented, so can't). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Animate, there is only one other delete vote besides the nomination and it just cites WP:NOTNEWS. The only strong vote is the nomination one and no one seems to agree with that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
            • If it is closed can it be put back on ITN please? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

86.144.119.244 talk page abuse[edit]

Resolved: User re-blocked
What part of deny recognition is not understood here?

A recent edit on 86.144.119.244's talk page done by 86.144.119.244 which is visible here clearly shows they may need talk page editing removed for the duration of the block. While typing this the user restored the edit reverted here and 86.144.119.244 continues to remove the block message. Barts1a (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

IP already blocked. TbhotchTalk C. 00:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Dynamic IP at Leonora Piper[edit]

Over several months, a single purpose account using a dynamic IP to avoid 3RR has been tendentiously inserting POV content into Leonora Piper consisting of personal attacks against Martin Gardner or fringe material from unreliable sources and links to blog polemics that refute Gardner's criticism of Ms. Pipers alleged psychic powers. The IP has occasionally engaged in limited Talk page discussion, however appears to be unwilling or unable to understand NPOV and WP:FRINGE in particular, so the problem persists.

189.122.96.111 (talk · contribs) 189.122.96.172 (talk · contribs) 189.122.97.205 (talk · contribs) 189.122.117.38 (talk · contribs) 187.67.99.6 (talk · contribs) 189.122.115.134 (talk · contribs) 187.67.101.131 (talk · contribs) 187.67.98.124 (talk · contribs) 187.67.100.98 (talk · contribs) 187.67.108.247 (talk · contribs) 187.67.109.102 (talk · contribs) 187.67.97.96 (talk · contribs)

Not sure if this is the right forum for this, and I apologize in advance for any mistakes in procedure. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page semi-protected for a period of 3 months by Courcelles (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Revdel question[edit]

Resolved. Access Deniedtalk to me 03:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Would an edit summary of "You are Jewish" in a vandal edit to my userpage qualify under RD2? Access Deniedtalk to me 20:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(non-admin) It could be considered WP:OUTING I suppose (though I assume it wasn't meant as such). DC TC 20:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thing: could an admin remove this user from listusers? Access Deniedtalk to me 20:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • um. I thought moving the page would do that. It seems it didn't. Rd232 talk 20:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No, one couldn't. We don't have the capability. You need a bureaucrat or a steward. Uncle G (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Check user would probably advisable as well block the underlying IP that is nasty stuff The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I've salted the title. Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I can still see the "message" left on <Link removed>. I'd say this is a case for oversight.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The "Nigger jew" one is just trolling; the edit summary on my userpage should probably be oversighted. Access Deniedtalk to me 22:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
A steward needs to globally lock the one account to remove its name (or a crat can rename it) and I don't know if the "You are Jewish" qualifies to be oversightable, unless someone is legit trying to out you. I have RevDel'd it for now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "You are Jewish" doesn't seem to be an WP:OUTING; it's not personally-identifiable information. The username certainly seems "grossly insulting, degrading or offensive" though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It would be if the user in question was trying very hard not to let that fact be known, in the case that it made him/her vulnerable to threats in real life. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed the bureaucrat mailing list. Access Deniedtalk to me 00:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Дунгане/Arilang1234[edit]

Hi folks:

Дунгане (talk · contribs) has raised, on my talk page, what I believe to be serious questions of whether Arilang1234 (talk · contribs) was improperly using derogatory racial epithets against Manchus — which, if true, I think, would violate the pillars on civility and neutral point of view, to say the least. Right now, I am in no shape either personally (my father just recently passed away) or professionally (my schedule had been left a complete mess due to this) to sort this situation out. Since I do think this is a serious issue, I would appreciate that someone else look into the issue and either clear Arilang1234 or warn him if warning is necessary; further, if no action is warranted against Arilang1234, then I think Дунгане should be firmly told the reason why. Right now, as I said, I am simply in no shape personally to step between them. Action on this would be appreciated. (I will notify them per {{ANI-notice}} that this thread is open..) --Nlu (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 is seriously suggesting that Manchus are barbarians, and that these words should be used to describe Manchu people. As far as I'm aware of wikipedia policy, this kind of consistent behavior, especially after User:Arilang1234 was severely berated and warned about his racial slurs against manchus, and personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, warrants an immediate admin action to be taken. He just made his comment about manchus yesterday, the "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians" is over a year old, it seems he hasn't learned his lesson. He was warned about his racist edits another warning about Arilang's racism and personal attacksДунгане (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
the following edits are blatant racism- Arilang1234 accusing manchus of being barbarian and savage, encouraging the inserting of the material into wikipedia article. [3] [4] [5](note: these are old edits, which i post here to show that Arilang1234 has not changed his behavior)Дунгане (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Arilang1234 also is pulling original research out of thin air, arbitrarily claiming that Manchus are not chinese, and conducting a personal attack on me by saying that since i inserted the word "chinese" into the article to describe the army of Imperial Qing dynasty China, that i was "chatting on internet forum"
another personal attack on me, accusing me of speaking "pidgin english", yet i see nothing that indicates that i am am editing wiki articles with "pidgin english"
i present Arilang1234's earliest edits on the article again, to contrast on how he has not changed his racist POV against manchus, from 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaricДунгане (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of comments by arilang1234 containing racism and personal insults, but i will not bog this thread down with a list.Дунгане (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
the main issue here, was made in the topmost comment by me, that arilang1234 is currently suggesting that manchus are barbarians, apparently warning him hasn't worked in the past, given his previous racist edits, it comes as a shock his account was not blocked for his earlier comments, he received only one block for violating edits on a BLP article. Since he hadn't received any blocks for his racism, he hadn't learnt his lesson. He claimed to have "apologized" in 2009 regarding his language and racism, personal attacks, and calling manchus barbarians, yet he does not seem to have been sincere, and continues with his racism and personal attacks regarding my english speaking ability.Дунгане (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Arilang1234 has never been blocked for his earlier racist edits, he only received on block for a BLP violation.Дунгане (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "China's response to the West: a documentary survey, 1839-1923"

http://books.google.com/books?id=0maVJuCh78oC&pg=PA268&dq=Manchu+Emperors+as+barbarian&hl=zh-CN&ei=7G_jTLXoC42muQPOyujGDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Manchu%20Emperors%20as%20barbarian&f=false

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talkcontribs)

As I said, I have insufficient ability to look into this right now, but I will observe this: Fairbank's book was written in 1954, back when a lot of speech that is now considered completely unacceptable was considered completely acceptable. (The N word comes to mind.) Further, Fairbank was not required by anyone to comply with Wikipedia's five pillars. We are. --Nlu (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The above quote is from Tongmenghui, the predecessor of Kuomintang. The then revolutionary slogan is well known among nearly all the Han Chinese:"To expel Tatar barbarians and to revive Zhonghua, to establish a republic, and to distribute land equally among the people." (Chinese: 驅除韃虜,恢復中華,創立民國,平均地權). User Nlu, are you saying it is OK for 1900 Han Chinese to call the Manchus "Barbarians", and it is not OK for 2010 Wikipedians to use "Barbarians" as an adjective for 1900 Manchus of the 1900 Boxer Rebellion times? If you read carefully User:Дунгане's comments, he is saying that: Quote:"User:Arilang1234 is seriously suggesting that Manchus are barbarians, and that these words should be used to describe Manchu people." Unquoted. Well, I have never ever made such a statement. This accusation is both false and malicious. All the time, when I use the "Barbarians" to describe the Manchus, is within the context of Boxer Rebellion, Tongmenghui, and Anti-Qing sentiment, and of course, Hua-Yi distinction. All these articles are about Chinese History, and none of them are so called "attack or hate articles". I have never been involved in any racial attacks when editing Wikipedia, and I personally do not hate Manchus. All my wiki edits are Chinese politic and Chinese History oriented, anyone can see it from my Wiki homepage. During my 26 months of Wiki editing, many editors with good faith help me along the way, and I admit I still need more help from more editors, so that I can become a better editor. I try to extend the same good faith to User:Дунгане to help him to improve his English(and myself is not a native English speaker), but unfortunately, User:Дунгане began to accuse me of being a "Racist" against all the Manchus people. He need to present some solid evidence for this false accusation to stick. Arilang talk 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

quote from arilangNo, I do not agree with you. If you read through Chinese history, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that Manchu was the most murderous barbarians of them all. Before I always thought that Mongols killed the most human beings in human history, but after doing research on internet, now I know that when it comes to Genocide, mass murders, ethnic cleansing, whatever you call it, Manchu beats everyone to it. Nazi Germans, Imperial Japan, Ghengis Khan, come nowhere near it. We all should be really really proud of them, because they still are one of the five main races of China.(sarcastic ?) User:Arilang1234| Arilang User talk:Arilang1234|talk 17:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

::@Benjwong, I may have overtagged, when it comes to the subject of history, we need to be more firm towards lies and cheats. Do you follow internet news Benj? There is this guy by the name of 阎#年, he is 72 yrs old yet was slapped in the face in public! Because he shamelessly advocate Manchus rule on CCTV. If I happen to be there, I personally will throw some rotten eggs on his face.User:Arilang1234|Arilang1234 User talk:Arilang1234|talk) 08:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 also created an article which was deleted, "Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom", He move the article to "Massacres and Atrocities committed by barbarian Manchu rulers "

I'd advise you people to look at earlier threats at ANI in which Arilang1234 was warned for his vandalism on the Boxer Rebellion articleagain he was reported for his "bizarre" and "incoherent" editsДунгане (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

An additional point I will observe: again, WP:NPOV is paramount, and it dictates this: I may be able to write an advocacy paper or even a book arguing that ECFA is good for Taiwan and that the Democratic Progressive Party is pushing Taiwan toward financial suicide by opposing it. But in Wikipedia, if I were editing the ECFA article, I cannot write it as an advocacy paper or book; it has to be written in an NPOV manner and cannot be advocacy-based. --Nlu (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
(this comment addressed to User:Arilang1234) it is obvious from the tone and manner of your comments, that you did not use the word "Barbarian" academically, like John King Fairbank is using to describe nomadic peoples, but you used it with the intention of implying that manchus were somehow uncivilized, and inferior. POV against ethnic groups is not allowed by wikipedia policy. and in addition, wikipedia doesn't work like "if they do it, why cant we?". Wikipedia follows its own set of policies designed to enforce neutral POV.Дунгане (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
To quote user Дунгане:"it is obvious from the tone and manner of your comments, that you did not use the word "Barbarian" academically, like John King Fairbank is using to describe nomadic peoples, but you used it with the intention of implying that manchus were somehow uncivilized, and inferior. " WOW, user Дунгане has became a sort of Psychic who is into "intention" and "implication". Well, would user Дунгане be able to guess what I might be doing next, is it (1) Go to have my lunch (2) Go to have a pee? Arilang talk 03:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

False and illogical comments of[edit]

Talk:Boxer Rebellion#Response to User:Arilang1234's slurs against Manchus

Obviously, Дунгане's illogical and cheap accusations need to be stopped by someone :"so according to Arilang1234 we have to add this racial slur to every article on jews, since Arilang1234 thinks that the opinions of ancient writers should be inserted into the article, he also probably thinks that Nazi theories on race should also be inserted into articles on other races." Дунгане, spreading Innuendo remarks by implying that I am sympathetic towards Nazi does not work, you need to do better than that. Arilang talk 04:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Direct evidence of Arilang1234's edits spewing racist hatred toward manchu[edit]

quote from arilangNo, I do not agree with you. If you read through Chinese history, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that Manchu was the most murderous barbarians of them all. Before I always thought that Mongols killed the most human beings in human history, but after doing research on internet, now I know that when it comes to Genocide, mass murders, ethnic cleansing, whatever you call it, Manchu beats everyone to it. Nazi Germans, Imperial Japan, Ghengis Khan, come nowhere near it. We all should be really really proud of them, because they still are one of the five main races of China.(sarcastic ?) User:Arilang1234| Arilang User talk:Arilang1234|talk 17:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC) ::@Benjwong, I may have overtagged, when it comes to the subject of history, we need to be more firm towards lies and cheats. Do you follow internet news Benj? There is this guy by the name of 阎#年, he is 72 yrs old yet was slapped in the face in public! Because he shamelessly advocate Manchus rule on CCTV. If I happen to be there, I personally will throw some rotten eggs on his face.User:Arilang1234|Arilang1234 User talk:Arilang1234|talk) 08:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 also created an article which was deleted, "Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom", He move the article to "Massacres and Atrocities committed by barbarian Manchu rulers "

I'd advise you people to look at earlier threats at ANI in which Arilang1234 was warned for his vandalism on the Boxer Rebellion articleagain he was reported for his "bizarre" and "incoherent" editsДунгане (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

2nd appeal[edit]

We've been here before. Both of you please stop throwing "barbarian," "savage," "Nazi," "racist", or anything else from similar vocabulary-lists around. Don't post another wall of text here. Don't defend yourself. Don't accuse the other. Just stop it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason this came up again, was noted in the first comment by me, was that User:Arilang1234 again accused Manchus of being barbarians, he still insists on pushing that term into article mainspace. He was warned over one year ago as i noted in my above comments for inserting "Barbarian", and insulting other ethnic groups, yet he still continues to do so. Action against him is required for this to stop. He wasn't blocked for his original slurs in his first edits, this may have been a factor in him thinking that he is above wikipedia policy.Дунгане (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Not only that, he refused to acknowledge he is doing wrong, and defends his edits where he calls them barbarian. Дунгане (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Dungane, are you going to stop? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Enough is enough. I suggest a 1 edit block on both parties if either address any of the terms Seb lists above, or anything essentially similar. Extend this restriction for 90 days. If further issues arise, address within this context. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Posting of a 419 scam[edit]

Is it standard procedure to contact someone to report abuse for an IP that posts a 419 scam? It's an Ivorian IP, and inexplicably the user decided to post at RD/C (diff for admins). Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. You're unlikely to get a meaningful response. Where on earth did a six month hardblock come from though? -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
These always make me laugh, except that some idiot ends up falling for them. I don't know that revdel was necessary, though I won't formally object. No problem with the hardblock, either. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Musicintime[edit]

Musicintime (talk · contribs) Single-purpose-account for promoting Matthias Manasi, who repeatedly uploaded copyvios to commons. He then includes this picture in the article of his protégé. He already received a warning in Commons but seems to be ignorant. Thus he was blocked. I consider this account to be expendable. -- Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 09:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: The account seems to be a re-incarnation of the blocked user Operamadrid (talk · contribs). See also global contributions. -- Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 09:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Musicintime indefblocked for the repeated copyvios. Operamadrid was soft-blocked for having a promotional username; I guess it could be argued that rather than requesting the change they just made a new account, but their lack of communication makes that difficult to ascertain. I've tagged both accounts with sock templates anyway, but if anyone feels this is OTT please go ahead and remove them :) EyeSerenetalk 14:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This user also removes maintenance tags relating to notability and sourcing problems, e.g. [6] and any attempt to clean up promotional language both in Matthias Manasi and International Punta Classic Opera Festival (singularly non notable Festival which has produced exactly one opera) of which Manasi is the Music Director. I'm not sure whether this account is expendable, but he/she certainly needs a stiff warning or two.

    I suspect another incarnation is Espagna2020 (talk · contribs) who similarly removes tags, e.g. [7]. Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am admin on de.wp and we decided to indefblock the German SUL-account. However, he can still edit his disk. So if he is still interested in contributing to WP according to our rules, he may contact us and we might consider unblocking him. But my educated guess is, he will just get a new account and continue on his course. -- 15:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wo st 01 (talkcontribs)
Thanks Voceditenore. I've sent Espagna2020 the same way as Musicintime, though that looks like it was a throwaway account. It may be that because the original Operamadrid account block was soft (ie username only, no IP autoblock) it facilitated the creation of these alt accounts. Hopefully that's now been remedied with the hardblocks on the others... but I guess we'll see. If article protection would help, feel free to drop me a note (I notice that the articles are largely unsourced). Thanks also Wo st 01 for your report and your diligence in chasing this guy around :) EyeSerenetalk 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Request review of my comment at an RfC[edit]

Not sure if this is a better question for here or for a civility review ... but I am stressed in the real world at the moment, and would appreciate a reality-check to see if others feel my comment crossed the line. I don't think so, but would appreciate additional input.

Can someone review my comment here during an RfC at Talk:Prank call? My opinion is that my statement was accurate and if anything, could have reasonably been more direct about potential issues there - but after a good-night's sleep, I thought more on the anon's reply to my comment and my reply to the anon, and began thinking that I should ask if others feel I should strike part of the comment. --- Barek (talk) - 17:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess that 74.72.154.158 and ManofThoth are the same individual, but that aside I think the comment was unnecessarily acerbic. Refactoring would be the adult thing to do. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, if my judgement is out-of-whack on that, then it may be best that I take a wikibreak until the real-world stress passes (should be resolved in the next few weeks - I hope). --- Barek (talk) - 19:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Peace is contagious[edit]

Resolved: He can still simply retract it and promise no future threats in order to get unblocked.

Peace is contagious (talk · contribs) has made a legal threat to "sue for libel" here. Despite being asked to retract it by Doc9871 (talk · contribs) here, the user has not. Yworo (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm not (Kyle Baker) the subject in question over the line 'I lie all the time', I was informed that I cannot sue (anyone) for libel. So this issue is moot. And the line seems to now be in context within the article, instead of randomly placed near the end. Yworo seems to be an over-zealous comic book fan. (SIGH) Cheers! Peace is contagious (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Peace you have been asked to remove it, unless you do that and retract it, you will likely be blocked (again) wikipedia takes legal threats very seriously. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Near of the end of User talk:Peace is contagious, at 16:53, 16 November 2010, 40 minutes after the above, User:Peace is contagious again makes legal accusations against me: "Mr Tenebrae seems to be a bit slack w/ his Wiki edits, if not even libelous. I suggest u take a few law school classes urself, sir."
As someone who has indeed taken classes in journalism and the law, I can tell you the first thing you learn is, "Truth is not libelous."
In any event, Peace is contagious himself expanded on the quote and moved it to a section of the article where it fits perfectly well. He did this at 15:16, 16 November 2010 — so even after doing so, when presumably the quote is no longer an issue with him, he specifically returned an hour and half later to made his accusation against me. That just seems gratuitous and a late shot, for no reason other than to maliciously attack another editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd point out the irony of someone with the name "Peace is contagious" threatening anyone with anything, but I think you all get it. HalfShadow 17:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I think with the excuse that the editor isn't somebody else doesn't matter. A threat to sue is there and not retracted so I think no legal threats needs to be applied to get the point across much stronger. This is not a game to play which is what it is starting to look like with doing it again an hour and half later. Make sure this time it get through, no legal threats are allowed, period. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Legal threats are not to be tolerated, and the editor refuses to retract. So why is the editor not yet blocked? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, that is indeed a very good question Bugs. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
And now answered by an admin. He gawn (until or if he retracts). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Though currently banned, he's still threatening me[edit]

In [his latest post (scroll down), User:Peace is contagious again threatens me ("He SHOULD fear being sued").

In addition, he calls me and other editors names, and makes fun of an editor's person's appearance ("C'mon look at the picture of the dude who blocked me").

I have serious qualms about this person. He's been asked by several editors to be civil, he's been linked the policy / guideline, which he dismisses as "not set in stone," and shows contempt for Wikipedia and its editor, to wit: "obviously if these people were 'smarter' they wouldn't be wasting time on Wikipedia."

He has caused nothing but disruption. His posts have done little but spew venom and weirdly rambling diatribes. I believe reasonable consideration can be given to a long-term ban (his indefinite ban can be lifted if he retracts his legal threats, which leaves his insults free and clear) or a block. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"I'll remove the comment, simply cuz I want to edit other pages, but I'll put it right back if anyone should choose to be irresponsibly libelous, as it should be" sounds pretty "unpromising". This was in this latest post, and the original threat still remains (despite extensively refactoring the comments of others yet again). Doc talk 21:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I have advised him that if he repeats that kind of edit, I will remove access to his talkpage.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Not only that, but moments after Elen of the Roads posted, Peace is contagious deleted that and the last several posts that civilly and quite politely requested him to remove his legal threats and his insults, name-calling, and making fun of people's appearance. But he deleted all that here and left only his own remarks, which, now out of context, makes it appear that because non-admin are commenting that he does not have need to listen to comments/requests for policy-adherence and civil behavior. I honestly don't see any reason for him to continue haranguing others as if by right.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
He also deleted a post from Elen (which she repeats above), who had failed to sign her post. It's fairly clear he has no intention of changing anything on his end. Might be starting to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have taken something of a flyer and unblocked him. I think he removed my post in error, I think he also misunderstood the non-hierarchical nature of the Wikipedia community. If my faith is misplaced, you have my permission to hit me with a wet fish Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks based on nationality[edit]

Resolved

Hi,

I was trying to avoid this but now this has gone off limits. So here is the deal:

There is some discussion about which pictures should be included in the History section of the article Arc de Triomphe. This started on September 26th when DIREKTOR added the image File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-126-0347-09A, Paris, Deutsche Truppen am Arc de Triomphe.jpg to this section. This image depicts German troops marching on the Champs-Élysées with the Arc de Triomphe in the background. Some heated discussions and reverts happened next, actions that I did not take part in.

The result of these discussions were that 3 images stayed in the history section, leaving this section over-imaged. Also these images were all depicting events from the 20th Century remotely connected with the Arc de Triomphe itself. (see the article at this state).

I then decided to be bold and try a new set of images for this section, depicting events more closely related to the Arc, namely a drawing of the project by the architect of the Arc himself (File:Arc de Triomphe de l'Etoile - Projet Chalgrin - 02.jpg), and a drawing of the return of the ashes of Napoleon (File:Retour des Cendres - 1.jpg), Napoleon being the one that ordered the construction of the Arc.

I knew these changes would be controversial but did justify them in the discussion page of the article ([8]) and did personally notify the 2 contributors involved in this edit war ([9] and [10]). I was also prepared to have these changes modified but was not prepared for what happened next.

DIREKTOR started to be arrogant and insulting me. This is how he commented my contribution : "Rv (badly disguised ;)) image censorship." ([11]) and this is how he commented is addition to the talk page : "Nice try" ([12]).

He has falsely accused me of removing discussions from Frania Wisniewska talk page. ([13]). He also accused me of considering other contributors as "stupid". ([14])

All this attacks against me made me decided me to set up a request for comments on that issue so that it could be finally settled with more than 2 contributors. I made sure to present the issue in the most objective way I could. ([15])

DIREKTOR once again misunderstood my request for comments by claiming that I have an "agenda" . ([16]) For this he cites a discussion between me and Frania_Wisniewska which happened prior to the RfC. I did not discuss this RfC with anyone so I am wondering what agenda DIREKTOR is mentioning. He also mentions my presumed "patriotic sentiment". ([17]) He goes on with calling me a patriot Frenchman as part of the "patriot Frenchmen" he mentions. He uses an arrogant tone by using the expression "you and your buddies". ([18])

In conclusion, in this issue I wanted to improve the article by correcting the layout and the chronology of the pictures. I knew there would be discussion over this change but justified my changes and notified people. When the discussion stopped because of attacks over my nationality, I opened a RfC only to have DIREKTOR come back to his rant against the French people. Badzil (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • LOL, you made my day. Thanks for the chuckles... buy don't we have a policy on edit warring. Although he is now into personal attacks. Well see what the admins do about it. --Hinata talk 01:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I do not complain on edit warring, I complain solely on the issue of personal attacks. The edit war should hopefully be settled by the RfC. Badzil (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Is 'patriotic Frenchman' really an insult? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Of course not, this is a content dispute ad hominem report. I did not insult anyone nor will I. The user needs to read WP:NPA more carefully before trying to get rid of me. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • While not weighing in on the particular issue at hand, it's worth mentioning that in some languages and some cultures, calling somebody a patriot is offensive. In (most? all?) English-speaking cultures that is not the case, but "patriot" carries very different connotations in different languages, sometimes with a considerable "nationalist/extreme right-wing" tinge. I don't know what the situation is with French, however. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • For background, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#Content removal. Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I certainly do believe it is obvious a group of French users is ganging-up to remove a (very famous) photograph image of German troops marching in Paris - from several articles. And I do believe this is the (dare I say it? :) agenda of those users. The image had already been removed from the lead of the Battle of France article contrary to previously established consensus, and now the same is being attempted at the Arc de Triomphe article. Likely there are more examples.

The user is trying to get me blocked for opposing his edits based on my statements of the above. Instead, I would like to invite you guys to have at this strange mess [19]. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • One of the user(s) there claims there is a conspiracy against the French military. They have also complained in the past that that iconic image of the Nazi troops marching near the Arch of Triumph is somehow connected with support of the Nazis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
French Military? You mean the national running team? (I kid, I kid) HalfShadow 21:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Talk of various conspiracy theories doesn't seem very helpful here, nor grouping users together according to their presumed nationality. There are compelling reasons for the prominent use of this picture in articles like the Battle of France. There is an obvious irony, however, in using it with WP:UNDUE prominence in an article about a French triumphal arch, since it shows a moment in history which was decidely not about a French triumph. In an article about an architectural feature, is this not just trying to make a WP:POINT? For comparison I looked at Eiffel tower where there is a very balanced set of pictures and detailed content about the German occupation. As far as "iconic images" go, the victory parade of De Gaulle qualifies just as much. The images have been moved around a lot lately: my proposal would be to gather relevant images, including this one, in a gallery, with detailed captions. Mathsci (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC) [Multiple disclosures: I have contributed to an article about another triumphal arch in France, the Porte d'Aix. I am not a member of the French military or any other category that might come to mind. I have received money from the French state.]
      • One can take it personally or one can accept that that is certainly one of the most famous historical photographs of the arch - and also the only one which shows it being used in its actual function. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please prove that I am part of an agenda to remove that image. I stated on DIREKTOR's talk page that this is indeed not my goal. And how does the creation of a request for comments show my non-acceptance of the fact that the picture is "one of the most famous historical photographs of the arch"? How about letting users comment in terms of relevancy without again starting a nationality-based rant? Finally apologize for your false accusation of me deleting discussions and remove it from the talk page. Badzil (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

All sorts of interesting images could be put in a gallery without endlessly discussing their relative merits and demerits—that's always subjective. As far as French sensibilities are concerned, perhaps the issues with this image might be similar to those with equally "iconic" images of the collapse of the twin towers in Manhattan (see below and the image actually used in the article). Mathsci (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
As one of the contributors being talked about & wrongly accused of conspiracy by DIREKTOR, I think that the best way for me to describe the situation in which I am involved is to "copy & paste" the last comment I left earlier in the day at the Arc de Triomphe discussion page[20]:
"RE the conversation between two fellow wikipedians, there for all the world to read even if written in French since most participants to France-related articles do speak & read French, it is a shame that the meaning of that conversation has to be twisted out of recognition.
  1. 11NOV10, 0359hrs: Article Battle of France: I reverted Baseball Bugs who, the previous day, had put the marching naz photograph as leading picture, and had left the comment: It's already been discussed at length, and this was the consensus., leaving as my own reason for reversal: There was absolutely NO consensus for changing the photo, in fact, the change was done by force, ramming it thru the throat of those opposing it / placing marching naz in their chronological place /). Thus, I cannot be accused of removing the picture of the marching naz.
  2. 11NOV10, 0420hrs: Article Arc de Triomphe contrary to what is being said by DireKtor, I did not remove any, but switched two photographs, putting the one with the French flag floating within the frame of the AdT closer to the top & the one of the marching naz at the bottom where the French flag had been - with the comment: On 11 November, the Arc de Triomphe with French flag is more appropriate than marching naz of June 1940.)
  3. 11NOV10, 1345hrs, Badzil, with whom I am being accused of conspiring, reverted my edit - with comment: Please, an encyclopedia should not be modified for a particular day.
  4. 11NOV10, 1442hrs: I reverted "my fellow conspirator" Badzil - with comment: Picture where it belongs, keep marching naz where they are if you wish : as said before, if this was the US flag, it wouldn't be relegated at bottom of article but would be flying on top.
  5. 11NOV10, 1452hrs: my talk page[21], Badzil left a msg in French explaining his reversal, saying that although he did not like the marching naz anymore than I did, no change could be done without a debate, i.e. wiki rules had to be followed. He also wrote somewhere in his comment that he did not "support" my action although he understood it. I would hardly call this a conspiracy.
  6. Then, before DireKtor entered the scene, I wrote (summarizing) that I know what historical documents are, and that I have nothing against their use, but that, not being an imbecile, I also can identify dirty tricks from the start, suspecting that D. did not add the photograph by respect for History, but out of spite toward the French, in other words, with harassment in mind - comparing the inclusion of the picture of the marching naz to France-related articles to the sending of a rope to the family of someone who had hung himself, or been hanged.
  7. Finally, as my archiving bot archived the section because it laid dormant for over 48 hours, I not having answered his piece, DireKtor accused Badzil of removing the whole thing. I then reinstated the discussion yesterday, and the archiving bot archived it again today.
The above is the summary of the whole "conspiracy" between Badzil and myself.
Now I have other & better things to do than rehash over & over facts for the enjoyment of a young lad who wants to give himself importance with his one-sided knowledge of the History of France, the Battle of France, World War I & World War II, but cannot give a straight & true account of recent facts plain for everyone to read & see."
signed: --Frania W. (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
--Frania W. (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Consider this issue closed. Badzil (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to unarchive a thread just to say that the issue is closed.[22][23] -Atmoz (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Battleground attitude of DIREKTOR[edit]

In the thread above, I suggested resolving the problem using a gallery and suggested in Talk:Arc de Triomphe using an alternative image. Badzil created a gallery and used the image I linked from Gallica, unearthed after a long search. Badzil mentioned on the talk page that xe was not quite clear how to install a gallery and chose an option where the captions were poorly displayed. I changed this uncontroversially to the standard gallery option. DIREKTOR has twice reverted this use of gallery and has been unduly belligerent on the talk page. It is clear that his editing on this article is not particularly constructive, if he's making such a dog's breakfast of a minor technical point. In past edits I have added galleries to articles on two major French historic sites, now large connurbations, both of them in the South of France. Mathsci (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

He has now reverted this technical edit for a third time [24] [25] [26] and I suggest now that he be blocked for a day or two. This is an inexplicable continuation of completely disproportionate behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Badzil mentioned on the talk page that xe was not quite clear how to install a gallery..." Could you quote me on this? I do not recall saying that. Badzil (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I wholeheartedly agreed with your installation of the gallery. Bravo et félicitations !! The reformatting was a completely minor technical point about the way you encoded the gallery. My reading, perhaps faulty, was that you appeared to be a little unsure of yourself here. [27] But your instincts were perfectly correct. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Personally I cannot believe these reports... For the record, we all finally agree on Badzil's proposal and User:Mathsci comes along with "you do not know how to use galleries, this one is better". The simple solution to this entire mess is to simply insert perrow="6" in the article, but my suggestion was apparently misunderstood - and now this??

I really don't know what to say. I did not attack anyone, I did not break 3RR, I do indeed know how to use galleries on articles. While the reporting user altered the consensus version, proceeded to revert it into place, and then reported me for - nothing at all. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The use of the template WP:GALLERY is not in any way controversial. In this case it was a helpful improvement, even if extremely minor. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I should inform you, User:Mathsci - that to my knowledge that is not a "template" you are using. That's just html. But if you must use raw HTML, by inserting "<gallery perrow=6>" the gallery will extend to cover six images in a row. Did I not suggest this just before you (ubelievably) reported me for following WP:3RR? Further, you will also notice (if you actually follow the link I provided) that Template:Gallery (which is an actual "template") can easily be adjusted to leave more space for the captions of each image if you find that a problem.
Will you please withdraw the report? People over here are likely getting agitated with this and I get the feeling we could all just get blocked. Lets all just walk away slowly in hopes we've not angered the gods... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
D'accord. Une tempête dans un verre d'eau. :) Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Multiple page move vandalism[edit]

Resolved: thanks everyone. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ageo020 (talk · contribs) is conducting mass move vandalism. Someone pls intervene. --Soman (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him 24hrs just to stop any more moves. Can you figure out what on earth he was trying to do, as he doesn't look like your usual random page move vandal. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
could be someone else. --CarTick (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Wowsers, who's got the time to revert all those page moves? GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Pretty certain the account's been hacked - hadn't edited in over a year. Will indef as compromised account. And I have no idea how to revert all those moves other than one by one :( I need my techie brethren here, so have changed the title --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm reverting from the top down. If someone wants to work from the bottom up... Beyond My Ken (talk)
All restored via brute force. Reverting title of thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
For future reference: