Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive696

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

Noticeboard archives


Possible hacker?[edit]

Resolved: No issue with use of name. Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

Take a look at this: Hrm... Who needs names? talk the talk 14:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Nothing indicates that the person is a "hacker" in the sense of attacking datasystems. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Also see Hacker (programmer subculture). Not necessarily the same as Hacker (computer security). - SudoGhost (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, I doubt there would be a userbox for hackers if it were only what you were thinking. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at this: Hack. Hrm... GiantSnowman 15:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and don't worry, I've notified the user in question that a discussion has been opened about him... GiantSnowman 15:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh crap, my name is Ginsengbomb. I might be dangerous. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh snap! Everybody stay back! I'm doing to perform hacks to deactivate the Ginsengbomb! - SudoGhost (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't trust you. Your name sounds like you are someone who uses Linux to control the undead. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Woooooo...WOOOOOOO... HalfShadow 02:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
sudo pacman -Syu necromancy | error: target not found: necromancy | my search continues. ;) - SudoGhost (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
(back to srsness) All in all, I think there's nothing wrong with someone calling themselves a "hacker". From my view, the only people who would "admit" to be a hacker are attention-seeking script kiddies. Chances of user being harmless is 99.95%. Would a bank robber tell everyone that he is a bank robber? -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 07:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, I would certainly admit to being this kind of hacker, but wouldn't call myself this kind. Hacker means different things. But I agree with what you're trying to say. A scary hacker wouldn't identify themselves as such (at least not until afterwards). - SudoGhost (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, basically the people that could at least somewhat honestly call themselves hackers are Stallman hackers (who typically don't crack systems), crackers (who DO crack systems), buiding hackers (who don't crack computer systems but instead climb on rooftops and maintenance tunnels), legitimate computer security experts, people who play Dungeon Hacking games (typically NetHack, not usually dangerous to surrounding life forms) and script kiddies (who actually penetrate computer systems sometimes). So, someone calling themself hacker isn't an immeadiate sign of danger, luckily :) Zakhalesh (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know what you mean SudoGhost. I mod my custom-built PCs and play around with the firmwares of electronic consumer goods, and apparently kids like to call themselves "hackers" for doing that, so I guess it makes me one (ehhh...). Even so, I doubt that a hacker of that kind would be stupid enough to confess his identity on Wikipedia, and so I'd like those worried to be reassured that there is, well, no threat to humanity as a result of the above userpage. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 10:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The userpage says "an ingenious ethical Indian hacker" which might give us a clue as to exactly what they're talking about. I have the same qualification; it's no big deal, and it very much emphasises staying on the right side of the law (and knowing what the law is). "Ethical Hacker" tends to be discussed in terms of understanding how other people might attack a system, to help you defend it better (and after seeing how easy it is to use a few of the tools in a CEH lab, you'll never use coffee-shop wifi again). It's quite normal to pentest some computer systems to provide more assurance that they're actually secure - in some cases it's a regulatory requirement. That's not bad hacking, any more than a crash test is dangerous driving or a drug trial is medical malpractice. bobrayner (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Why am I accused of Vandalism?[edit]

Submitter has indicated that this can be marked as a closed/resolved issue. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:22, 15 May 2011 (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.

Qingprof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

(moved from WP:AN by User:Nick-D)

Someone named User: OhanaUnited just told me that he or she is going to block me because I vandalized Wikipedia. I do not know why, and requested the specific proof from him or her, and no response is given. Can someone investigate this case, and I'm curious to know the reason. Qingprof (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I presume that they're referring to whatever caused them to make this reversion of your edit. Given that there was only about 15 minutes between you asking the editor for evidence of this [1] and you complaining at WP:AN that they hadn't responded to you [2] this seems very premature - give it a couple of days. OhanaUnited (talk · contribs) isn't an admin and so can't block you. Nick-D (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
A slight correction: OhanaUnited is[3] an administrator, and has been since 04:43, 19 February 2008[4]. Chester Markel (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I missed the box being ticked when I checked OhanaUnited's user rights privileges. My bad (and definitely no offense intended to OhanaUnited). Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I should have said no response is given "yet". But I presume any accusations have to be accompanied by specific proofs, and that person should have told me the reason while he or she issued that warning to me. Until relevant proofs are provided, no accusations are valid, and therefore no warning should be issued. I believe the action of issuing me that warning is already illegitimate. I'm curious to learn which rule I have breached. Qingprof (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
How about these?
[5], [6], [7], [8] - is it possible those edits could be considered vandalism? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I have doubts about whether these edits should be defined as vandalism. First of all, I did not remove any content from the Qipao page, but simply replaced the old illustrations with illustrations of higher resolutions (and from black and white to coloured ones as well). Although they are not exactly the same pictures, the new illustrations fit the original captions perfectly as well. Secondly, the I added another appropriate picture to the Empress Xiao Xian Chun article. If adding new relevant stuff is considered as vandalism that would be very interesting. Thirdly, even if these edits are vandalism, that particular user should have provided these information at the time he or she issued that warning to me. Failing to do so indicates an invalid warning and possibly an illegitimate action as well. Qingprof (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me ask you how
  • a picture of an empress being changed to a concubine "fits the original captions"?
  • a similar picture is replaced with a mis-captioned picture "empress fondling silkworms" as opposed to "Classical: Queen pro Xiaoxian pure silk map" (the replacement picture's actual caption, as best as I can translate it)?
Just curious. Should I recap the others? Besides, your preference in deciding which pictures are best is, well, your preference. I personally think the originals were better (even if the new pictures really did accurately depict what the originals did). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I don't think I did changed any empress pictures into concubine pictures. I'm not sure which picture you are referring to, is it the Empress article or the Qipao article? Secondly, why did you say the picture is "mis-captioned"? It is indeed a picture of the Empress fondling the silkworms. Qingprof (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Curious, (not accusing), is User:TYK1986 another of your socks? I just ask because that editor has been continuing edits to one of your sock's pages. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

On the first question, I provided you the diffs. You can look at them yourself to see what I am talking about. On the second, the source is thus captioned - there's no information to support your point. I would have thought they were rice bowls or drink bowls or something similar. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
"Ladies of the Chinese Imperial Court"[9] you changed to "An imperial concubine in the Qing Dynasty" - I do not see the similarity. And yes, one of the diffs I provided above is wrong. Apologies for that. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
First of all, User:TYK1986 is not my account. I have no idea who that is. Secondly, imperial concubines are also court ladies. All the women in the palace are court ladies, and imperial concubines are just one of the sub-categories of court ladies. That's different from what you originally said, which is that I changed an empress picture into a concubine picture. I have seen all your links, and I did not change any empress picture into concubine picture. Also, if you think the stuff in the bowls are rice, please provide me with your reference. My ground is that the Chinese title of the painting is 《孝贤皇后亲蚕礼》, literally translated as "Empress Xiaoxian during the silkworm ceremony". Secondly, I don't think the original photos in the Qipao article even fit its caption, because from the way they are dressed they just seem like some Manchu nobility, and there is no specific reference of their identity. Instead, I know who the ladies are in my picture, they have their names and titles inscribed beside them, and there is no doubt about their identities. Qingprof (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well, I won't debate the content of your edits. As I said, I was just asking. I'm sure OhanaUnited will respond at some point. As for clearing up my question about more socking from you (I guess it would be a fourth? Glad it's not), as I said, I just figured I would ask since the account was editing one of your blocked socks and had the same interests. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, but I am curious about whether Wikipedia has any guidelines outlining the procedures of issuing warnings, because it just happens to me that issuing such a serious warning without any explanations or detailed references is completely unthinkable. Qingprof (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, well, well... looks like this is another case of WP:BOOMERANG. Qingprof, you were caught socking with 2 additional accounts (and got blocked 3 days, which in my view is far too lenient). Your 2 images' source (inserted here and here) cited this book "《清史图典》" as the source which was published by the Palace Museum Publishing House. After some researching, I found that this particular book was published in 2002 (ISBN 7-80047-333-3/J) so the 2 images you placed on cheongsam (which I reverted) are in violation of copyright. Moreover, we have images of actual women wearing cheongsam at that time and it is undoubtedly more realistic and superior than drawings which are artistic expressions of the painter. Seriously, Qingprof should be the subject of his questionable conduct and contributions on Wikipedia. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Acts like a sock? Check. Sounds like a sock? Check. Faux outrage about "unthinkable conduct"? Check. Good call OhanaUnited. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
That book is available at public libraries. There is no doubt about its copyright. BTW, no proof no warnings. You can check whatever you want but before that no more talk. The comments by User: Niteshift36 is inflammatory and should be removed. Qingprof (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Taking a moment to savor the irony....then point out that I haven't broken any policies to warrant my removal, while you on the other hand..... Niteshift36 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, good call OhanaUnited. Qingprof, this has boomeranged on you rather badly. I'd suggest that you drop the stick and take the time to review our copyright policies. Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A book being available in public libraries does not at all effect its copyright status. The book is still copyrighted. "no proof no warnings" - No. Kevin (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I even found the ISBN of that book as proof. So much for the "no proof no warnings", lol. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
OK you know what, no matter how many proof you have, if you don't show them, you shall be treated as if you have no proof. There is no reason to laugh at this, and this kind of debate should not involve excessive emotions. By the way, if you call my concern "faux", then I presume you can accept the fact of being blocked and without knowing why. This is absolutely against common sense and demonstrates the ineffective management in Wikipedia, or the inability of this particular administrator. Also, the content I uploaded here is not created by the author of the book. Rather, the real auther died over hundreds of years ago. Qingprof (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You can presume whatever you want, as long as you don't presume it to be correct. You weren't blocked. You were told that if you continue your disruption, you would be. Instead of spensing time trying to figure out what words to put in my mouth, go read up on copyright law because you clearly don't know anything about it. You think that scanning yourself a pic relieves you from copyright law? Please, tell me there is a joke in there and that you aren't that clueless. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Since that book is published in China, the copyright laws of China should be used here, instead of the laws in US. Also, that kind of warning is an important step in blocking an editor, and should be treated with equal caution.Qingprof (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Could it perhaps be copyright 2002, Forbidden City Press? Besides, you provided the image, the onus of proving fair use or lack of copyright is yours. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The thing is that what they show in their book is not created by themselves. The individual contents themselves have no more copyright left, and these contents are not the work of the book's author. The book's author just takes some works produced hundreds of years ago and release them into public. As long as any work in public domain is released into public then we are free to use it. There is no reason to question the copyright of my contributions. Qingprof (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You are ALMOST correct. Now... go find the actual paintings, take pictures of THOSE, and then use THOSE. Then, there will be no copyright issue. Copyright doesn't work the way you think it does. You posted a picture of a picture. You do not own the copyright to that picture of the picture. You are free to use the PD work - this is not that PD work - it is a derivative work. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
But when I scanned and digitized those pictures I also cropped and editted them myself on computer. As a result, these pictures are no longer exactly the same as the way they are on the book. I have also put my work into them, and the author of that book can no longer claim their copyright over my contributions. Qingprof (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
That is incorrect. What you are doing is still violating the copyright of the author and/or the book's publisher. Copyright means just that – that the copyright holder controls the rights to copy, distribute, and adapt the work; derivative works (which is what you are describing) generally fall under that copyright. –MuZemike 05:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
If this is true, then all the derivatives of works in public domain should be removed from Wikipedia. I saw so many of contributions of this kind, and many of them even stayed on Wikipedia for years. Qingprof (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec - and fixed comment that was removed - I got no ec warning, it just submitted and removed Mike's comment)
Please cite the relevant Chinese copyright law that says that and makes that ok. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qingprof (talkcontribs) 06:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Qingprof, you're still not understanding how copyright works. You are allowed to create a derivative work of a public domain source, but you are not allowed to for a copyrighted work. What you are doing is the latter. –MuZemike 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC) It is the same with rewriting. If you read some book and rewrite it in your own words, you are not violating a copyright, although the source you use is copyrighted. Qingprof (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just one more comment: I do not get why that particular admin User: OhanaUnited, had to mention my being blocked for 3 days because I had another 2 accounts. Is this relevant here? I had that other account in Chinese name for editting the Chinese wikipedia so the other editor can understand. There is nothing illegitimate about that intention. Moreover, that block is already expired, and I did not evade that block. If this is part of the reason why you issued me another block warning today, it reflects your misconduct and the abusive use of your power. I maintain my point that any block warnings should be accompanied by specific and valid reasons, not just a vague accusation. There is no evidence that you did your "research" before you issued that warning to me, therefore issuing me that block is an illegitimite action and a misconduct. Since no apology is given, you do not show any regret or repent, and thus your capability as an administrator is still very questionable. In the future, do remember to provide valid and specific proof to me before you issue any block warnings or blocks to me. Otherwise, the society of Wikipedia would be no different than any other chaotic and lawless society where the rights of individual editors cannot be properly guaranteed. Qingprof (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • See, that is the faux outrage I'm talking about. And saying "There is no evidence that you did your "research" before you issued that warning to me, therefore issuing me that block is an illegitimite action and a misconduct" is one of the best examples of wikilawyering that I've seen in a while. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, if that is a "faux outrage", put it this way then: do you mean that it is acceptable in Wikipedia for an administrator to block or warn an editor even before he does the research to prove whether that editor really has committed some violations or indeed breached some regulations? In other words, is an administrator free to use his power in whatever way that pleases him, regardless of actual facts? If that is the case, then I have nothing more to say. Let this principle of how Wikipedia is run be known so that we can all be aware of this. Qingprof (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You did commit a violation. The book is copyrighted. Further, even though it's been explained to you by various people, copyright law (nor Wikipedia's policy on copyrights) does not work the way you think it does. I even presented you the opportunity to prove that there was some relevant copyright law that supported your position. Instead of doing so, you provided a link to the entire copyright codex - as opposed to citing any portion relevant.
To summarize, you committed copyvio - multiple times. You have failed to heed the explanations on why it's copyvio. You incorrectly seem to think that the onus of proof is on others; when it is you who must properly attribute an image's source and justify it's use (which you have not done). You fail to understand that copyvio is one of the most serious infractions on Wikipedia; and one of the few areas where (for the most part) it is not guidelines that cover such - it's actual rules and laws, much of which cannot be changed by consensus. Additionally, instead of waiting for an answer from User: OhanaUnited as to why you were warned, you started an AN - I would presume the more logical thing to do, since you do not have an understanding of copyright or Wikipedia's rules on such, that you waited for an explanation to gain a better understanding of the situation and where you went wrong. Further, once that explanation has been provided numerous times, you continue to dispute such explanations and still are implying that, for enforcing the rules, User: OhanaUnited has erred in his judgement or use of his admin tools (which is not the case).
Now, on to the example you made above. It is not applicable. Putting something into your own words is exactly that - putting it in your own words. The better example which would have been relevant would have been you photocopying something and claiming it was yours because you did such. In this case specifically, via your claims of "cropping" the image, it would be akin to photocopying the vast majority of a book (while leaving out a couple pages), which is indeed copyright violation. You have to understand, it's not what you want, it's not what you think, it's not what you would like the situation to be; copyright law is copyright law - and Wikipedia's rules on the matter are NOT guidelines. I hope this clarifies all of this and gains you a better understanding of the situation.
With that said, I am not sure what action you expect to take place at AN. This really should be closed as "not an issue for AN/i", because AN/i is not the place for you to gain education on copyrights and copyvio - which is really what's going on here.
ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the SECOND time in 24 hours that an earlier edit (that failed and hung) posted later than the later edit. This was thus removed, which I am reinstating:
Additionally, please stop re-editing your responses. Either make a new response, or strike out the portion of the old response that you misworded or didnt mean.
ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Since my concern still seem to be misunderstood, I have to make it clear again. I am concerned about the way that admin carries his judgement out, rather than whether his judgement is right or not. Regardless of how "right" his judgement may be, if he carries it out in the wrong waymanner (i.e. issuing serious block warnings while not giving the editor a clue about why), it is still a misconduct and an illegitimate act. Qingprof (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again (as I stated above - though this time in shorter form), multiple instances of copyvio can indeed be dealt with using one final warning. As stated above, the admin, in no way, abused their tools. Again, just like the copyvio issue, you could have read up on all of this yourself. Now that it's explained, and all of your issues are covered, can we close this as a non-issue? Keep in mind, it is not how you think admins should do things - it's how the community has decided they can do things that matter. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
If you would like, I can issue you the copyvio warning. As for the "not giving... clue why", you didnt give him much chance to respond to that. Copyvio is a form of vandalism - so either msg is appropriate. But yes, the copyvio warning is more specific as to the nature of the vandalism. I can replace the warning for you if you'd like. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but still, keep in mind that since that book is published in China, it is the Chinese copyright laws that matters, not US copyright law. Qingprof (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you are back to arguing this (the copyright matter)?
  1. You have not provided any section of Chinese copyright law that supports your use. Don't provide a link to the whole codex. Quote the relevant portions.
  2. Wikipedia's rules on the matter are pretty clear, and when stronger than specific jurisdictional copyright laws, supersede such laws.
  3. You have already, through your statements, shown you do not have an understanding of any copyright laws as they pertain to such situations - so why are you still arguing this? First it's about the admin... then about not being in violation of copyright... then the admin... then copyright... pick your battle. Regardless, your understanding is flawed for either battle.
I have no more time to repeat the same responses I and others have given you numerous times. You violated copyrights and/or Wikipedia's rules on the matter. You were given your first, last and only warning on the matter, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines on doing so. Simply put, please do not do it again. I have no idea what else there is to say about this situation - except, please read the responses above before you repeat the same claims, questions and (irrelevant) beliefs. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I already answered "yes" to the question of whether or not to close this argument. So there's no reason of thinking I am back for arguing again. As for the "not giving him enough time" claim, the administrator should not have waited until I asked. Instead, he should have explained the reason valid the specific proofs prior to the warning, or at least, at the same time when the warning is issued. Qingprof (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing at your request. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:22, 15 May 2011 (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.

PS: There is of course nothing wrong with scanning photos of centuries-old 2-dimensional art from a book. Almost everywhere such works are free. Art photographers only acquire copyrights on their photos if the art in question is 3-dimensional or they otherwise add something that goes beyond mere copying, no matter how much effort goes into that copying. Hans Adler 22:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Naive move of "Mines Wellness City"[edit]

Resolved by User:ErrantX. Histories merged and redirects corrected. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:29, 15 May 2011 (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.

The article Mines Wellness City has recently been created and the old article "Mines Resort City" changed to a redirect. This seems like a bad way to do a page move because you loos the article history... but I think I can't fix it myself, not being an administrator.

There are two minor changes to the new article which need to be included in the old article before it gets moved across. I guess you could just copy the code from the new article into the old one before moving it. I could do that bit myself, but I thought I would post here first, in case I have the wrong end of the stick.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, should be fixed. You are right, copy/paste moves need to be fixed to maintain attribution. All of the history should be merged now. --Errant (chat!) 19:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2011 (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.

Controversial Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article[edit]

Hi everyone. Azerbaijans win tonight in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 is quite controversial because of the ongoing conflict with Armenia etc etc. Already there is heavy IP vandalism on the article. And I want the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article to be protected indefinitly ASAP as I think IP vandalism will be going on and on without stop. Also perhaps a mention about being polite could be added to this articles talk page as I think future discussions will be heated and sómetimes hostile between Azerbaijani editors and Armenian ones. It could become a playground for Pro-Armenia and Pro-Azerbaijani editors. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, given how retraded the argument is, I would protect for 2 weeks. Most fook wits will have given up by then, at least until it's near the compo itself and "support the shit country" can again be played by all. Egg Centric 20:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Egg Centric, I fail to see how calling editor "fuckwits" and calling their countries "shit" is constructive. Perhaps you should stay away from ANI if you think that is a proper contribution. Fences&Windows 23:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ban this person - User:Tonyroolz[edit]

See edits to Rebecca Black and photoshopped copyvio at File:Black pregnant.jpg with my CSD summary. User has uploaded their own story to CNN's user generated website, and tried to pass it off as real. (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

He has uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons - File:Articleblacknews.jpg. I can't do shit about this because you don't trust me to edit the Rebecca Black page from an IP. - (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Does seem to require urgent attention by an admin both here and at commons. I've tagged the commons image for a speedy as a copyvio of a website screenshot. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 13:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Daniel Case has blocked the user for 72 hours. I think you should go down harder on off site and on wiki BLP attacks. (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that, plus his edits to his talk apge since the block, show that he's not interested in contributing constructively. Suggest an indef. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
His original edits seemed to be possibly good-faith, so I made it a definite block (one I have since extended due to his talk page behavior). I considered his lack of a previous block as well. I also think CNN can handle his misbehavior on their own. However, if another admin wants to make the block indef, I will respect that judgement. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The last I checked, spreading "Rebecca Black is pregnant" rumors is the current obsession over at 4chan. I'd be extra-wary of people adding this sort of info in the near future. Perhaps a few people should add Rebecca Black to their watchlists. elektrikSHOOS 22:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that an AN/i notice is posted on this user's page? Regardless of the validity of the outcome (which I don't dispute), I think it's probably both required and fair. If it's someplace in an older revision of his talk page, please ignore this. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware the user wasn't notified. I just did. elektrikSHOOS 01:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't catch it either until I realized an IP filed this, which prompted me to check. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Obscene image posted atop Muslim Rajputs[edit]

There is an obscene image posted at the very top of the Muslim Rajputs page, and I can't figure out how to remove it, and it also appears in previous drafts throughout the History, so I can't quite tell when it was added or who added it. Ideas? MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's to do with the templates: one being "Nastaliq". Someone could perhaps explain how to fix that. Nasnema  Chat  23:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Can't you just edit it out? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 23:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit what and where? Someone has done something now to fix it. Nasnema  Chat 
The template should be reverted at this point, and everything should be back as it was before. The user vandalizing the template was blocked. If there are any lingering problems from this, try purging your cache; if it's still there, reply to this thread. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The template {{Script/Nastaliq}} is the one which was vandalized. Inappropriate material has been removed and the template has been protected as a high visibility template. --Allen3 talk 23:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Administrator Guettarda?[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.
This would be a waste of time even at WP:WQA, never mind here. If you act in a manner that frustrates people, expect that frustration to be communicated. As ever, the best advice is to ignore minor hiccups of tone (or reject them in passing, without dwelling on them) and focus on content. Rd232 talk 01:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User Guettarda has made accusations that I have "utter contempt for Wikipedia rules is troubling" [10] and do "not 'understand' Wikipedia policy, but you're still obligated to abide by it. " [11]. If these don't constitute personal attacks or at least something approaching personal attacks, I don't know what does. Sleetman (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep - after trying yet again to explain to Sleetman that he cannot add SPSs to a BLP, he responded by adding a different blog-sourced criticism. If that isn't contempt for policy, I don't know what is. Guettarda (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure. The Sam Harris article isn't even a blog, it's an opinion piece on Huffington Post. And this of course not to mention that you've yet to establish how a museum or think-tank publish "SPSs" or that they aren't allowed for usage on BLP's anyway. (Here's a quote on Daniel Pipes's page quoting the think-tank Media Matters for America: The progressive/liberal [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] media watchdog group Media Matters for America described Pipes' article as promoting a "falsehood".[12] you can find the quote in this section)Sleetman 23:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Perhaps it could be based off your actions (as noted here and here) causing just such perceptions? After being made well aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you blatantly ignored them - that seems quite contemptuous.
Is there an actual personal attack someplace for which you did not provide a diff? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Based off my actions, where? The links don't show that I've provoked Guettarda in anyway nor that I've consciously violated any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sleetman (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Those comments are not personal attacks, and your interpretation of them as personal attacks suggests you are as unfamiliar with the WP:NPA policy as you are the other policies Guettarda is trying to get you up to speed with. Take Guettarda's advice, he is trying to help you understand our policies so that you do not end up blocked again for violating them. 28bytes (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Right, how is accusing somebody of "utter contempt" for Wikipedia rules without any evidence not a personal attack?Sleetman (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It's commenting on actions youve taken, not who you are. We comment on content, not contributors, and doing so (examining youre contributions in this case) shows a lack of respect for the rules of the project you're contributing to, despite efforts to explain the problem to you. -- ۩ Mask 00:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I must be missing something here, what exactly is it that I've done to warrant the comment that I show lack of Wikipedia rules and guidelines (mind you, the accuser doesn't even make the effort to tell me which rule or guideline I've violated). If it's fighting off the charge that sources that aren't SPSs shouldn't be called SPSs or that sources which are reliable that are being labelled as unreliable shouldn't be labelled unreliable, I frankly don't see how that violates Wikipedia guidelines or rules. Sleetman (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Personalizing a disagreement is a personal attack, and especially so when the comment denigrates the the motivation or cognitive ability of the other editor. This is something that Guettarda has a history with, from personal experience, namely, inappropriately confrontational and personal approaches to disagreements: [12] [13] [14]. In my opinion, this intimidating style of interaction that Guettarda uses is bullying, pure and simple, and there is not place for it in Wikipedia. Since Guettarda has so far somehow kept a clean block log, I suggest a one week block to begin with. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That does not seem quite right Cla68; your suggestions seem to have no merit whatsoever. The particular issue here is the BLP of Karen Armstrong. It's quite easy to find book reviews of Karen Armstrong which are long, detailed and positive. Sleetman has just been adding negative reviews, which would seem to be against the spirit of WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • ROFLMAO. Good to see you've still maintained your sense of humor. Maybe it's because Guettarda has been diagnose with Asperger's. No, you got that off of an email. Anyways, you owe me a laptop, because I just spit up my coffee all over it laughing. You have quite the sense of humor. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Commenting on another user's behavior is not a personal attack. If he said something like "Cla I think you're an idiot, and hope you get hit by a truck", that would be a personal attack. Saying "Cla you are possibly violating your arbcom sanctions" is not. This thread is a waste of time, and should be closed immediately. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "This thread is a waste of time" Uh, sure if you had bothered to even read Guettarda's initial comments, you'd figure out it had absolutely nothing to do my behaviour all the user wrote was I was in "utter disregard for Wikipedia rules and guidelines" without giving a reason as to HOW or what wikipedia rules and guidelines I was disregarding. Not sure how that doesn't qualify as an ad hominem/personal attack.Sleetman (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Telling someone that they do not understand Wikipedia policy is not a personal attack. Since few, if any of us fully understand our policies, it's an assertion that applies to almost all of us. I suspect that most experienced users have told another editor that they don't understand WP policies at some point in their careers. I believe that even Jimbo Wales has been accused, perhaps rightly, of not understanding one or another policy or guideline, but I don't recall him requesting anyone be blocked for making that assertion. As for "personalizing a disagreement", that's not the same as making a personal attack. Anytime time one of us uses the pronoun "you" in an argument we're in danger of doing so. It's regrettable, though prevalent.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It's true that telling someone to understand Wikipedia policy isn't a personal attack, but that is subject to the condition of the manner in which you told that person that they don't understand Wikipedia policy. Surely, there's a difference in saying, "Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the rules of Wikipedia policy, but here are the rules for X Wikipedia policy" and "Your @#!$ing inability to edit according to Wikipedia policies shows that you need to brush your airless mother!#$@ing head up on Wikipedia editing policies." (i know i'm indulging in hyperbole here a bit, but you get the point)Sleetman (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but nothing you've cited is anywhere near your example.   Will Beback  talk  01:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • You're just saying that because you don't understand Wikipedia policies. ;)   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Sleetman, I ask that you take AN/i seriously and cease to be disingenuous. If you recall, you were blocked, and multiple unblock requests were denied because of the same disingenuous attitude you exhibited in other recent events. Thus, moving forward, the links I provided show your history, where on talk pages and via edits, you disregarded what you were told by others. It also included posts or diffs to posts showing this. As a for instance, and why Guettarda's comment is simply nothing more than a description of exactly what you were (are?) doing, you were warned about edit warring - and ignored it and continued to do so. Your recent block was based off of ignoring community policies and guidelines (WP:CIVIL). I could provide a bunch of diffs to support it, but honestly, you are undoubtedly aware of your actions. So, the easiest thing to do is to look up the definition of the word - you will note it does indeed apply to your edits.
This AN/i needs to be closed - and ironically (at least IMHO) considered further evidence why Guettarda's description of Sleetman's editing is both accurate and warranted. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Sir, you're insinuation that I don't take AN/I seriously is a complete falsehood. In both cases, I had sufficient reason to believe that the conduct of the opposing side was (or is in this case) in contravention of Wikipedia rules and guidelines (Personal Attacks specifically) and in the case with Bearcat, I've already apologized for my incivility which was the only wrong-doing on my part in my dispute with Bearcat. Turning to my dispute with Guettarda however, Guettarda's comment isn't about edit warring, it isn't about anything as the comment was simply that I was disregarding Wikipedia rules and guidelines without explicating which rule or guideline I was disregarding. I should also point out that you accusing me of edit-warring can just as easily be applied to Guettarda so I can't understand your selective application of this accusation on me and not the other user. Sleetman (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
(To Mathsci), if Sleetman is having problems with complying with BLP, then that's another issue, and would be a case of, with Guettarda, of the pot calling the kettle black [15]. There are ways to address other editors without insulting them, and administrators should know how to do so. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, you shot yourself in your feet when you closed your paragraph by saying that: "Since Guettarda has so far somehow kept a clean block log, I suggest a one week block to begin with." :) Count Iblis (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, despite the fact that you diagnosed me with Aspbergers, one of the most appalling uncivil, personal attacks I've ever read on here, your obsession with certain editors is amusing at best, creepy at worst. Your comments are just reprehensible. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sleetman, you did the right thing by bringing this here. Guettarda may have a point that you need to improve the sources you are using for that BLP, but you have a right to be able to discuss disagreements without being belittled or bullied. I suggest you leave a comment on Guettarda's talk page to that effect, and if me or someone else ever initiates what appears to be a needed user conduct RfC on Guettarda's behavior, you'll be able to co-certify it. In the meantime, if you are going to continue to edit articles related to science and religion (such as Intelligent Design, for example), you may need to grow a thick skin, because bullying and belittling of editors, especially newcomers, to those articles is out of control and has been for some time. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Was the suggestion of a one week block for Guettarda just a piece of empty rhetoric, Cla68, or did you expect it to be taken seriously? Mathsci (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Depends on what you mean by "taken seriously", Mathsi. That being said, the pattern of boorish behavior exhibited by so-called "pro-science" editors (I don't like using that term, because most scientists that I have been around in academia and elsewhere were humble, polite, ethical, and congenial people) surrounding these theistic science topics is completely out of hand and needs to stop. If it takes long blocks or topic bans to get the attention of some of these editors, then this needs to be on the table. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, you seem to be using this as an opportunity to dig up prior grudges you've had with Guettarda. Let it go. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Ah, post-WP:ARBCC trauma syndrome. Alas, to date, no known cure :) Mathsci (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, he has diagnosed us with Aspergers, so I suppose your diagnose works just as well. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything outrageous by Guettarda here. He took a reasonable, well-founded, clear position and carefully explained it. He confronted vigorous opposition. Sleetman conceded to some of Guettarda's points, but Sleetman continued arguing on other points. Sleetman needs to reflect on that fact pattern and its implications for his entire position. In any event, Sleetman bears the burden of proof for adding material, so Sleetman must garner a consensus before adding that material. It is not Guettarda's burden to convince Sleetman. At some point, it may be better to keep the dialog on simple consensus and avoid continuing an argument that the other side has (rightly or wrongly) rejected. Glrx (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Right, unfortunately you're completely missing the point about why this AN/I issue is even brought up in the first place. How is an accusation the user posted on my talkpage (nothing to do with the Talk Page on karen Armstrong) that says I have "utter disregard for Wikipedia rules and violation" a reasonable, well-founded and clearly explained position?Sleetman (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • How is that a boomerang? And presumably if it sails pass your head, then there's no boomerang effect....Sleetman (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Edit warring at User:Colonel Warden/RIP[edit]

Resolved: User:Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion(indefinite) and are blocked are edit-warring to blank User:Colonel Warden/RIP while it is the subject of an MFD discussion. 3RR has been violated by both me and him. Please put an end to this now. --Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

↑↑↑ iz grawp ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The above is ridiculous trolling and should be ignored. --Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
resolved - User:Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion is blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Que? Why? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason I gave in the block log is, "obviously a sockpuppet". However the unblock request is now in, so the block can be reviewed and the previous accounts listed or their existence implausibly denied. Any checkusers around? -- zzuuzz (talk)
  • Both sides were blatantly edit-warring, so I have blocked the IP too. Also, the page should not be blanked while it is under deletion discussion, so I have reverted the blanking and semi-protected it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
In fact, I've reverted it to the version that was actually nominated for deletion, before the edit-warring started -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The page was not blanked; SnottyWong's compromise version here was to have the content visible to Col. Warden only. Reversion of the sockpuppet Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion comes under WP:RBI, surely? pablo 10:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, but hidden from view while it is under discussion is still not right - and any "compromise" version would have to have the agreement of the user himself and have consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    And no, WP:RBI does not permit edit-warring, as the IP was not reverting vandalism - and we are not having edit-warring on the page while it is under discussion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Uhm, how? Jack/IP was reverting a sock which he clearly said he believed was Grawp, and apparently with reason, because an admin also identified him as such and blocked him. Edits by ban-evading socks can always be reverted, not only if they are vandalism. The version Jack/IP reverted back to, on the other hand, had been created by an established, legitimate user in good faith. Just because you happen to prefer the version that the Grawp sock was reverting to doesn't give you the right to override the basic rule that ban evaders can be reverted without danger of incurring edit-warring blocks. I object to this block and am considering overturning it. Fut.Perf. 13:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how anyone, including you or myself, could have identified the sock as any banned user or Gramp in particular. If everyone edit-warred with every new user who looked like a sock there'd be chaos. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Reverting a banned editor is always acceptable, and not edit warring. "Reverting actions performed by banned users" is a specific exemption to WP:3RR. If a legitimate editor restores the material created by a banned user, that can't be reverted without typical 3RR limits. If an admin blocked the IP as a sock, we have to credit an editor that came to the same conclusion. Personally, though, I'm getting tired of the whole Jack Merridew schtick, and can't look kindly on him editing the same article both as an IP and as a named account, so I'm not going to move in and unblock anybody.—Kww(talk) 13:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    (ec) @Zzuuzz: If you didn't feel confident in identifying that account as a banned sock, then why did you block him as such? And, if it is okay for an admin to invoke DUCK and block it as a sock, how then can a normal editor be penalized for invoking the 3RR exemption for the same reason? Fut.Perf. 13:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    I blocked the account as an obvious sockpuppet, not a banned user. It could well be a regular editor who chose to evade scrutiny or somesuch to vote in the deletion debate. It's a clear violation of WP:SOCK (a disruptive sockpuppet), even if it's not a violation of WP:BAN. I'm still rather curious whose sock it is, as well as how Jack would have identified this as Gramp. There's nothing in the edit histories to support such a conclusion that I've seen. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    I'll pre-empt the next question as I'm off for a while. I did not block the IP address. I had a quick look but didn't bother. I neither endorse nor object to its block. Edit warring with an obvious sockpuppet - there should only be one winner. However I will note the two things that make me indifferent to the block. First if you see a sock of a banned user you should get it blocked, not edit war with it. Second, Jack should have known better given his recent position. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    At the time of the edit war, as far as I can see the other editor had not been fingered as a sock, and so it does not look to me like a case of the IP reverting a "banned user". I agree with zzuuzz that one side looked like blatant sockery, but the IP doesn't look like an innocent newbie to me either -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Ahem... "doesn't look like an innocent newbie"? But we are all aware who that IP is. I took it for granted you were too. Were you not? :-) Fut.Perf. 14:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Nope, I had no idea - but if everyone knew it was also socking, I'm surprised there was any opposition to my 24 hour block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Are there any checkuser details back from it? If the account is connected to another account that account should also be restricted. Is it User:Colonel Warden? Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    I think you'd have to start an SPI to find out. pablo 14:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Checkuser was asked to look at it here by one of the blocking admins - User:zzuuzz - Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been BOLD and closed the MFD. Hopefully all this can die down now.--Scott Mac 15:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This was a Delete closure, not a Procedural closure.  Please reclose as a procedural closure if you are going to G10.  The closure as it stands is an endorsement of the nomination, which is an endorsement of WP:NPA.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Does this not fall under WP:NOTBURO? The closing comments make it crystal clear what the reasoning was. Perhaps it's worth changing to avoid drama though. Bob House 884 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I've tried several times to parse what Unscintillating is getting at, and why it might matter. But I'm failing miserably. If it matters, please explain it to me (but I've got this sneaky feeling that if I did understand it, I might not care anyway.)--Scott Mac 15:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
My impression is that (s)hes saying that because you closed this under G10, its not a close as 'delete' consensus but is instead a 'procedural close' and should therefore be closed as such - apparently by doing otherwise you are tacitly affirming that everyone who accused CW of personal attacks in the debate was correct (whilst closing the debate and deleting the page as an attack page directed at members of the wikipedia community would totally circumvent that). Whilst they might have a point if you hadn't explained yourself so throroughly in the summary, in this context it seems just like unneccessary nitpicking. (and I'm a lawyer!). Bob House 884 (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, as another lawyer once wrote: quod scripsi, scripsi.--Scott Mac 17:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Quidem. pablo 17:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that WP:BURO is forcing good-faith editors to either participate in a disruptive nomination process or consent passively to the effects of the disruptive nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
A [procedural closure] is "a null outcome based on the circumstances of the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page being discussed".  Is there any dispute but that the circumstance of the nomination was part of a personal attack?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
So, no, I'm not commenting on anything said at the MfD, nor am I commenting about aspects of the personal attack, only about the nomination and the effect on Wikipedia to allow a disruptive nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
G10 is covered – mentioned by name – at WP:Deletion process#Early closure, Speedy delete. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course this was Grawp trolling this site. How do I know? Six years of peeing in his cereal. It is always appropriate to rv his sorry ass. One of his games is dispute acceleration.

Glad to see teh colonel's attack page down ;> (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


A G10 during an ongoing XfD is not procedural in any meaningful sense, but rather amounts to escalation. Sometimes, of course, the escalation is necessary, but the excuse of "only procedural" is nonsense. Given that the deletion was disputed by editors in good stating, it appears an extraordinarily out of process action, It amounts to a SNOW DELETE or IAR, which is inappropriate against reasonable opposition. If the nomination was considered disruptive, this might be reason for ending it, but not as a delete. A proper procedural close in such a case leaves the page as it was. a keep on that basis might popssibly have been justified. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit war/conflict of interest Talk:British Gazette#Unrelated publication[edit]

I was hoping an admin could take a look at this page please. I'm not sure where to go from there. Thank you. Skuld (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Britishpatrioticindividual (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who also appears to be editing as an IP from the 81.111.*.* range, is edit-warring to push the inclusion of his non-notable fringe politics blog (which is also unrelated to the article subject) at British Gazette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I am blocking Britishpatrioticindividual indefinitely as an advertising/COI-only WP:SPA. Block review welcome.  Sandstein  19:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I concur with the block, on the grounds of the purpose of the accounts being to promote the editors own blog. I would hesitate to call the political stance as WP:FRINGE, since it appears to derive from the editors involvement in the United Kingdom Independence Party - which has returned some local council members and MEP's in recent years. Regardless, I think the net result is correct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Only just noticed this - I declined an unblock, as he did not address the block reasons - he just carried on arguing that his blog should be included in the article because it has the same name -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Censorship of Islam related articles by Adamrce[edit]

Summary of issue[edit]

This incident is related to the controversial Jihad article regarding the user Adamrce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who seems to have reviewer rights, i feel he is abusing his reviewer rights. as he keeps removing my edits, and leaves warnings on my page, even though content i add is sourced (if thats what reviewer rights are???). The user has been on Wikipedia for about 1 month.

I believe the user is censoring Wikipedia Islam related articles, every time i addressed his concerns with my edits, he adds a new reason why my edit should not be on wikipedia.

What i want[edit]

I want an admin to mediate or decide whether Adamrce was right to remove the content i added (the content was well sourced), and is about the opinion of the 4 school of Islamic thought on the rules of Jihad, to challenge the already existing rules of Jihad provided by the user Adamrce from bbc news. You can see the content i added here: Content i added in yellow

Issue and evidence[edit]

  • User made a new section called “best Jihad”,Proof 1
  • There are many different interpretation on what the”best jihad” is. I notified the user that I will add alternative POV(points of view) to reflect the alternatie views, and asked whether he objects to this. He said “You're taking texture out of context”, so I doubt he would allow me to add it.Proof 2, the user called wiqi also said that if there are alternate views then i should add it here:Proof other users support altenrate view, where he said "You may wish to add any other interpretations of this concept in the same section"
  • Then he (Adamrce) also added BBC’s opinion on the rules of Jihad here:Proof 3
  • BBC is not an Islamic source, so I added views of 2 of the 4 Islamic schools of thought Hanafi and Shaffi, user removed these views which were properly sourced, his reason was

    “I don't think it's logical to add two schools out-of tens, which is pushing a minority POV that confuses users. If you'd like to add them, you need to be fair regarding the other schools too. “

    Proof 3
  • But then I added the opinion of all 4 major schools of Islamic thought (the 4 schools make up 80%+ of the worlds Muslim population) to satisfy the user (who as shown above did not like only giving views of 2 schools), another reason i added the 4 views, was to reflect Wikipedias major world view policy, user removed it on the grounds that

“All of the primary sources you provided have a section that explains the reason of war, which you excluded”

“You want to compete with BBC? Bring a secondary source! “

Proof 4

“Please stop your removal till the dispute clears. FollowWP:BRD, as you were warned yesterday!!!”

, which he wrote while reverting my edit here: Proof 5

  • But 3/4 sources I used where secondary sources, which also contain excerpts of a primary source with analysis on it, like this

Rudolph Peter, Translation of Averores rules of Jihad

  • After this, I removed BBC POV on the rules of Jihad, since there was a dispute going on over it, but user reverted my removal of the disputed content. So basically, I am frustrated because he removes my edits on the grounds that there is a dispute, but keeps his edit claiming they can only be removed after dispute is settled.
  • He also added a message on my wikipedia page, claiming I am censoring Wikipedia and could get banned here, and sent me warnigns that i will get banned for adding back to content : Proof 5
  • I added it back with compromise. Again I added the opinion of the 4 schools with more secondary sources and reasons for war (which he wanted), an against whom war can be made. User still removed them! Proof 6
  • I would like Wikipedia admins to decide whether the content I added is acceptable, and whether Adamrce is right to remove alternate POV.
  • I dont want to get involved in edit warring with this user, and based on the warnings he has left on my wiki page, it seems he has powers to ban me? He only created an account 1 month or so ago

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources used[edit]

User claimed he removed content because i need to use secondary sources, but the sources i used were secondary, the following sources were used:

Secondary Source 1[edit]

Book contains a primary source which is analysed by the author

Excerpted from Edmond Fagnan, trans., Kitab al-Kharaj (Le livre de l'impot foncier) (Paris, 1921). English translation in Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), pp. 165-72

Excerpted from Edmond Fagnan, trans., Kitab al-Kharaj (Le livre de l'impot foncier) (Paris, 1921). English translation in Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), pp. 166

Primary source 1[edit]

Reliance of the traveller: the classic manual of Islamic sacred law ʻUmdat al-salik

Reliance of the Traveller, Northern Kentucky University

Secondary source 2[edit]

Used as primary source, as contains excerpts from a primary source Ǧihād aṣ-ṣaġīr:Legitimation und Kampfdoktrinen ,By Thomas Tartsch, Pg98

Secondary source 3[edit]

Excerpted from Bidayat al-Mudjtahid, in Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Medieval and Modern Islam: The Chapters on Jihad from Averroes' Legal Handbook "Bidayat al-mudjtahid," trans. and annotated by Rudolph Peters (Leiden: Brill, 1977), pp. 9-25

Secondary source 4[edit]

Contains primary sources also, is an analysis by a US government backed institution, regarding rules of war in Islam Non Combatants in Muslims Legal thought,Page 15


As a note, I have informed the user that this discussion has been opened. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Since it's fairly evident that both the reporter and the other user are engaged in an edit war, I've blocked both for 24 hours. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Non-admin observation Are blocked edtiors not supposed to remove block notices from their page except when expired/unblocked? Croben Problem? 16:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like he reverted to having the warnings and notice. Well... My question still stands, if someone could answer it. Croben Problem? 16:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
As per WP:REMOVE, "Sanctions that are currently still in effect, including declined unblock requests, ban, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices ... may not be removed by the user" - SudoGhost (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright. I'll leave a note on his talkpage to make sure he knows. Croben Problem? 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? As long as they don't request an unblock, removing a block notice is the same as acknowledging it and waiting it out. It's only the denied unblock request that can't be removed, and that template even states as such (pretty sure it does). Leave 'em alone. (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP is correct, actually. The removal of block notices isn't prohibited by WP:REMOVE, the text that SudoGhost quoted above omits that and nothing else in the guideline says otherwise. Any admin or other editor who wants to see if a person has an active block just has to look at their edit history, it will say so right at the top. -- Atama 19:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
You're correct, it seems I misread 'ban' for 'block', my apologies. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there are good groundings for this complain. It seems that the user Adamrce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is too uncompromising, with the objections is not entirely consistent, for there to be a development of the article where alternative well-sourced POV may contribute to the article and the debate. So in my opinion this has not been handled reasonably. And talking about doubtful sources, Proof 1 relies on references from, which seems to be from a sort of Hizb ut-Tahrir inclined webside, so maybe some double standard is also involved here? Davidelah (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I also find it highly dubious to create a section called "Best Jihad" based entirely on a quote on what the best jihad is. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Proof that user constantly changes reasons for removing properly sourced content
  • 1)First he claimed he removed content because i only added 2 major opinions and that its not fair that i did not add the views of the other schools of islam here (note that there are only 4 major schools of Sunni Islam, see Madh'hab article)
  • 2) After adding opinion of the 2 other schools, user removed data, now claiming "“You want to compete with BBC? Bring a secondary source!", and also said "All of the primary sources you provided have a section that explains the reason of war, which you excluded" here
  • 3) All the sources were secondary sources, but to satisfy the user, i added more secondary sources and reasons for war, then user claimed "You're taking texture out of context"original resource is not allowed, and the article is already tagged with too many quotes" here
I came to conclusion that this user will never allow alternate views , he keeps changing reasons for removing content, now his reasons is that there is a dispute and cant add content until dispute settled, dispute is only between me and him, and no one else, and i think davidelah has disputed with him on the same topic also (before me)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Now i have added a properly referenced alternate opinion to the "best jihad" section, that user created recently. But user reverted my edit claiming "fixed misleading paraphrasing, according to the source; the whole section is about war, but I'm not sure if I got the sequence right" he said this, here, another user called "wiqi" stated , "You may wish to add any other interpretations of this concept in the same section"here, but Adamrce has problems adding alternate views, not only that. The info that he added(thats currently on that section) references, which is a website of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is accused of supprting terrorism, He keeps complaining about using proper sources *sigh*. Yet source i added was a secondary source of a book by a famous muslim scholar called Ibn Nuhaas, who analyses a primary source called the hadiths,this is the book . --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's no secret that there's four major schools of Islamic thought, and it would be very useful to include summaries of their views on Jihad. It appears to me we have one editor who would like to do this and another editor who prefers the "western pop" version. Given the plaintiff's willingness to improve subject coverage, sources, and content and the defendant's obstinacy, I think we should warn Adamrce sternly to be more reasonable or be gone and award Misconceptions2 a Barnstar each for patience, scholarship, and perseverance. Rklawton (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you got an understanding about the debate, sir. You, for yourself, said summaries.
(1) The same discussion has been opened before. My main concern was not on the content nor the source. The two users were trying to prove that Jihad is to attack. The BBC source said that warfare Jihad is only allowed when under attack, which the four schools agree with that too; however, the editor was ignoring the content that explains the conditions in his source (i.e. in Shaffi: either attacked or surrounded by an enemy oppressing toward a war) and only inserted the parts that relate to a war. I insisted to discuss the topic before inserting, as it might be mislead to the readers. The user ignored most of my continues comments, and re-added the content after changing my least concerns. My main objective was to lead to a mutual agreed content on the talkpage, not the article. I wouldn't object on the schools if they were fairly inserted as a NPOV. I suggested to open a sandbox to fix the content together or get a third opinion, but I just don't think, in my opinion, that the editing should be done on the main article (especially as the inserted selection of content was picked based on a pov).
(2) The editor inserted a source that said "highest Jihad" solely talking about war and phrased it to "best Jihad", so I changed the edited phrasing from "best Jihad" to make it identical to the source, "highest Jihad'. Is that pushing my POV?
(3) The only dispute I got about my "Best Jihad" insertion is: "reverted Adamrce, there are many different quotes from muhammad about what the best jihad is". Another user put it back. I just put that source as a news article, but I would of inserted an alternative source if they ever objected (it already has another source referenced, btw).
Hopefully someone can take a look at what was going on, instead of deciding based on the selected number of claims AdvertAdam talk 08:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If you removed the alternate view i added to the "best jihad" section on the grounds that it uses the word "highest", not "best".Then i could just as easily change the title of that section to "Highest and Best Jihad", so then you would have no reason to remove it? Or would you then have another reason to remove it. In my opinion, your arguments for removing content is putting you in a bad light here.
  • update: for your information, the user wiqi, has added a more relevant hadith to that section from the same book now.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I added the rules of warfare, but you did not like it, because you wanted the reasons for war. Which i added also. You clearly have in your head the idea that Jihad is only in defence, and that the 4 schools of Islam agree with you. Even the Islam article mentions [here] that , there are scholars who believe that Jihad is also offensive and to conquer. This is indicated in the following hadith of Muhammad, which i can also add to wikipedia with a secondary source, but you would remove:

On the day of Al-Ahzab (i.e. clans) the Prophet said, (After this battle) we will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not come to attack us." Sahih Bukhari, 5,59,435

  • the secondary source to back this up would be:

The Holy war as it is known in Islam is basically an offensive war, and it is the duty of all Muslims of every age, when the needed military power is available, because our prophet Muhammad said that he is ordered by Allah to fight all people until they say ‘No God but Allah,’ and he is his messenger (pg 134)...It is meaningless to talk about the holy war as only defensive, otherwise, what did the prophet mean when he said, "from now on even if they don’t invade you, you must invade them. (Pg242)
[Dr. M. Sa’id Ramadan Al-Buti - "Jurisprudence of Muhammad’s Biography", Pg. 73, English edition, published by Azhar University of Egypt (1988)]

  • As for your claim that the 4 schools agree with your view that Jihad is only defensive, read the yellow part. Does it really seem that the 4 schools agree with you. I think you removed it because they dont agree with you. Here is a pic just so you know that i did add reasons for war and have highlighted the necessary part to show you they dont agree with you.
  • You gave a quote from the reliance of the traveller, to prove that the 4 schools agree with you. The reliance of the traveller is only 1 school, not 4. But the book does not agree with you either " section 9.8 "objectives of jihad", it says:

    The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians... until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High, "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29) Reliance of the Traveller section 9.8

  • In section 9.9 it says:

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) Reliance of the Traveller section 9.9

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

On the 4 schools issue, I think there is a misunderstanding of what an Islamic school of jurisprudence is supposed to be. Roughly speaking, schools of jurisprudence are concerned with more general issues, like methods of interpreting texts or defining technical terms, such as Sunnah and Qiyas, etc. Anything beyond that, e.g., rules of jihad, is considered merely an opinion of one scholar which may or may not be common or acceptable to other scholars and followers of the same school. So instead of quoting individual scholars, I suggest that Misconceptions2 should find secondary sources that a) survey the opinions of multiple scholars of one school, and b) determine which points that most scholars agree upon. Wiqi(55) 14:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is impossible, where can i get such surveys from, the scholars of the past are not alive (do you know any organisation that takes such surveys, i believe you just dont want these rules on wikipedia). Also, you are trying to be technical, by claiming "interpreting texts or defining technical terms, such as Sunnah and Qiyas, etc. Anything beyond that, e.g., rules of jihad, is considered merely an opinion". Of course it is, so are the rules on Sunnah and Qiyas, those are opinions of scholars and schools, just like the rules of Jihad. I want to add these "opinions" of the scholars on the grounds ofNotability, as they do represent their schools.

If you would like, i can also add the opinions of the founders of those schools on the rules of Jihad, but those opinions are FAR FAR more extreme. You can find some here. Non Combatants in Islam- By the Hudson think tank , if i added some of their opinions on jihad (like allowing the killing of non combatants indiscriminately), would you remove it?-Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It is simple really. "Reliance of the Traveler" is just one book of Shafi'i jurisprudence out of many, all of which are still actively being studied (some even considered more important than the Reliance). So what does the other Shafi'i books say about the rules of jihad? If you can't answer this simple question, then you should only cite secondary sources and not selectively quoting one primary source and ignoring all others (which violates WP:NOR). In any case, I suggest taking this discussion back to Talk:Jihad, as we are off topic here. Wiqi(55) 16:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In Talk:Jihad, there was an endless discussion (even Adamrce acknowledged this). This can only be sorted by admin intervention. Furthermroe, i DID cite mainly secondary sources which were analysing those primary sources, see above. Ok you tell me in your opinion what are the most important books of those 4 schools of Islam, and i will cite them with secondary sources, i also hope you dont remove them. I am going to great lengths to satisfy you and Adamrce (i doubt i will ever satisfy Adamrce).I think it is best that i just cite the views of the founders of the 4 schools

All i want is a resolution from admins about the actions of Adamrce. Since he does not allow alternate views--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Requesting an opinion on the procedures:[edit]

I'm User:Adamrce, so I hope you don't get confused with my signature. The only pov I'm pushing, which I think is legitimate, is to keep the discussion on the talk-page or soap box, not the main article as it could mislead readers during editing; where anyone can invite admins, mediators, third opinions...etc, because this topic is tagged with controversial. I hope any admin can comment on this point, as I've invited the disputer to build a soapbox together many times with no hope. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to reply to these claims here, but I'll answer some so no-one thinks I'm avoiding this discussion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I've stopped editing everything.

  • Misconceptions2, you have no right, at all, to change the wording to your own intentions. I did not remove your contribution as you claim, but corrected the wording to match the source. It said "Highest Jihad" not "Best Jihad". However, you reverted it back to the wrong interpretation and User:Wiqi55 corrected it, again. I hope you're satisfied.
  • Yes, your source says that the Muslims fight the non-Muslims until they pay tax or become Muslims in-order to live in peace, BECAUSE a section before it said that it is when their enemies surround them calling for war!!! We can't fix this wording on the article, which I suggested many times to open a soapbox to work on it together. Again, you can't just pick the statements you like and ignore the rest.

I'm not sure if we're allowed to finish this discussion here, so I can answer all disputes. AdvertAdam talk 21:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh please (i have been as compromising as i can, and have done everything to satify you), i really dont have the stomach to argue with you any further. Clearly any scholarly opinions that goes against your idea that "Jihad is defensive and is done only to bring peace", will be removed by you, with whatever excuse you think of (even if it meets all the rules of wiki, yes this is an accusation which i have provided proof for right at top). I would like an admin to read what has already been said and help us end this arguement. All i want is an admin to decide wether Adamrce was right to remove alternate views (and only keep bbc opinions of the rules of warefare in islam), i dont have anything else to say--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also AdamRce, i will consider this issue resolved if you just tell me what is wrong with my edits. Is it that i dont add any secondary sources, is it that all my sources are unreliable... from your point of view? What is it that makes u remove the edits, and what do i have to do, such that, you wont remove the edits of the alternate views on the rules of warfare?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We're not here to satisfy ourselves, but should all work together to satisfy the readers. You and another editor had a couple claims on me, and a third user called my sources "western pop" (even though I had Arabic sources and lived in the Middle-East for a long time, too). I've stopped editing for three days waiting for this claim to close. I already explained my points here, so we should wait for an admin's decision. Keeping the discussion going will just slow things down, I guess. I have 300 pages on my watch-list, so each day is a disaster for me to follow-up. All points are clear here and I hope an admin jumps in soon :). I know that I'm already unblocked, but I just don't want to keep editing if I was doing anything wrong. I already learned my lesson about the edit war and double-checked how to avoid it. Peace everyone and good luck AdvertAdam talk 04:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleting pictures without asking for consensus[edit]

User:Scott MacDonald have deleted File:Second control room.png without asking for consensus. According to the block log at, he "Continues deletions agaisnt policy, without consensus support, after havign been repeatedly asked, waned and previously blocked". Tyw7 20:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin), Consensus isn't generally required for deletion of images, which are subject to copyright laws (which can't be circumvented by on-wiki discussion). In this case the image has been deleted because you haven't made a valid fair use claim, or haven't filled the claim in correctly, which is totally legit. Bob House 884 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I HAVE filled in the valid fair use claims. Tyw721:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I reminded Scott not to delete images out of process (CSD#F7 does have a seven day term for invalid FURs). But to comment on the image; it would not hold up to WP:NFCC anyway; showing it would not add to the understanding of the article. Edokter (talk) — 20:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
It would add understanding of the article as it shows the second control room, which is the first time it appears in such episode. Tyw7 21:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The understanding is derived from the text you've just written. I understand that a second control room was shown and the first time it's appeared in an episode without seeing a picture. In fact just seeing the picture would leave me without that understanding.-- (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI: the block you quote was undone by the same admin at the same minute as "Completely a mistake". Goodvac (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The ad hominem here is irrelevant - look again at the block log and you'll see the blocker changed their mind - and that was a year ago on another issue entirely. But let's address the case in point. I did IAR delete this image - and yes, I did it out of a bit of frustration. Every week there is a new episode of Doctor Who. Every week there is a new episode article. Every week someone uploads a non-free screenshot to decorate the inevitable infobox. Every week a case is made to justify it under the WP:NFCC. Every week it fails #8 and is deleted after a week's discussion. On the episode Impossible Astronaut, they simply uploaded another image and tried again, each debate lasting a week and each having the same result. It is tiresome. It is also gaming the system. Non-free content is suppose to be uploaded ONLY when the content demands it, the problem here is that the infobox decoration is motivating it, and then the NFCC being used to try to find a way of getting one image in somehow. I posted this matter to ANI last week, and we are back with it. Perhaps we need a way of forcing people to make their case, and get consensus, BEFORE uploading. It is too easy just to upload an image for an infobox, and it stays a week, and forces those enforcing policy to do all the work to have it removed. I'll restore it if that's consensus - but I'll stop enforcing policy as well, because I see no reason to have to have 3 seven day debates on each weekly episode.--Scott Mac 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
First we need a clear rule about what goes in and what doesn't. a. Regarding your deletion of pics: Just because each consensus reach the same result doesn't mean that the same result would be made on every DW pic consensus. b. All pictures does have some "significance" to the article. Tyw7 21:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Your stated reasons of "would be on interest to DW fans" is clearly a long way outside the NFCC -- (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
We have a clear rule. See WP:NFCC #8. "Some significance" is not sufficient, because as you say all pictures have some significance.--Scott Mac 21:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, how about a lot of significance :P. FOr goodness sake, it is the first time the second control room makes an appearance. Doesn't it have ANY significance? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    Every little helps! 21:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing the significance of the "event", with an image adding significant understanding. The signifcant event can and has been explained in words by you several times, no picture required. -- (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the 7 day wait is as clear cut as is being stated. F7 varies the time from immediately to the 7 day wait. The 7 day wait are in the circumstances where the fair use claim could be made, the others are where it can't. Since the uploader stated "I thought the article could use with a screenshot of the "second control room" because it would be of intrest to DW fans." it seems quite clear that this isn't the case where the fair use claim has been badly stated/omitted, it's of the kind that there is no real fair use claim to be made, much the same as case 2 of F7 "...are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately" -- (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The FUR was made on the deletion of the img itself... the actual FUR was: THis image shows what the secondary control room looks like It is where the "climax" of the episode" takes place Tyw7 21:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Your reason for upload was stated here which is a different issue to the claim you placed on the image. Your upload reasoning wasn't because it added significant understanding... -- (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
A. the actual FUR was added in the img iteself. and b. That was a quick "comment" trying to persuade the admin to undelete it. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep. When bad non-free images are uploaded in a series, the uploader has received appropriate explanations of what is wrong with them but continues nevertheless making uploads of the same kind, and the obviousness of the invalidity of the NFC claim approaches snowy levels, it is perfectly legitimate to shorten the 7-days grace period. The grace period is meant to give an absent uploader a chance to comment; it is not meant to give them the right to enjoy their bad uploads sitting around in the articles for a week. Fut.Perf. 21:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I did NOT get any msg on my talk page about the deletion :/. I only know about it when the image just "disappeared" Tyw721:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I apologise for the 3 min delay between deletion and this polite message.--Scott Mac 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
But that was AFTER I posted in your talk page ( Tyw7 21:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
We actually cross-posted. It took me three minutes after deletion to write the note to your talk page, because my wife came into the room. Desysop me quick.--Scott Mac 21:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
You chose your marriage over Wikipedia? I am shocked at this violation of WP:IARL. Your RfC is in the mail. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You got plenty of explanation of what the relevant standards are in at least two extensive deletion discussions of other, recent uploads of yours. You seem to have taken in very little of those discussions. Fut.Perf. 21:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes that img only showed a "mysterous" girl that only had about 2 or 3 min of air time, but this is different. This is the first time that a second control room appears on screen. Also, this episode is about the TARDIS itself and it "explores" the many tardis rooms. And secondly, I did not get any warning about this img and I believe each img is different and should be treated differently Tyw7. 21:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The issue of CSD verses FFD for images came up recently at WT:CSD, and I really think. given WP:NFCC and the Foundation Resolution, that the only time admins should be deleting images outside of the process is very limited to obvious cases such as duplicate images, invalid copyright claims, or the like. Admins should not be deciding the strength of a rationale on the spot without (at minimum) the 7 day process of CSD (giving the editor time to improve the rationale) or consensus input at FFD.
Now I will say that if an editor has a history of uploading images willy-nilly without making any attempt to meet NFC, that's likely a special case that as long as the new image is still just as bad as the previous ones, single-admin rapid deletion is ok. This is clearly not the case here. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This img was actually of significance importance to the episode... and not like the previous img which is of no signifcance to ep. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 21:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

For the last three episodes, this user has uploaded screen shots each week, all of which he's claimed are valid, and each time he's been told "no" [16]. Do we really have to go through a debate each week for such clearly invalid images? No one on this thread is suggesting this the upload here was even borderline.--Scott Mac 21:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

But each imgs are an improvement... --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    Gotta catch 'em all! 21:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
If an image doesn't meet the NFCC, then it's not valid. So how is it an improvement? Twy, you are basically guilty of disruptive editing for continually uploading cruddy images. I have pointed you to the pages WP:NFC and WP:NFCC at least ten times. If you refuse to read them, that's utterly ridiculous. If you have read them but just don't get it, that's no good either. Do not upload images in future unless you understand the feedback you are being given here. Simple. ╟─TreasuryTagChief Counting Officer─╢ 21:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In your case NONE of the images will make the cut cause all can be described with words! What makes the cut?
  • ☑Y Significantly important image? This is the first time the second control room have appeared.
  • ☑Y Is there a non-free alternative? No.
  • ☑Y Can it be better described with a picture? Yes. It shows the user what does the second control room looks like. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    Shake 'n Bake 21:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    OK, I'm going to make one more attempt to explain this, then I'm not feeding you any more and you'll just have to cope with the agony of not understanding.
    Does somebody who wishes to understand the article need to have a perfect idea of the secondary control room's visual appearance, or is it simply enough that they are aware it is a secondary control room with a different appearance to the main one? ╟─TreasuryTagUK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)I think it does because it is of significance cause it looks like the 9th/10th DW episode --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    Careless edits costs reputations 21:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    So say in the text that it's the same as the Tenth Doctor's control room. Why does the reader need to know exactly what it looks like? ╟─TreasuryTagwithout portfolio─╢ 22:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Because pictures are worth a thousand words.... Are you saying even if it is significant to the ep, its not signifcant to the article? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    "A picture is worth a thousand words" is not Wikipedia policy, it's just a meaningless stab at proof by assertion. The point is, had the secondary control room been orange and pink, would the episode's plot have been radically different? What about if it had wood panelling? Or if the console was located at the edge rather than at the centre? Would any of these things have altered the plot? Yes or no? (Clue: if the answer is 'no' then it means that the aesthetics of the room, while perhaps quite nice to see, aren't directly relevant to the subject of the article, which is the episode.) ╟─TreasuryTagSpeaker─╢ 07:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
But how about the Tardis being "transfered" to the woman? I think that img would get deleted nontheless! Let me give you an example, one editor uploaded the Doctor getting "killed" during his regen cycle in The Impossible Astronaut. I thought it was signifcant cause it shows the Doctor, the main character in the series, getting killed by the titular astronaut. But nooo it got deleted! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 11:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban[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.
I think this has "dragged on" long enough. It has been open for well over 24hrs with and there has been no further contribution since 30:00 yesterday. Consensus is clearly in favour of this topic ban. A couple of people have pointed out that our NFCC policy can be complex to understand, and that it is not always the fault of the uploader violating it. The argument has merit, although perhaps not in this case (given the further evidence), but is not really a reason to avoid the topic ban. Consensus is that Tyw7, for whatever reason, has trouble with our NFCC and, so, a topic ban until he can demonstrate adequate understanding is appropriate. --Errant (chat!) 13:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose we topic ban Tyw7 and delete all his screen shot uploads on sight as an utter waste of time since clearly his personal judgement isn't sufficient. Rklawton (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I entirely support this in principle, but I've just threatened Twy with making such a proposal the next time he uploads a crap image, so for the sake of fairness I'll oppose unless/until another problem occurs. ╟─TreasuryTagconstabulary─╢ 21:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Sod it, he's clueless and getting on my nerve. Support ban on Twy7 uploading non-free images. ╟─TreasuryTagcondominium─╢ 22:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    If it were bad behaviour, a threat like this and a "last chance" would be fine. But it is evident this user doesn't understand the NFCC, so it may be better to protect him from himself. It isn't that arduous to make him ask someone else who does understand the criteria. If the upload is a good suggestion, it will easily happen.--Scott Mac 21:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yeah, fair enough. ╟─TreasuryTagCANUKUS─╢ 22:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    How don't I understand NFCC? I have uploaded the NIS screenshot just fine! Apparently your definiation of DW "significance" is different from mine! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twy7 (talkcontribs)
  • (ec)Given the clear failure to understand the NFCC, the pattern of poor non-free uploads, and the IDHT responses, is there any support for a non-free upload ban for this user? If he wants an image uploaded, he can ask someone who understands the NFCC.--Scott Mac 21:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
"Low resolution – Not quite sure; Copyright status – probably". You really can't see a problem with this? – iridescent 22:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Resized the pic. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    For the people, of the people, by the people 22:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, what am I suppose to yes copyrighted? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This has gone on long enough; it's obvious the penny is never going to drop. – iridescent 21:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support User repeating the same things over and over above show pretty well a complete failure to understand the NFCC. -- ۩ Mask 22:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Because that's the point I am trying to make about why it is significant... --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Apparently your defination of "irreplaceble" is different from mine. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a mission to be a free content work. Every non-free image we have represents a damage to our redistributility and our ideals. Instead of looking for screenshots to put in to an article, ask yourself if an article needs a screenshot to be understandable. The answer in these is clearly no. -- ۩ Mask 22:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
How am I trying to game the system? I understand all the rules of NFCC. Apparently #8, "significance" varies from person to person! And also, some screenshots, if I lower the quality, they will be illegable! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, in this instance, "significantly" seems to vary from everyone to you. And you keep repeating that it's significantly "important", but the rule is that it has to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" - it doesn't matter how "important" the image is, although in this case, it happens not to be terribly important. I do like "illegable", an amusing, on-point combination of illegible and illegal.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually that was a typo. Also, I think its important because it adds understanding to the reader about the looks of the second console. Secondly, another image at the lodger exist which IMO is on the same lvl as this. In addition, should ALL images be resized, even to the point when they cannot be read? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Have a read of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Maybe we should resize those. At the moment however, we're talking about these images. -- ۩ Mask 22:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
{{(edit conflict) Yes I have. Also, are we to resize the imgs to the point where they cannot be read? I tend to keep screenshots as it (unless they are too large ie over 100px). Secondly, the NIS img HAS been resized. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
If your still wondering what I meant by 'game', I was referring to your insistance post facto that you were justified in uploading new images which were basically the same as those that had previously been deleted hoping that one would 'slip through the net'. This isn't really the idea of Xfd, if something is deleted it's a fair bet to assume that similar things should be deleted. Bob House 884 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of uploading multiple images hoping one "slip through"? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Didn't know if it was a typo or a misspelling - either way, it was entertaining (no offense). I don't believe resolution is the issue here. If it doesn't meet any one of the 10 criteria, it can't be used. You're pretty persistent, but in this case, I think your persistence is working against you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)