Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive696

Possible hacker?

Resolved

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

Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:H3xStack 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?

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 · 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. OhanaUnited^{Talk 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. OhanaUnited^{Talk 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)

http://www.ipsoon.com/banQuan/HTML/18336.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qingprof (talk • contribs) 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)

http://www.ipsoon.com/banQuan/HTML/18336.shtml 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"

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

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

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. 188.222.170.156 (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. - 188.222.170.156 (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 (talk • cont) 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. 188.222.170.156 (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

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?

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 media watchdog group Media Matters for America described Pipes' article as promoting a "falsehood". 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 know, Wikipedia makes IRS regulations seem simple. We have way too many policies. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:27, 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)

• We don't need no steenkeen policies! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:25, 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)

• Sleetman, did you hear that boomerang sail right by your head? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:29, 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 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.

Edit warring at User:Colonel Warden/RIP

Resolved

 – User:Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion(indefinite) and 125.162.150.88(24hours) are blocked

125.162.150.88 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 125.162.150.88 (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 ;> 125.162.150.88 (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

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 · 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

Summary of issue

This incident is related to the controversial Jihad article regarding the user Adamrce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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

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

• 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

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

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

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

Reliance of the Traveller, Northern Kentucky University

Secondary source 2

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

Secondary source 3

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

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

Comments

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. 64.85.214.12 (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頭 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 · 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 www.khilafah.com, 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 www.khilafa.com, 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:

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

User:Scott MacDonald have deleted File:Second control room.png without asking for consensus. According to the block log at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&type=block&page=User:Scott_MacDonald, 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.--82.7.44.178 (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 --82.7.44.178 (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. --82.7.44.178 (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" --82.7.44.178 (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... --82.7.44.178 (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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scott_MacDonald&oldid=429132090) 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. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chief 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? ╟─TreasuryTag►UK 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? ╟─TreasuryTag►without 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.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 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

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. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 21:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Sod it, he's clueless and getting on my nerve. Support ban on Twy7 uploading non-free images. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 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. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 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 (talk • contribs)

• (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)

• (edit conflict)I have uploaded the screenshots of Norton Internet Security which DOES make the cut! Fine! I will not upload DW screenshots! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   → Careless edits costs reputations 21:58, 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)

• Support in principle per WP:COMPETENCE and persistant inability to understand fair use, which is a serious legal issue and not a game. Indifferent on exact terms - perhaps DW only. Bob House 884 (talk) 22:09, 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)

(edit conflict) my persistance is to avoid being banned. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Candidly, I think it might be working against you - normally an apology or single summary paragraph of your position works better than WP:BLUDGEON Bob House 884 (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a hole under your feet — g'ahead, keep digging, why don't you? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support upload-ban Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is my stand: I believe the image is of significance because of these rreasons:

• It shows something new in the episode (and thus meets the "signficance")
• It cannot be replaced by a non free image
• Resize is met as I have resized it down to 500px (origional) size is 1000px

If you don't agree with any of the above, I would gleefully back out of uploading DW episodes screenshots! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. That seems to be your choice: ban yourself or be banned. What's your pleasure? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Backing away from the DW issue... until I can work out which img is signifcant and which is not. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm. What dont you get about WP:NFCC? New to the episode doesnt cut it. Non-free images are a last resort. They can only be used for things not adequately described in prose. -- ۩ Mask 22:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur. If you think "Because pictures are worth a thousand words" is a legitimate fair use reason, think 500px is "low resolution", and think "own work" can describe something you admit is a copyrighted screenshot, you're on course for a block if this carries on; please don't upload more FU images unless and until you actually understand the law here. – iridescent 22:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I did NOT claim as own work. And just saying the proverb. Discussing with Doctor Who wikiproject about which makes the cut. And btw what's the min screenshot resolution? One guy at the IRC says 300px. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"Source: Own work". I'd say 300 is pushing it; 200-220px max is more like it. The whole point of NFCC is to make images as valueless as possible, something you still seem unable to grasp. "A guy on IRC disagrees" is, um, not helping. – iridescent 22:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I took the image myself so isn't it own work? Also, what use is un unreadable picture??? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Some guidance on image size here: A 200px image is not unreadable, it is currently the preferred size on most commercial websites, in fact the images on the BCC website are rarely larger than 200px. A 500px image is usable in the print versions of a newspaper (UK newspapers regularly steal them from flickr accounts). In Addition a 500px image is usable for CD/DVD printing, for postcards and greeting cards, for bookmarks, and all manner of other cafepress type small articles. A 1000px image is huge. Last year someone used of a 2000x1000 photo of mine and built an A2 poster around it, the itself image occupies half the poster. Images over 3000px are preferred for large format double spread gloss magazines. John lilburne (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, enough. That you could make such a ridiculous comment shows you're never going to get the problem here. If you upload another copyright violation there's a very good chance you'll be blocked. Needless to say, support ban on all file uploads. – iridescent 22:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

WTF??? You were on set while they were filming??? WP:COMPETENCE. Ban Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is about the NIS pic! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 23:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No, this is about you uploading files and your understanding of NFCC. But the NIS isn't your own work. Its a screen from NIS, a copyrighted work. If I photocopy a Bob Woodward book it is not suddenly my book. -- ۩ Mask 23:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) "Until I can work out" doesn't cut it; you obviously can't. Vote support on your own ban, and we can leave it at an informal upload-ban. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Pause Proceedings Please A middleman connected me to tyw7 via the IRC and I am walking him through this now. I'm going to give it my all and hopefully we can avoid having to go to a topic ban. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A topic ban is no big deal, and even if you walk him through this, he's demonstrated over time, and on this board, a general lack of competence. He should keep editing in other areas. If he really believes a non-free image is justified, he should easily be able to persuade someone else to upload. No reason to pause.--Scott Mac 23:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur. The discussion is here, and his hole is by now a mineshaft.Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so you're going to make someone else's life more difficult needlessly because you can't wait an hour for me to show him how things work? Let's not be vindictive here, I am already getting through to him. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship is a good idea for repairing the users understanding of these issues, but it should run concurrently with a topic ban, not instead of. -- ۩ Mask 23:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You wanna "get through to him", great, you'll have plenty of time mentoring him during the ban. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite. What evidence of change do we get if you talk him thorough it. No. Better that he come to you, or others, for any uploads in the future. If after a bit, if you can show all his requests are legitimate and clueful then we can rethink. I can't imagine any response (short of a voluntary ban) that you will be able to make in the next 48 hours that will convince us that he's got it. Look if he were being deliberately disruptive an undertaking might cut it, but the problem here is demonstrated incompetence and an inability to hear. You coming back in a few hours with "I think he's got it now" won't do. Legitimate non-free uploads should be rare, him not doing any personally will be no loss to anyone, not even him.--Scott Mac 23:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose to ban - There are people above that I expect a lot better of assuming good faith. Granted, I would agree that the images uploaded by Tyw ultimately are unlikely to comply with NFCC, but that's still a subjective call. If he did this numerous times (3 is not "numerous") in a row and each time was soundly rejected as an unnecessary picture, I could see call for admin action, but we're talking what appears to be only 3 times, and each time Tyw has appeared to try to meet NFCC. NFCC criteria is not easy to understand for newer and even experienced users, and at this point, those calling for a block or ban are not giving Tyw the appropriate benefit of a doubt. Calling for mentorship is completely in line and should be done, but we're biting a user way too hard for a difficult-to-understand and highly subjective reason to not include NFCC. If anything, these images should be going to FFD for discussion (I think one did) and let the community determine if they are appropriate. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but what has "assume good faith" got to do with anything? Nobody here has blamed Tyw for being deliberately disruptive. The call for an image ban has been entirely based on a competence argument, not a bad faith argument. But I'd have to agree the ban is a bit on the draconian side compared with the way we've traditionally dealt with such cases (i.e., infinite patience and leniency beyond all bounds). Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  Because the way I'm reading Tyw's comments, he believes that these images meet NFCC; I certainly agree that he's probably not right about that, but the first step of collaborative editing is assume that the user is not purposely disrupting the editing of WP for all by assuming good faith. We're talking a handful of images that are easily dealt with once consensus has resolved - far from any disruptive activity to call for a ban or block. Now, if we do take him under mediation, and after some time, returns to the same practice, that's a horse of a different color and calling for bans/blocks makes sense. I'm just reading this - as one that does appreciate the NFCC concerns of these images - and seeing a lot of torches and pitchforks just because one new user to the process didn't get it right the first time despite a good attempt at trying. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  Masem, you didn't read what FutureP just said. We do not think that he is "purposely" causing disruption. We think that he is causing disruption through a desperate inability to grasp the NFCC. That may or may not be his fault, but nobody here has alleged bad faith, just that his uploads cause problems and must be stopped. I have exhaustively tried explaining this to him, across several talkpages, and not got anywhere, so I'm not sure what the next step could be other than a topic-ban. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 07:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  How many other users probably exist out there that have uploaded images and failed to grasp the NFCC with their first 2 or 3 uploads, and since have improved? Probably a lot more than you think simply because there's a lot of cobwebs and rarely visited parts of the Wiki that we don't even discover these problems for years. The only reason that Tyw here is getting pelted on is that he's doing this on a highly visible page (the latest Doctor Who episode). Again, if this was try #10 and each time there's a cycle of you and he going back and forth over the applicability of the image and each time finding he's very much in the wrong, I agree there's someone that just doesn't get it and a block on image uploading would be completely in line. But again, I'm only seeing 2-3 iterations here, and certainly NFCC is not that simple to understand to get it right after one try. And with the call for mentorship in the area requested and accepted, seems like any block is way over the top. Again, its very difficult to find why a block or ban is needed when the disruption is negliable (until, of course, people throw this at ANI instead). --MASEM (t) 15:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ummm we only have a talk about TWO images, BOTH regarding Doctor Who! See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Day_of_the_Moon&oldid=428621242 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Impossible_Astronaut&oldid=428616136 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag&oldid=426969125 is about the sig! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 11:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Support ban on non-free uploads from this user. Per this comment this guy will never get it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Already explained by SvenMangard. Changed the reasoning on the image. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 00:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is the second time Tyw7 has shown up at ANI in barely two weeks. This is clearly more than an NFCC issue, it's one of WP:COMPETENCE. Support ban on uploads with a view to something stronger. Strongly suggest mentoring. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Neutral I'm not really a fan of this, but I didn't get as far as I'd have liked to with Tyw7. On the one hand, I think he now understands {{own}} and why it's not appropriate. On the other hand, he still seems to have issues with NFCC#3a and NFCC#8. The issue here is that what he looks for in images is aesthetics and interestingness. Convincing him to use an uglier but more relivant or encylopedicly valuable image is difficult, as is convincing him to do with a small number of images when more are avalible. I think that the best course of action, the one that seems to have yielded the best results already, is to explain privately, using examples and actual conversation. Saying "go read X policy" isn't going to work in this case, but I do stress that I think there's hope here. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. And please do not confuse me with other DW images. First I tend to upload DW scenes that are "unique" and have importance to the episode (yes I admit the regen girl is not important to Day of the Moon but it could be important to Regeneration (Doctor Who), which I change the reason later on. In addition, I uploaded a picture of the titular silent to use in Doctor Who monsters (also that picture was used in DW Wikia info box). Also, it seems like any DW images that are uploaded for later episodes would get deleted regardlesss. For example, in The Impossible Astronaut, one uploader upload a picture of the Doctor getting "killed" by the titular "astronaut" during his regen cycle. However, the img gets deleted regardless. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 11:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• (non-admin) NFCC is fairly complex.. This user seems to be "slowly" getting a clue and 3 issues just aren't enough to justify this. I'd suggest a 2-week ban from uploading non-free images in the hopes the idea gets clearly across and has time to sink in. So oppose ban, support 2 week ban. No reason to drive off what looks to be a potentially good contributor over their lack of understanding of a complex policy, at least not yet. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Pictures can always be described in words. If the readers lack the imagination to mentally process that, they should not be reading Wikipedia—beggars can't be choosers. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I fundamentally and strongly disagree with your statement. Images do have use, and there are plenty of places where words don't adequately describe things that pictures show easily. This, of course, has little to do with the matter or policy or the user in question, I'm just objecting to your blanket assertion. If you don't see a value in images, ignore them, but don't try and tell me that they are, as a whole, replaceable. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Your comment seems to be nothing to do with the editor in question but a call for a ban on picture in general.--82.7.44.178 (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support I can understand those who are reluctant on the basis that direct discussion seems to help and he does then get it, however that seems to me to be more support of a ban. If we look at the case here, the start of the post with an "attack" on the admin is a pretty poor start, later on when discussing the upload reason "That was a quick "comment" trying to persuade the admin to undelete it", it does appear there is a lack of thought and a willingness to just say things to try and move things forward in the direction he believe is right. I'm not convinced those seeing progress aren't seeing (at least in part) some of that. We can't let the uploads go on then retrospectively explain the problems in what seems to be quite a time consuming process. The original suggestion was that he proposed uploads which someone else could do if they agreed the critera were met, it's not that onerous for him, it enables the discussion to happen before the images get uploaded and if over a period of time he show's he does now "get it" then lifting the ban and reallowing direct upload should be a non-issue. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I started with the ANI against the admin because he did not follow protols and starting an FFD (files for deletion). As the tide started to turn against me, I desperately trying to "grasp the straws" to avoid getting a topic ban (also get fusterated with all the edit coflicts and fear that a judgement would be carried out before I had a say!). --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 11:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case I was getting at is that you started this rather than just a statement of the problem, but with an thin attack on the person doing the deleting, presumably because you believed it strengthened you case. You reinforce some of my point here in your statement that you were grapsing at straws, you reinforce it further below by now changing the story to saying it as on wikia so I assumed it was ok, which you've not said before. (That by the way is making things worse, saying I assumed that because it was on a different unrelated website that it'd be ok really isn't a good thing to be saying). Someone above said something about "keep on digging", you don't seem to have got that. If you keep digging you'll only get deeper into the hole. Stop digging and try to understand the issue. No one wants to keep on bashing you with the problem, but when you keep on trying to make excuses or change explanations they'll just assume you haven't got it yet. I'd suggest (if you haven't already) you voluntarily find a good mentor (I'd suggest someone who (a) is experienced in this area and (b) has been critical of you in these matters, but who you've found constructive in the way they do it), and agree to stop uploading images until that person is happy that you understand all the relevant policies.--12:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.44.178 (talk)

• Oppose People are genuinely confused about just what can be done with what size of image. Mostly there is a myth, even amongst amateur photographers, that images need to be printed at 300dpi and that anything smaller than 1000px is not commercially usable. I don't think that someone should be sanctioned simply for being ignorant. Of course any repetition should be dealt with differently. John lilburne (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  If you think this is merely an issue with size of image, then you've missed the rest of the debate. If it were just about size I'd agree with you because it'd be easy enough to say to this editor "don't upload above size X" and that'd be the end of it. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  Maybe, but most of the 'fair-use' criteria stems from size. Most of the justifications start off with "It is believed that the use of low-resolution ...' and many of them that are scans of CD/LP covers, or books are on the large size. It is very easy for someone to be lead to think that size is a dominate factor. John lilburne (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  Ok, but I still can't see that as the fundamental problem from reading the rest of the discussion, indeed the image which triggered this whole debate the uploader hasn't claimed he though it was ok because it was low res. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it stems from my differing views about which scenes are "significant" and whether an image is actually needed. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The fair use criteria has very little do do with size. It deals more with when it is approrpiate or not appropriate to use a copyrighted image in an article. Size and resolution are, combined, two elevenths at most of the NFCC. As for the myth, yes you can print at 96dpi, but not at professional quality (without resetting the dpi, which shrinks the image). The point behind the size and dpi restrictions is that it strikes a balance, it allows the website to use the image, while reducing the commercial opportunities of that image. We'll never be able to stop people from taking non-free images from Wikipedia and using them on personal blogs, but if we make it so that the file is inadequate for most if not all commercial situation, i.e. prevent people using non-free images on Wikipedia to turn a profit, then we've done enough due diligence. Having a low dpi and size won't automaticly solve the problem, but its the best option I know of.

I agree that the most important criteria should be whether the image is integral to a proper understanding of the subject, not simply whether it would be nice to have an image to illustrate the page. But I also understand, having explained the issue to people, that many think that all it takes is a low resolution image. In any case a 500px image is more than enough for book printing. John lilburne (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support As obvious a case of Wikipedia:IJustDon't(WantTo)GetIt I have seen since... well, last night actually. How fortunate that the writers of Doctor Who rarely if ever change the characters costume for the duration of that incarnation... LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Are you accusing me that I don't want to get it! Each picture (only TWO I REPEAT TWO DW image that I uploaded got deleted and both have some significance to their respective article. For example, the silent on TV image WAS in used in the Tardis Wikia, an external Doctor Who wiki, so I thought since they had it as their infobox, it must meet the "significance" guideline. Also, it could be used at Silence (Doctor Who) but the current pic is better. Furthermore, the regen girl could be of use to the regeneration article showing another non doctor regeneration (might I say that reason got two supports to keep). --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 11:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am suggesting that you "don't want to get it!", yes. Do you have a problem with my arriving at this viewpoint, after reading your responses? It is my experience that editors who are interested in and edit one or a few related topics have a hard time understanding how policies should be applied to their areas of interest. Concepts such as "notability", "fair use" and "appropriate" are sometimes subsumed by an editors belief that the topic is so important (or interesting) that minor detail or variations allow edits or uploads to qualify under those criteria - to believe otherwise may be to admit that the subject is not as exceptional as has been promoted; thus there is a tendency for some editors to (not always subconsciously) disregard neutral third party comments and advise. This does not have to be a problem, if an editor seems capable of taking on board these good faith observations. I would comment, however, that challenging another editor for making that observation is not a good indicator that someone will be able to comprehend that the ethos of the project is of greater import than any one of the articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What I am challenging is the admin's lack of following proper procedure of going down the ffd route. Also, many of the commenters seems to think that I have uploaded more than three DW images and disregard the NFCC. Yes DW/movie screenshots can be hard to determine which scenes are "important" and which is not. I was giving an example how my deleted screenshots could be of importance ie which relevent articles they could be used.--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 12:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What a lot of commentators are noting, however, is that you continue to upload images under rationales that have already failed - and there is some agreement that such uploads to not require a full 7 day discussion when only the detail of the issue is changed and not the underlying misunderstanding. This is not about the quantity or quality (as in image size) of the uploads, but the repeated apparent misunderstanding on how Fair Use of copyrighted material works. That there is no free alternative does not in itself suffice, nor does the fact that it illustrates a specific or distinct aspect of the subject; the criteria is that it significantly improves the understanding of the subject - and there is no free alternative. In the "second control room" context, the non free image does not significantly improve the understanding of the importance of the matter - what is important is that the TARDIS has a second control room, since it is likely important to the plot of that episode, but not what it looks like. As this content is referenced (I so hope it is) then evidencing the existence by use of the image is superfluous, and thus fails Fair Use criteria. Until you can indicate that you understand that unfree images that support the text do not reach Fair Use criteria, that only those which provide an understanding that other content cannot do, then your images may indeed be deleted after a cursory review - and if you continue to disregard these concerns that you may be banned from making further uploads. Within that context, there is no underlying issue with that admin who deleted the content. They were acting in accordance to good practice, designed to protect the project from claims of copyright violations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean under rationals that have already failed? I didn't upload the SAME image twice and a different image warrent a differnt rationale. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it later, I think that it may have failed NFCC because while it would be NICE to have the image, Wikipedia operates on a minimal nonfree policy ie if possible, don't use non-free. Also, can you tell me which sort of scene from that episode would most likely pass NFCC, if at all ie what are you looking for.. "superior graphics" or something that is hard to describe in words. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be getting somewhere! I don't know if I have seen the episode, as I am only a casual DW viewer, but I cannot think there would be any non-free image that would inform the reader better than well written prose. A better example would be, perhaps, an article about a notable painting or artwork for which no free version exists - only a reproduction of the picture, even of low quality, properly conveys the compostion, something that a written description cannot; that the visual impact informs in a way words cannot, and that it is germane to the article subject. That is the standard of criteria needed for NFCC. When I earlier mentioned the "same rationale", I might better have worded it as "the same misunderstanding of a rationale". I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In that episode, would a picture of the Tardis transfering to the woman work? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have this the wrong way around. Not every episode needs to have a picture, so if you find yourself looking for a picture and trying to justify the use, then the chances are the picture won't meet the criteria i.e. stop being so desperate to have an image for this episode. The right way around is that if when reading/writing the article a particular concept/area is difficult to comprehend but would be significantly easier to understand with an image, and that area is very important to the overall understanding of the article, then an image *may be* appropriate. This shouldn't be contrived, it needs to be something which needs to be described and needs to be there e.g. trying to describe the swirling patterns on transfer then concluding those are difficult to describe is not right either, since you don't need to understand the precise detail of how the swirly effect looks in order to understand that the transfer occurs. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

How about File:Voyage of the Damned.jpg? We could just as easily said Titanic "rocket". Everybody knows what the Titanic looks like. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me make it clear, only TWO previous DW pictures that I upload have been deleted (three including this). All the others Norton/Windows/foxit etc software screenshot were kept (although I have to admit I was confused with the {{own}} tag, as I thought it ment I took the pic, as opposed to the meaning of who own the picture! Please keep this in mind!!! Everybody particpating and the way this discussion is going, seems to suggest that I have uploaded many DW images that fail the NFCCC (although current the vindetta TreasureTag is pushing is that none of the latest DW episodes have an image significance enough to pass NFCCC). Also, the first of the image WAS in use at the Tardis Wikia, an external Doctor Who Wikipedia (So I thought since they had the picture it must pass the significant guideline) --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 11:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also I ended up repeating myself because my comments are buried in an avalanche of nay says and I thought they are going unheeded. Edit conflicts contributed to the tension IMO. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 12:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this has gone far beyond simply refusing to get WP:NFCC and the point, we might well have an overall competence issue. Blaming edit conflicts for his behaviour now? Wow. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I was suggesting a way to avoid EC which I think partially contributed to *my* fusturation. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 12:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

On a side note: If I was there at the DW filiming and took a picture of the scene, would that be free image or non free? And who actually "owns" the image ie what can I put as the source? Can {{own}} used? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Provided you had permission to take your own photographs that were in keeping with the WP license (which allows others to use your photographs, and amend them, for profit), then, yes. Sometimes productions spaces are closed areas as regards photography, and any that is allowed may have restrictions. You would need to satisfy yourself that there were no restrictions before uploading them. Once that was complied with, they may indeed be uploaded and used in the article or anywhere else appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion to everyone—can I recommend that we all just stop feeding Tyw7 at this stage? He's clearly not going to get it and there's nothing to be gained from gratifying his ostentatious incompetence with furhter responses. Even if the discussion above doesn't result in a topic-ban, if he continues to upload shitty images he'll find himself getting blocked very quickly. So let's just stop the arguing about NFCs and NFCCs and FURs and whatever. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 14:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support indef or any sort of ban I'm sorry, I've interacted with Tyw7 on and off for at least one year and I've never seen him do anything I'd call "clueful" or "competent". Some will think I'm being harsh, but I've absolutely no patience for users who are clearly and obviously children bumbling along at the Wikipedia-game. if this were a MMORPG he'd had exhausted all his lives months ago. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that unless we encounter these issues, we never know about them! I certainly didn't know about these out of the corner policy and guidlines until I actually run into conflict with one of them. Also policies change so in the past I might not run into any problems but later run into them. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 18:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you're the one who "doesn't get it". You've been told, for example, what "!helper" is for in #wikipedia-en-help on IRC. You've been banned from the channel before and ignored by the IRC bots, but last month, you misused !helper in the exact same manner you were told not to many times in the past. This is only an example of how your uncluefulness is a problem because you simply do not have the capability to understand the issue. It's really quite depressing when you look at Wikipedia and see this sort of behavior. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what the topic of the channel says: [Welcome to the English Wikipedia help channel! | No one around? Type !helper followed by your question, and wait for our volunteers to respond. | No public logging without permission. | Please note that we cannot offer legal or medical advice. | Off-topic helper discussion with bot feed in #wikipedia-en-helpers.]. The reason I used the tag because most of the time there is no one around! And there is no way to know this before joining the channel. Usually I type the question before the channel loads. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 21:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also most of the IRC'ers idle at #Wikipedia-en rather than #Wikipedia-en-help, the help channel. So I think that most of my questions would go unheeded. But after knowing that admins/IRC'ers doesn't like me to use the stalk word, I have stopped using it ever since. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:05, 16 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.

Edit war brewing/fringe science/ownership/etc. on Luis González-Mestres (and Superbradyon)

Before this goes too far, let me ask for attention to a biography (and a related semi-fringy-scientific term). User:Indépendance des Chercheurs, a new name for what seems to be an old user (with a host of IPs) is claiming some serious ownership, especially after I reinstated a bunch of templates that Coffee had placed there a year ago, templates which were summarily removed, without explanation, from an IP which looks a lot like all the other IPs in that history. Anyway, as I write this the editor has twice removed my templates, here and here (note: I did not reinstate all of them, only those I considered still valid), and has claimed ownership in edit summaries and on the talk page (note the use of the royal conspiracy plural), and has accused me, it seems, of complicity in some conspiracy which no doubt had as its goal to destroy a well-meaning scientist and their work--or something like that.

The BLP issue of the article itself is relevant as well, it strikes me, but perhaps at a later date. Relevant to this thread also are the editors edits at Superbradyon. No doubt there are some among you who are knowledgeable of this affair. Your attention is appreciated; I'm afraid we're headed for a conflict with all the accoutrements--fringe science, ownership, BLP vanispam, a "collective", the whole shebang. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• As I was notifying the editor, I noticed that they just reverted a third time. A final warning and a 3R warning would be appropriate, in my opinion, but I should back down from templating all over their talk page. I leave that for y'all to judge. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It also looks like Indépendance might be an account shared by multiple people given their use of pronouns like we/our. Kevin (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This diff [17] refers to "our collective" - it is clearly a shared account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I referred to it somewhere as a royal conspiracy plural--I think it is more a collective in spirit than in anything else. I have a nagging suspicion that the subject of the bio is the blog is the Independance is the IPs; that's often how those kinds of vanity bios work. All the contributions have the same tone, for instance. The "we" is the plural of a persecuted minority that has no recourse than to blog!blog!blog! about the injustice being perpetrated on Wikipedia. See their latest comments on the talk page of the bio. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hot off the press: editor made what appears to be a legal threat on the talk page, "We are not afraid of threats. If we are blocked, we will react consequently", and in an edit summary, "If we are blocked, we will act elsewhere", where they again removed the templates. Note: I have made a series of edits to the article indicating the problems with sourcing. Moreover, I have explained on the talk page what the COI is, so the editor's claim, "You still have not given a single serious argument", is clearly incorrect.

Perhaps it's also time for a harduserblock: the username is the name of the subject's "collective" (it's in the article, Luis_González-Mestres#Other_activities), and the blog they keep threatening us with is run by the subject as well (see talk page for details). Couple the name with the disruptive edits intended to promote the subject and I think there's enough ground for a block. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The templates were removed a fifth time; I will report this at 3R, though I want to let this thread to remain as well for the ownership and COI issues. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Bunch of sock- or meatpuppetry in the AfD for "superbradyon" - IPs with no other edits repeating material verbatim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, "we/our" does sometimes get used by individuals who want to give the impression that more people share their opinion, or that their beliefs are backed by an organisation, so group pronouns alone don't necessarily mean that an account is being shared. bobrayner (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but the sock- or meatpuppetry at the AfD is blatantly obvious. They keep coming out of the woodwork with brand-new never-before-edited IP numbers, saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. I've given up marking them, they've made it so terribly obvious that they're not truly independent actors. All of the "keep" !votes come from them and the one named account (the author of the article), all regular editors with a contribution history who have participated in the discussion have !voted "Delete." It's the clearest (and most amateurish) attempt to create a false consensus I've even seen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the AfD is becoming a joke, given the total lack of understanding of policy from the !keep voters (voter?). It might be sensible to ask an uninvolved admin to consider putting it out of its misery early, to avoid any more time-wasting. This will no doubt result in howls of 'conspiracy' from the 'keep' camp, but they will do this regardless... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Shared account

Per this post the blocked user appears to be claiming to be a shared account. If so, it rates an indefinite block. Oh, and if anyone is curious about what the Bogdanov Affair is that they're going on and on about, it looks like there really is a Bogdanov Affair.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes there is. As a matter of fact, apparently I'm involved with the timely coincidence which isn't a coincidence. Presumably I'm a secret French agent who wants to redirect the Superbradyon article for political reasons. I hope it's true--I'm sure girls love secret French agents. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh goody. Do I get to play 'exotic secret agent' too? The name's Grump. Andy the Grump. Licensed to grumble ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I love conspiracy theory, it makes everything so much easier. If there's evidence of a conspiracy, well... then, that's evience of a conspiracy, and if there's no evidence of a conspiracy, that just means they were sucessful in covering it up, so that's evidence of a conspiracy as well. Life would be so simple... and, meanwhile, the real conspiracies are ignored! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you been reading Foucault's Pendulum again? Drmies (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Grump, and BMK, it is obvious that you (and I!) are on the payroll of stringers: "Obviously, "standard string-model" people asking for money and positions would be happy if the article on superbradyons were suppressed". Note how the next IP modifies the phrasing slightly. Now, I can't wait for that check and the job offer at CERN--I'm sure it pays a lot better than shining shoes or editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo's user pages

I have temporarily semi-protected User:Jimbo Wales and User talk:Jimbo Wales due to ongoing persistent additions of "bad images". I did so reluctantly, but for images that most people would consider pornography to repeatedly appear on such high visibility pages is not good for Wikipedia. Please feel free to alter or revert those protections without consulting me if there is consensus to do so (I may not be around too much later today). -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(non admin comment) I may be wrong, but I thought Jimbo didn't want his page protected? Besides if it's photos that would be best placed in gentlemen's special interest literature rather than Wikipedia, why not just delete the images in question? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The repeated placement of any image on anybody's user page to shock or offend readers is inappropriate. That the image is indecent makes it even more inappropriate. I'd protect any other user's page if they were subject to a similar sequence of attacks. I don't think Jimbo's user page should be given any less consideration than other users' would get. —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

At least one of the images - a large glans closeup - is on Commons, so not quickly deletable (and not necessarily deletable anyway - it may be appropriate in other places, but certainly not there). Also, it looks like a concerted attack by a number of registrations, so I support the short term protection -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, you can use Mediawiki:Bad image list to blacklist the files in question. It won't stop the edits, but it will stop the image (regardless of whether it's Commons or local) from showing up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The vandal is just using images that are hosted on Commons. When one is added to the Bad Image List, he just switches to another and there is a nearly endless supply of images of genitalia on Commons. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Just the phrase "nearly endless supply of images of genitalia on Commons" seems indicative of a problem. Maybe this is not run-of-the-mill vandalism but a misguided attempt to draw attention to the issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would having perfectly encyclopedic images on Commons be an issue? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going engage in that discussion here, but how many images like File:Erect_human_penis,_age_30.JPG does Commons need? Is one hundred enough? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone tried to get a checkuser to investigate? If it's one IP, we could block account creation. — Edokter (talk) — 21:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, the last time Jimbo went on a porn delete spree he was nearly banned. Rklawton (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The attacks have resumed, so I've protected both pages for 12 hours. Favonian (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Short term protection of the pages may be appropriate, but what about using the banhammer on the perpetrators too? Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Each user has been immediately blocked indef. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an edit filter to prevent newish editors from adding additional images (unless linked to with [[:Image:name]]) to certain user pages would be an idea - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps something more narrow such as a filter that will prevent the addition of any new image to Jimbo's pages. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I like Kingpin13's idea (checking for both [[File:name]] and [[Image:name]]). No reason to limit it to Jimbo's pages, I doubt the rest of us want to be waking up to those photos on our talk pages either. There's seldom a good reason to add a 1000px image to someone else's user or talk page. 28bytes (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Block review: I blocked auto-confirmed user Maristsion (talk · contribs) indefinitely, meaning until they can come up with a really good explanation. I did this after I noticed their "contribution" to Jimbo's user page, but before I saw the one they made to mine. Favonian (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Good block. Rklawton (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me see why you need this block "reviewed". What are you trying to achieve Favonian? It's self evidently a good block. Sheesh. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Got the impression that the pictures were related to a long-running ideological dispute. Indef'ing throw-away accounts is one thing, but doing it to an auto-confirmed one may be interpreted as heavy handed. Having seen their response, I guess the point is moot. Favonian (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to note: The problem has returned today and I have temporarily semi-protected the pages again. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible bug in archives?

I was looking for this discussion as I wanted to see how it was getting on [Note: that link wont actually work]. It was archived for inactivity so I tried to find it to see if anything had been added since I saw it last.

This is where it gets weird. It did not come up in a search and when I did track it down it seems the whole bottom half of the archive is not there. The section links still show up in the table of contents but they don't work and if you scroll down the sections aren't actually there.

I'm not sure if this is a bug, or if it is a known one if it is.

Can anyone tell me what is up? Colincbn (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind It is there now. I guess there was just some lag between getting erased from here and getting posted to the archive. Everything seems fine now. Sorry for taking your time. Colincbn (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes when my internet is being slow part of a page will download and then it stops, so I get the table of contents and maybe the top half of the page but not the rest. If I get impatient and click on a TOC link before the rest of the page downloads, the link doesn't work, and of course, when I scroll down the sections aren't there. Archive pages tend to be long, so it sounds like this might be what happened to you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is happening to me with regular frequency in the past few days. Not sure of the cause yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I reloaded the page a few times and waited for it to fully load. But I think it was still just lag as Steven suggests. It may be that the net around St.Pete FL (my hometown by the way!) is slow so it is causing more of this kind of thing for long wiki pages. Colincbn (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I blame Wikipedia. Seriously. On my work and home PCs, completely different OSes, browsers, ISPs, and quite different geography, I've noticed that at times Wikipedia takes forever to load a page and sometimes will only partially load a page before stalling or won't load a page at all (it just shows white space). This happens in spurts, such that if I have 3 different pages trying to load in different tabs, they will all stall at the same time. I suspect either a technical problem, or possibly more people are using the site than before and the hardware hasn't been upgraded to compensate. -- Atama頭 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Slow_load_time. Doing diffs of large pages is sometimes downright painful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Avenugopalarao2011

Would someone take a look at Avenugopalarao2011 (talk · contribs)'s most recent edits (the last 3 articles) - I'm going out and can't decide if there is a competence problem there or something else (or if I'm just misunderstanding the editor). Thanks. Notifying Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think there's a competence issue--someone of good faith writing in poor English, and making odd comments on pages. I've repeated your action on Rigveda; they made a similarly incompetent edit again. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:99.150.255.75

This might be the wrong area to do this; however, my issue is the complete opposite of a block requestI cannot understand why this editor is blocked (I have no relations) and I think an admin should take a look at this. 174.25.212.90 (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone block that trolling IP? T. Canens (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia Review people trolling, right? Still, not sure about your edit filter and block of anyone typing "Abd", seems like overkill. Whatever happened to the "ignore" part of RBI? Fences&Windows 19:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's more refined than that. Real false positives are addressed; those deliberately triggering it or attempting to test its parameters are blocked. There's a reason some filters are hidden. T. Canens (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Meta-discussion: refactoring and re-opening AN threads

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.

---

I would like to get fellow users' input on whether (and if so, when) a user can refactor and re-open thread at WP:AfD, WP:MfD, WP:AN and WP:AN/I. I left what (in hindsight) was a snappy and pendantic comment about this. I've always seen WP:AN and WP:AN/I as primarily for the use of admins, but also places for all users from all wikis to post incidents, random observations, and notices. Likewise, WP:XfD pages should not be re-opened except for fixing obvious errors and copyediting. However, I think that only admins should refactor or reopen such pages - based in the premise that these are the "collective talk pages" of all the administrators. It would be wrong to edit other users' talk pages. Re-opening debates or threads also encourages users to beat a dead horse with a stick. Are my premises incorrect? Please don't comment on my comment - I know what I did was impertinent and I don't need further abuse during this very tough week off-wiki. The archives of this page are not helpful to my answer. I'd like to find out how others view non-admins re-opening threads and debates, and when it is approriate to re-open a debate or thread. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So - its your opinion and your suggesting to be written in policy or guidelines somewhere that only admins should refactor or reopen threads at WP:AfD, WP:MfD, WP:AN and WP:AN/I - Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can close any discussion anywhere, if it is the right thing to do. ANI, AFD, RFA, all the same. Prodego ^talk 20:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There are IMO two distinct issues here. There is no issue with non-admins archiving or re-opening threads; with the same caveats as non-admin closures, avoid the controversial! The other issue is re-opening contentious disputes, as in this case. The close was sensible, and upheld when reverted. MMN shouldn't have re-opened it, not because he was not an admin, but because he was involved in the thread and it was closed to end the matter. Which is a matter of poor judgement --Errant ^(chat!) 20:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I just had to sit on my hand to stop myself closing this. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 16 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.

Further discussion at WP:AN

Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls & User:Westbankfainting

Don't know if this is the right place to post this, please move it if not. Can an administrator please have a look at Westbankfainting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his contributions to Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I believe that there a a 1RR in place on that page due to the Israel-Arab subject of the page. Mtking (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

See also the result of WP:AN3#User:99.120.1.227 reported by User:ברוקולי (Result: Protected). I was not aware of the post here at ANI when I closed the 3RR. The IP editor, who is now registered as Westbankfainting, has been warned for reverting. The article itself is protected for two weeks, to allow consensus to be found about the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

ANDROBETA (talk · contribs) at Evolutionism

Resolved

 – User blocked 31 hours by Rklawton. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

ANDROBETA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

ANDROBETA recently was blocked for 3RR at Evolutionism. It was actually around an 8RR. We have made several requests, starting with snark-free, ending up being kind of cranky, when you ask the same thing over and over again. You can see the thread here. So, immediately after the block, ANDROBETA is back at again here, here, and here. We're beyond edit-warring, more like all out obsession. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Issue archived apparently before being resolved

Regarding the incident Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive695#Vandalism_by_OpinionAreLikeAHoles_and_anon_IP, it seems to have been archived and yet the apparent use of multiple accounts doesn't appear to have been addressed. One is blocked pending a request for a name change (see User talk:OpinionsAreLikeAHoles) and the other Special:Contributions/Vassos55 has not been blocked. Could an admin please explain what is going to happen to this case so that it isn't just left hanging/archived ? Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This one does need attention, please. Can we avoid pulling it back out of archives?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like User:OpinionsAreLikeAHoles was indefinitely blocked by User:Tnxman307 on May 11th. But User:Vassos55, his sock, has not yet been blocked. Tiamut^talk 08:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:OpinionsAreLikeAHoles had an unblock for username change accepted, but the admin who accepted forgot to unblock. However, the editor in question has not queried this. User:Vassos55 has not edited since the primary account was blocked. I suspect he is editing from yet another account - any idea what it might be. If he's not editing, no action is required. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

IP disruptive editing on Israel/Palestine articles

Over the past few days, a sequence of IPs has been making identical or very similar disruptive edits on several articles, including Nakba Day, Arab citizens of Israel, Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas school bus attack. The IPs include User:86.154.178.152, User:86.141.5.59, User:86.149.12.18, User:46.116.170.52, User:86.149.12.108 and User:81.156.193.126. These are clearly all the work of the same person, who in some edit summaries has claimed to be the Runtshit vandal, although actual edits do not match Runtshit's characteristics. These articles have also been the target recently of similar attacks by subsequently blocked socks User:AmiAyalon1969 and User:Rym torch. There has been similar disruption on other articles, including Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence, including by these and other IPs, and by other confirmed and suspected sockpuppets.

I have submitted this here, rather than at WP:SPI, because it is difficult to identify one puppeteer, and because this disruption probably requires additional steps, including temporary page protection. RolandR (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin observation) I checked the geolocation of the IPs...three different towns under one ISP in the UK, one IP under one ISP in Israel. I'd venture a guess that it's at least two, possibly three meatpuppets, or maybe one user that has a playpen account on a server a fair distance from home. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This disruption continues today, with User:46.38.162.18 joining in. Could an admin please look at this?RolandR (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Now joined by User:86.149.12.131 and User:86.152.109.173. RolandR (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of these IPs have now been blocked as proxies. But others have joined in, including User:90.2.18.155, User:86.205.11.24, User:90.2.85.156, User:90.2.84.209 and User:90.2.80.142. RolandR (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Bondage hood

Kinky topic, maybe, but there's little excitement here beyond an uncommunicative editor (their talk page is full of warnings and notifications--nothing major, but no responses are given, ever) who has three times now reverted my removal of unverified OR-ish material. I'm not sure if administrative action is required at this point, but perhaps someone who is uninvolved can do a better job of explaining some of our policies--such as WP:V, at the "duh" level. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The editor has promised sources, so lets just wait. Besides, most of the edits don't look particularly controversial. Search Google images for bondage hoods and you'll see a lot of illustrations for the variations the editor describes - with the point being that these edits shouldn't really be considered any more controversial than "the sky is blue on a clear day." Rklawton (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're referring to an edit summary of theirs, "You clearly know nothing about this subject, you are merely being disruptive. External references are forthcoming. A lot of this stuff is fairly self-evident anyway. I'd upload more pictures to illustrate, but the admins won't let me." I wish I had as much faith as you have! But what is wrong with them waiting to add the material until they collected the sources? In the meantime we had an article of some 10,000 bytes with one source, a "Challenging, erotic, pseudo-autobiograpy detailing the changing perspectives of a disabled, middle-aged female psychotherapist" published on Lulu, and a lot of detail that without verification is little more than trivia. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Arfican

User:Arfican is causing considerable disruption at an ongoing Rfc: I suspect it is a sock, as the account was created just to take part in the discussion. [18] Recently, it has doctored an image I uploaded. [19] He has doctored File:Palestine add.jpg to File:Israel add.jpg. Chesdovi (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi is causing problems with many other editors on Rfc. He is combative, insulting, and threatening. Virtually no one is in agreement with him. He uploaded a picture that may or may no be altered. My picture I believe is more accurate. Please slow him down from his disruptions. Thank You. --Arfican (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Chesdovi is a conflicting editor, who seems to have a point. His record of blocks and warnings in the area of Israel and Palestinian subjects speaks for itself, one of them very recently in connection with this same issue. He does not seem to accept the fact that consensus is against his novel proposals. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

None of which changes the fact that Arfican is a single purpose account that isn't constructively contributing and likely is a sock. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dbrsr likes to sling the dirt. I will have you know that I contested all my blocks as out of hand, as did other editors supporting me. I will also mention that editors like Dbrsr encourage blocks and bans by making mass disruptive reverts (something I was once blocked for) instead of engaging first in constructive discussion. Please sort African out. (We anyway need a "new" person at the discussion...) Chesdovi (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in your mess (an I'm not an admin anyway) and noting that Arfican is likely a sock is not a support of you in any way. I just add my voice to support doing a checkuser on Arfican. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Arfican is a returning vandal/troll and I have blocked several of his accounts. See User:Chess dove for the sockmaster's name. TNXMan 13:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

chesidov, see WP:BOOMERANG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.58.253 (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by rapidly changing IP

Could an admin (like User:Tnxman307 or User:Zzuuzz and so on) familiar with the neverending sockpuppetry via proxies problem in the Israel-Palestine topic area take a look at the edits by IPs starting 90.2. in the Nakba Day article history and perhaps try a range block/semi-protect the article or whatever is appropriate. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This report is related to my earlier report above. The situation is getting out of control, with massive disruption on this and several more articles. Action is needed urgently! RolandR (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That article has now been semi'd. There's been a few different users recently, from what I can tell - and not surprising considering the Nakba Day itself was only the other day. One proxy-using sock, one wannabe banned user from BT in the UK (perhaps the same user), and a user from France on the 90.2 network. The French one is probably too large for a rangeblock, and I've not seen it editing elsewhere. The BT range is probably also too large to block. You'll need a checkuser to sniff out the other sock accounts, but as for the proxies, they don't last long after I've seen them. And I've seen a few of both recently. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are any named accounts, I can investigate (see #User:Arfican for more blocked accounts). Just let me know here or on my talk page. TNXMan 13:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

<- Thanks very much. If only he could be persuaded to donate so much time to something more productive... Sean.hoyland - talk 14:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Mare96

Resolved

 – User blocked by Cirt. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been reporting this to WP:AIV before, but it solves only a short-term problem. Mare96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka 95.180.18.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has been altering sourced data about Serbian cities, JAT Airways and Belgrade Arena for a few months already. Since the IP was soft-blocked by HJ Mitchell, he created an account, Mare96. Judging on the behavior, '96 is his or her real year of birth. He appears to have a WP:COMPETENCE problem, because he was told several times (both at User talk:Mare96, User talk:95.180.18.56, and Talk:Belgrade) how things work here. The last response to a warning was [20], meaning "Fuck you, fuck Wikipedia, I'll write what I like", to spare you use of GT.

Gentle cluebat appreciated. Thanks. No such user (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks less like a WP:COMPETENCE problem and more like intentional disruption to me. Might be some nationalistic or ethnic POV-pushing involved based on the selection of articles. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's actually "my X is bigger than yours, I know better than you" syndrome, don't know how DSM-IV classifies it. Anyway, he continued by removing references from Serbia and changing picture sizes as he sees fit, [21] and edit warring on Belgrade. I've had enough of the brat, really. No such user (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that no one notified him of this discussion, and have taken the liberty of doing so. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User Maheshkumaryadav creating a slew of poor articles

Maheshkumaryadav agrees to mentorship as proposed by Qwyrxian (for terms see below} in lieu of a community ban. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Maheshkumaryadav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:Maheshkumaryadav was recently the subject of a discussion here regarding a slew of articles he created about corruption in Pakistan - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive693#User:Maheshkumaryadav. User:Rob commented in that discussion at 11:55 6 May that part of the "problem" was the sheer number of articles being created. Today, Maheshkumaryadav has created another slew of poorly sourced, incorrect and mostly cloned articles regarding certain villages and police forces - Special:Contributions/Maheshkumaryadav. Some people, including myself, raised concerns about this on his talk page. In my case, the concerns got no response and some further articles were created after I had raised the issue. As an example of the problem, Manipur Police contains a statement that the force has nine departments ... and then lists them as being three. This is elementary stuff and can probably be fixed if someone can find their way around the relevant police force's website. However, the sheer number - as Rob noted a couple of days ago - makes for more work than it should be. That statement about departments appears to have been applied to all of the police force articles, as have the inclusion of sections on officer ranks and insignia which may or may not be applicable to each force. I have nothing against stub creation but the scale of these is a little intimidating. Is it acceptable practice? I sought the opinion of an admin, who referred me back to here because of the previous instance. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC) That's not stub creation, it's creating loads of pages with the same content, all of which is irrelevant. We should not list the insignia of Indian or Pakistani police of the page for every police station, that's self-evident. Maheshkumaryadav doesn't seem to listen to the advice he is repeatedly given. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I know that villages - however obscure - are deemed to be notable. Are police forces? - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I suggest a timed article creation ban. The editor has been warned before but doesn't appear to get it. --rgpk (comment) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC) If this is the case, please no more then a week, Sadads (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC) - (edit conflict)I strongly advise against blocking Mahesh. Though his contributions are sometimes a little rash, he has been slowly learning the values of the community and, I think today after weeks of hints, we have gotten partially through to him, and unlike his previous offenses, is not pushing pov rampantly anymore. I suggest instead that we continue to monitor his edits heavily and try to keep an eye on what he is doing. I am currently checking in on his contributions almost every day, and there are several more people watching his talk page, and increasingly his contributions are becoming more useful. Even thought the police department articles are not ideal, the lack of coverage of Wikipedia on these subjects is again pushing forward the issues of the WP:Systematic bias and undoubtedly, as the Indian internet population becomes more and more active (as we have already observed) these articles will get many more careful eyes looking over them. He is being rash, but at this point I don't think administrator action is necessary, and he is not being too disruptive, Sadads (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC) A block is not necessary. An article creation ban will take care of this problem. He/she can always create articles in user space and asked for them to be moved to article space when they are ready. --rgpk (comment) 21:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC) The village articles are also a problem. While human settlements are considered inherently notable, the stubs contain literally no information other than the village name along with the state and district its in. No coordinates, no census data, no details. Most importantly, they contain no references. Without at least geo-coordinates, we have neither verification nor any easy way to gain verification that these settlements exist. We don't know where Mahesh was getting these names from, if they're current, nor were we given any way to verify that event the name is correct. Technically speaking, they're all immediately deletable as being unverified. Still, I'm not sure there's anything an admin can actually do here; I guess what we need to decide is whether Mahesh must stop creating unverified sub-stubs, and, if so, whether someone should write xem a very clear warning to this effect. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I am grateful for Qwyrxian's contribution here as I am aware from the history that xe has been involved with this editor previously. While I do understand the intent of Sadads' comments, I feel that there is a limit of tolerance. My gut feeling is that the suggestion proposed by RegentsPark should in theory achieve something but am aware that Maheshkumaradav has previously put forward the argument that WP stifles new article creators. So, it is possible that by stifling Mahesh we could actually alienate him completely. Would that be a loss in the circumstances? Well, I'd like to hope that it doesn't actually push him over the edge but if it does then, frankly, that is just tough. The situation at present seems not to be working too well and if the "hints" are having any effect then the rate of improvement engendered by them appears to be dismally slow. Something (somebody) has got to give way. I am not experienced enough to make a judgement as to where, when or how but the situation at present seems to me to favour quantity over quality. If that is acceptable then so be it. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC) There is an element of disruption in creating lots of new stub articles at one time and Maheshkumaryadav needs to see that. A timed article creation ban will give him/her the chance to work on creating articles in their user space, so their new article creation tendencies won't be stifled, only channeled more appropriately. We don't want to stifle new article creators but neither do we want to have to put up with the work of cleaning up when an editor creates too many meaningless ones. (I don't question the good faith of the editor but, just because he/she is acting in good faith doesn't mean that the end result is not disruptive.) --rgpk (comment) 23:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC) That makes sense to me. If we make it clear that continued creation in userspace, with appropriate review prior to moving into mainspace, is still ok then hopefully we are all beneficiaries from the situation. If someone throws a hissy fit about this proposal then I would be astonished. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC) That sounds reasonable, several of us are monitoring his talk page now, so I think we could handle inquiries/thoughts he is having right now. Again, I would like to reiterate a moderate time of banning though placed on him. He is extremely high energy in editing, and I fear anything longer then a week or two might be a little oppressive, Sadads (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I also think a weeks article creation block is a good idea. We shouldn't have to hint and explain for weeks and months to get somebody to listen. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I see nothing to seriously take issue with concerning his recent contributions in the last few days. The police articles are not about local police forces such as the US small town police forces articles we keep properly deleting, but regional police forces, such as are considered notable for the various US states & are therefore notable in India also. The content in them is basic , but I see nothing wrong in starting with basic content. The articles on towns are highly appropriate though they need at least the demographics and location, not just the jurisdictional material, and he should be encouraged to add the content, not discouraged from making the articles. There is more to be said in each case, but we are better having the articles than not having them. I'm aware of earlier problems with NPOV, but this is another matter. I see no reason not to make them directly in mainspace--stubs are permitted. They are not meaningless, just not as meaningful as they should be. It is just as good an option to start many articles to be finished later as to write a smaller number of more finished ones. This is an area of the world where we badly beed content. Sirtush says "the situation at present seems to me to favour quantity over quality." -- actually, the situation at present favors both ways of making articles. Let those who want to do them in a particular way do so, and not try to inhibit the ones who prefer the others. It would be very highly inappropriate to ban anyone from creating valid articles in whatever manner they care to do so. In some previous cases involving other editors, it was alleged that a large proportion of the articles were incorrect--which, if proven, is indeed a problem (it never was proven, just a few selected errors given which might or might not have been pervasive) . I don't see this is being even claimed here. Qwyrxian, as there is documentation that the places can be shown to exist, why not help trying to find the geolocations instead of objecting that someone else has not done so? (Above unsigned comment by User:DGG) Sorry, transmission error. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC) My comment about the "situation" was with regard to Mahesh's work, not the project's policies and guidelines. I also do not think we are better having unreferenced articles which, by WP definition, are actually invalid, despite your apparent belief to the contrary. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I think the above comment is Sadads'. I have a problem with the final statement--as far as I can see, there is no documentation that the places can be shown to exist. Since no sources were provided, how can I, as someone not from those provinces, have any faith that they exist? I suppose there's some element of WP:AGF, but I know from having worked on other articles by this editor that they have made basic errors or intentional misinterpretations of sources. But Mahesh has given us literally nothing to work from, besides the name. I am not joking when I say that I have no way of knowing where these names of villages came from, and, for all I know, could be entirely fictitious. Again, if he had provided even a single source, like a vaguely recent almanac to verify location or somewhat current census data to verify government recognition, then I would accept the existence of these articles, and actually think them great--I have no problem with the creation of sub-stubs on human settlements, so long as there is at least a little bit of current, accurate, verification. To me, these articles are essentially a type of reflection of the problem of the other article's Mahesh created that were impossibly NPOV flawed. It's fine to create articles that are incomplete. It is not fine to create articles that are fundamentally in conflict with one of the core pillars. These settlement articles do not yet meet WP:V, and I don't see why they should exist until they do. The Indian Corruption articles didn't meet NPOV, and in many cases couldn't because they were fundamentally mis-structures, mis-named, or undue. At this point, I'm coming to believe that an article creation ban is necessary until Mahesh can show that xe will create articles that meet the key tests of being neutral and have at least a minimum of verification. At the same time, xe either needs to go back and fix the ones already created, or accept that they may be deleted for lack of verification/neutrality. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I only checked one or two, and they did have refs in newspaper articles. If there's not even that, yes, the thing do is to to remind the user to get a ref first before writing, as is universally agreed to be good practice, and to make a priority of finding something for the ones without. (with, I continue,to suggest some help. I think some of the people here have more experience with sourcing geographical data than I, which is my only excuse for not helping directly. If someone who knows how tries and cannot find, then AfD is the way to get gemore general specific attention to material that appears impossible to verify.) And yes, I had realized how this evolved out of the earlier editing--when over general unrepresentative material was appropriately challenged, an attempt was made to provide some hopefully solid and non-controversial background. I think that was probably a good choice. Qwyrxian, I apologize for anything unintended or misattributed--i think you and I have the same goal--our only difference is that I would continue to try to keep everything positive, and a matter of continued encouragement to do it right. Forbidding someone to contribute articles would only be appropriate if they were shown to be not just unverified, but unverifiable. Encouraging them to be more careful can be done without the threat. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid I don't completely agree with you on this. I do agree that Indian villages are probably poorly served on wikipedia and we do need articles, even mere stubs, on them. However, we do have a responsibility to at least minimally fact check the existence of these villages before we create these articles. Mass creation of village stubs makes this sort of fact checking difficult, if not impossible. Maheshkumaryadav is not a new editor and he has a history of creating article stubs on all sorts of non-notable topics as attested by his talk page history and I believe that a user-space only restriction would help him create better articles and will stave of a lot of unnecessary leg work on the part of other editors. --rgpk (comment) 13:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC) The articles in question about the Indian police contains no references, just duplicated content. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I need help to geo tag the villages. Each village is having approx. population more than 1000 people. Help in expanding the village topics can be taken from google. eg. for village Parwala google returns a good info that can be used for that particular article. [22] . I am not having enough time to add content to each village article. The persons belonging to those villages are not internet savy and cannot create the quality of stub i have created for those villages (aprox 250 something), but they can improve the stubs i have provided. If the stubs are removed, it might take 5 years form most of articles to come again of wikipeida, but if they are left and improved with geotags and other data, within 12 months they can start growing. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Regarding police articles, these are nearly 10 -12 articles, each state police article is for police force that serves nearly 5 crore citizens (50 million people), there are only 20 something states in India an each have there police state police, these articles are for those state polices. There are approx. 10,000 to 50,000 employees in each state police force. A Google result for individual article will say a lot for the articles like http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Chandigarh+Police Most of the police articles have link to official organization website and with Google search others are welcome to improve the articles.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Regarding discussing of my blocking, that won't serve any purpose, at this point of learning curve and with style of creating articles, i am doing my best. Regarding my being active for last few days, i had time thats why i gave it to wikipedia, but maybe i won't be able to give that much time in future. Like each individual i have may own unique way of working. Because of low internet penetration in India and less computer literacy in rural areas, most of the stubs for the region are being removed compared to developed nations. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Would you perhaps agree to not making any more articles without references? That would solve the WP:V half of people's concern, at least. Alternatively/additionally, would you be willing to be mentored, as has been suggested before? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Actually, Mahesh added 21 police force articles yesterday, all of them containing huge chunks of (to me) cloned unnecessary detail. I accept the issues raised regarding literacy, internet access etc but feel that the project should not be moving its standards to suit a geographical area. Inclusion is A Good Thing, but surely not at the expense of standards? Mahesh has been asked before to do some minor expansions of his content rather than "hell for leather" creation and I thought he had accepted that this would go a long way to placating the situation, but it seemed not to happen and there was no response to my messages. FWIW, I have spent a lot of time fettling subcontinent articles, so you can count me among the inclusionists on that score. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I really don't want to endorse an article creation ban. And, I dont' want to chase away such an enthusiastic newcomer. But this is all falling on deaf ears. He is saying that he doesn't have time to fix up the village articles, yet he has time to keep creating these products. He is leaving a lot of work for others, producing articles that should have consensus first, is moving content out of articles unnecessarily, is asking for our help, while not accepting any guidance. If he has the energy to produce these articles, he should have the energy to stop and fix them up. Some sort of solution is quite urgently required. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Note that the editor in question is not a newcomer and also has a history of apparently improper article creation (see the editor's talk page history). Discouraging editors from creating articles is not something we want to do but neither do we want to be in the position of forcing other editors to do the busy work of cleaning up after over enthusiastic editors. --rgpk (comment) 13:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)I'm, sorry but this is now getting silly. Mahesh is steamrollering splits of school lists without discussion on the main article, without much regard for the content and without much care. Several people have weighed in on his talk page this morning but I sense that AGF may be wearing thin. He has time to do this but not enough time to fettle the existing articles he has created? - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built can give some of us the perspective to help grow the stubs. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC) That article you quote is an essay. The policies and guidelines say that content must be notable and verifiable by reference to reliable sources. Furthermore, you should seek [[WP:|Consensus]], use edit summaries, maintain the licensing when splitting articles ... and umpteen other things that you have either not done or (which is great) sometimes have started doing after being prompted. You are not a new contributor here and you are not dealing with new contributors in this discussion. I think that I can safely say we are all familiar with how stubs can grow. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry to say that I agree that we have a problem. I've just swung by his talk page to see how he was doing after my encounter. He is simply continuing to create these malformed stubs en masse under the assumption that others are going to rush right in to fix them. WP:COMPETENCY may be an issue here as well. I loathe the thought of dropping a whammy on a well-meaning user, but something has to be done. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Article creation ban proposal In the interests of figuring this out, either way, I propose the following ban on Maheshkumaryadav: Maheshkumaryadav is banned from creating new articles in article space. He may continue to create articles in user space and may request any admin or other editor in good standing to move the article into article space. He can request a review of the ban after a reasonable period of time and after he has demonstrated the ability to create minimally sourced articles on notable topics. Please indicate whether you support or oppose this ban below. --rgpk (comment) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC) The !votes below are pretty much a snow. Can we please instigate this immediately? The contributor is once again creating numerous articles against the advice of experienced editors and is basically riding roughshod over multiple WP policies and guidelines. AGF has pretty much gone here. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Support Support --rgpk (comment) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Support - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Support - he's continuing to create contentless articles and lists. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Support every article creation I looked at had problems. This is clearly an editor that is willing to improve, but is going forward way too fast. A little time just editing would be a good idea. --Errant (chat!) 19:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Support --OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Support Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 00:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Support; the user may be well-intentioned but the article-creation has substantial problems and consumes a lot of other contributors' time and goodwill. Spending some time improving existing articles would be good for all concerned, I think. bobrayner (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Support - The sheer volume of unverified content coming at once is difficult to deal with. I applaud the enthusiasm, but it needs to be reined in a bit. -- Atama頭 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Support - It's great when a good faith editor is interested in article creation; however, in this particular case, valid concerns have been raised over the content and accuracy of the articles and the editor has failed to acknowledge these concerns. Temporary sanctions appear necessary in order to allow the editor to review and address the problems. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Support - I was in support of this before. Then the user said xe was taking a wikibreak, and even had a little productive dialogue going. So I thought things might work themselves out later. Today, xe's back, creating more new articles. While some are good, others are not--Monsoon session, for instance, currently has no sources that actually discuss the concept in detail (it only has sources that mention the word in passing--i.e., using the neologism rather than talking about it). Now that article may be worth keeping if we can find source, so I'll have to do some WP:BEFORE work on it to know for certain, but it's disheartening that once again its going to be up to other editors to do the hard work for Maheshkumaryadav. I also feeling like we're being played with--xe says xe's on Wikibreak, xe says xe doesn't have time to work on the stubs xe created, but xe does have time to make more articles... Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Support - Though I regret having to prevent a user from creating articles, it seems only the best way to keep him from creating any more of these excessively problematic articles en mass. I would strongly suggest a limited time on the ban, with a sanction which will reinstate the article creation ban, if he starts doing mass creation of articles again after he comes off it, Sadads (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Support --Guerillero | My Talk 10:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose Oppose: 2011 land acquisition protests in Uttar Pradesh is an new article, created by me in last 10 hours. It seems a quality stub. An article creation ban will devoid such articles from creation. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 2011_Saudi_Arabian_protests, 2011_Omani_protests, 2011_Sudanese_protests,2011_Moroccan_protests, Allegations_of_support_system_in_Pakistan_for_Osama_bin_Laden are some of the articles started by me, those were not great stubs when i started them, (can be checked on history of those pages) a ban might result that such needed articles might not see 'light of the day'. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Clarifying that you can still create articles in user space if the community approves this ban. You'll need to ask an editor in good standing (I see many on your talk page willing to help out) to move these articles to article space for you. --rgpk (comment) 18:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Comments Comment - whilst supporting the proposal as stated, I would ideally like it phrased to say "... to create at least minimally sourced articles ... ". Encouraging Mahesh to develop existing articles (including his own recent stubs) is a worthwhile thing, and adding "at least" sort of emphasises the point. However, I am probably being pedantic here. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Wikibreak - within minutes of posting a report about me below (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive694#User_Sitush_is_merging_articles_in_undesired_way), Mahesh has decided to take a wikibreak, per his own talk page. The final straw appears to have been my actions in reversing his non-consensual splitting of a list of Indian schools. Sorry about that, but he was advised in advance of why the splitting was not a great thing to do without discussion. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC) ... and now he is back. Not sure if a good night's sleep really counts as a break. Anyway, another new article has been created by him. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC) He just created List of villages in Mohali district over objections. He's made it clear that he intends on creating a new group of stubs. Please block this renegade editor from creating articles. We can't keep up with the trail of debris he is leaving behind. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Can we implement the creation block per the poll above, he started implementing the articles, see his contributions, Sadads (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Indef block I have now indef blocked this editor for blatantly ignoring community consensus (he was well aware of this discussion, and continuing despite it is not really collaborative). As I explained on his talk page, this "indef" is just to be in place until he agrees to no longer create any pages in the mainspace, or until this discussion concludes that the block on article creation is not enacted after all. If I had the technical means to only block him from article creation, I would have done so, but I am not aware of such a possibility... Fram (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I have now unblocked this editor, who has indicated that he or she will not create any articles until this discussion is finished. Fram (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I feel the need to contribute to main space with creation of new articles and redirects, But as i have promised that i will not create them till this discussion is finished. I request to conclude and close the discussion. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I have learned the way of working here in last few days, and would incorporate that in my working. I assure i will not create unreferenced village articles, like that of Panchkula. I will keep trying to improve the quality of my edits. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC) There is nothing to stop you creating the articles in your userspace. Your impatience is bordering on bad faith, coming so soon after being unblocked. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC) "In the last few days?!?" You have been editing this site for several years! Lots of us have tried to help you and you just go on your merry way. I am within a millisecond of reinstating that indefinite block and deleting these doggoned substubs in one swoop. I had hoped that you would have learned from your mistakes, but you just keep doing the same thing over and over and over again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC) But don't, please don't. I wish that someone would consider something stronger but you shouldn't because you were involved. A nuisance sometimes, I guess ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC) That's why I haven't done so yet. My first encounter was over the 472 orphaned village rubber-stamped nanostubs and I've been getting a headache over these shenanigans ever since. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:34, 12 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. Maheshkumaryadav - multiple copyright violations Maheshkumaryadav (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) While reviewing this user's articles (listed here), we have encountered and documented a dozen or more cases of copyright violations in the form of verbatim copy/paste of content. Despite multiple notifications regarding this on his talk page, this user has not acknolwedged or addressed this issue. This user was previously blocked for this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Most of the times the content was from Wikipedia only, and was taken from parent articles, and the bot marked it for copyright violations. In few cases it was re-written by me, in others the content was removed. I haven't knowingly fetched it from outside violating any copyright. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Still i would like to take extra care regarding copyrights in future. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I am sure, but I am also sure that you have said this before. Many of these violations have occurred after your last block. As with many of your actions recently, it is not enough to say that you will adjust your editing habits. You actually need to do it. This continued failure to put your words into action (except when it suits your own purpose) forms a large part of the problem that people have with you. Even today, you have been blithely rewriting history with regard to your interpretation of the above closed discussion. I must say that I am not the only person who has reached the end of his tether regarding these issues. You should count yourself lucky, I feel, that you have not been indefinitely blocked from editing here. Take advantage of that luck, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC) For the sake of clarity, my comment above about your interpretation today refers to this comment, which you subsequently removed after I asked you to confirm that you understood it to be incorrect. I am still awaiting the confirmation, Mahesh. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC) At the time of that comment i was not fully aware of meaning of community ban, i found that the technically the software was not stopping me, Later read about the community bans and how they work, how should i move forward. Use of my comments against me, have been a reason that i was afraid to reply to the admins/users suggestions on my talk page and doing so i un-intensionally offended them. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Personal attack on user:maheshkumaryadav: In last few days, user:maheshkumaryadav and his work is specifically being attacked by User:Sitush. Not all but some of the acts of User:Anna_Frodesiak are also not neural. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I, too, have been reviewing the contributions of Maheshkumaryadav and can confirm multiple copyvios from non-WP sources. Maheshkumaryadav is correct to say that he has performed some bad splits & lost the CC-BY-SA license info as a consequence, but the issue goes way beyond that. I am becoming tired of his recent spate of borderline personal attacks on me, also. I am one of several people trying to clean up a problem which he still seems not to recognise. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Maheshkumaryadav's definition of a neutral person, btw, appears to be "someone who agrees with me". - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC) No, A neutral person means who can see things in complete perspective. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC) As a neutral, non-admin observer who's been following this thread with interest, I believe that with the latest developments, it would be appropriate to indefinitely block Maheshkumaryadav for the copyright violations and a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I have requested a WP:CCI. - Sitush (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I request to kindly not engage me such things, I have always respected copyrights and while scrutinizing my work of last 5 years, one should not consider it a single incident. Thanks.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC) User:Maheshkumaryadav I for one have reached the limit of my patience with this guy. He has created nearly 500 contentless substubs en masse, has been community-banned for doing so and now, according to a recent link on my talk page, is canvassing for sympathy under the premise of an anti-India bias. I am ready to block him and use the nuke option on all those blasted stubs he refuses to expand. He's taken up way too much of this community's time and patience. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Dear PMDrive1061, What i understand is that i was banned not exactly for creating the village stubs. I was banned because the users (community) i was communicating was asking me to stop creating furthur stubs (for punjab), but at that time i felt that as the new stubs were having govt. reference so it won't be wrong to create them. I got banned by you (or community) for not stopping, and going forward to creating those well referenced Punjab stubs listed here. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I have to agree. Even if his aim is to better Wikipedia, the end result is a lot of mess to dig through, and he's made it clear that he wants to create stubs and then never touch them again. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC) PM, deal with it, haha. You wanted to be an admin and get paid the big bucks--time to put your nose to the grindstone. I agree--this incommunicative and belligerent editing is not helpful. What type of consensus do you need to nuke them? I mean, is that what you're looking for here? Drmies (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Have you seen this, User:Anna Frodesiak/Silver sandbox? Drmies (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC) There is a similar section above on this page where he was banned from creating new articles. There seem to be suggestions that a large number of the stubs created may have been copyright violations. I would suggest it's time to discuss a community ban from Wikipedia, not just from creating articles. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC) My point exactly. BTW Drmies, I love that link. Of course, you realize that the mop, bucket and three bucks get me a venti cup of Pike Place coffee at Starbucks. :P Seriously though, yes. I'm looking for some sort of consensus since I've been deep in this issue since Monday, if memory serves. Cooler heads on the recent AfD suggested that I not drop the hammer due to my involvement. However, I really think we're being toyed with. This guy can cite the most arcane and little-used policies you can imagine, but he still acts like a new user when it comes to article creation and the posting of multiple copyright violations. He rubber-stamps nanostubs literally by the hundreda and states quite clearly that he will not expand them. Then, he starts crying "bias" when his "articles" are either under AfD or being deleted as having no content. Grrrr....! PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Well, you know what I think about it all. I've said it often enough. Feel free to wield a nuclear mop. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Boom. Got most if not all of them. I need to double-check the list but I think most are now history. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC) You have only missed 469 of them. Whose side are you on here? <g> - Sitush (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC) No one likes a wise guy, you know. :P First time I've ever used that tool and I'm thinking there's more than one page of these things of his. BRB...PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC) OK, I found out what I was doing wrong, but I think I'm overloading the servers. There are simply too many of them. I'll simply have to delete them a few at a time tomorrow. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Well, the village links have all gone a funny colour on the list. Red, I think it is. - Sitush (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC) User PMDrive1061 PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:PMDrive1061 have mass deleted stubs related to state of Punjab, India. All of them had been provided references from the official government website. The list can be found at here. The reason given for deletion "unverifiable nanostubs" doesn't hold good as each one can be verified, by reference provided in it. Kindly look in the matter as the stubs deserve to be restored. An action against User:PMDrive1061 is requested. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC) See above for related information. - SudoGhost (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC) The villages listed here can be verified by reference provided in them. The above discussion doesn't talk about verification of these villages, instead seems to cheering about success of deletion. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) That list is a copy of Anna's list. Why did you not just direct people to hers, since that has already been referred to? It contains all sorts of notes, which your stripped-down version omits. - Sitush (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC) BTW, it was not cheering from me. It was derision. Perhaps it did not come across as intended, in which case I apologise to you (PMDrive1061 seemed to understand). - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC) It was an attempt to lighten up a difficult situation and not a personal attack. I'm sorry of you took it that way. What I'm doing in deleting these stubs is in no way personal. As an administrator, it is up to me to try and aid users who are unclear on concepts. Sadly, none of us have been able to get through to you and the ability to laugh at the situation made it somewhat more bearable. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Removal of article creation ban As the Punjab village stubs pass the minimum standards required for a stub creation. a) So see if the stubs may please be restored. This list may be checked here b) User:Maheshkumaryadav was banned from creating new articles in article space, because of creation of Punjab stubs, against the wishes of some experienced users. Some of them were also not against those stubs, but the timing of creating them. I also feel that the timing of creating them was not good, i should have waited. As these stubs seem to pass the minimum standards for stubs the article creation ban may please be removed. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support Removal of ban as proposer. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Comment - nope. The consensus for the creation ban was already there (& you knew of it) prior to the Punjab stubs being created. You were urged by several contributors not' to create those stubs for that reason, among others. This, I am afraid, is another example of you distorting events. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Time for a proper community ban As Mahesh appears not to get it, and has even now had the cheek to ask that his not-even-two-day-old article creation ban be removed because he created "stubs (that) pass the minimum standards" while he was banned, and still has not adequately addressed the issue of copyright violation, it is time to consider a proper community ban. Not simply a ban from article creation but a ban from the English Wikipedia, perhaps with the WP:Standard offer. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC) The Punjab stubs were created before i was banned. I request, the contents of Punjab stubs must be checked here before proposing. Thanks.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC) I would request to have a look at User_talk:Maheshkumaryadav#Respect_to_the_community_views before arriving at an opinion.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban as proposer. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban He apparently has knowledge of overly specific policies that he brings up when he feels they will benefit him, while ignoring core things such as WP:N and WP:V. I also agree with Strange Passerby's comments, so there is no need to repeat them. - SudoGhost (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC) As per my knowledge, Wikipedia considers a human settlement as notable WP:N, and a reference from govt. site would shall be sufficient to take care of WP:V part.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose any type of ban: The Punjab stubs must be checked before proposing. They pass minimum standards required for a stub. Thanks.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC) This ban proposal has nothing to do with the standards of the stubs, but your persistent refusal to listen to the community. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Listening vs agreeing. Some members were against creation of those village stubs, i listened to them, and improved the quality of stubs i was creating. The last lot was Punjab stub with reference from official government websites. While i was creating them, i was banned to let community discuss those first. It's a good time to discuss. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC) You can still create those stubs in your user space. Your refusal to do this while you argue to get the restrictions removed is just more evidence of you not listening. That attitude is likely to land you a community ban. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban on the following grounds: This editor still is only concerned with restoring the stubs and creating more. He does not care about the wishes of the community. He has no intention of expanding the microstubs and has said so. He is well-versed in policies that serve him, and writes beautifully to that end. Yet, hasn't a clue about even the most basic policies when editing, and leaves a trial of destruction behind for others to clean up. For example, yesterday he made only about 3 actual article edits. Here are two: A typical mess for others to clean up. ...and... He added content unsupported by the ref, and made empty sections and then walked away. He has wasted dozens of hours of community resources, and over 400,000 back page keystrokes. His statements in response to this all of this have made it clear that he intends to continue this way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Can PMDrive or another admin confirm whether or not those stubs ([User_talk:Maheshkumaryadav/Silver_sandbox|listed here]]) he's claiming were sourced to the Indian gov't website had such a source when deleted? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC) I'm not an admin, but I saw them. The creator refers to the refs here. The sources appeared to be a survey list and a parent page from the same site: [23] and [24]. Although they were deleted as "Mass deletion of pages added by Maheshkumaryadav; all are rubber-stampedand unverifiable nanostubs", the decision to delete them was supported by the deleting admin, myself, Sadads, Sitush, et al. This was in lieu of tagging each page, and was done, I believe, on the grounds that they contained no meaningful content. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC) I've just temporarily userfied one of his articles — I can vouch that they were all identical; if you wish to review it, it's here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC) I just looked at the article Salvio userfied, and I'm not trying to criticize the highly competent editors involved here, but what exactly is wrong with that article? It seems to be a standard human settlement sub-stub, and it has the sources that we asked Mahesh to get. The sources appear to be directly from the Indian gov't, which would seemingly make them reliable. Am I missing something? The village articles I had complained about before had no sources of any type...but it there were sources....Note that I'm still not arguing against a band (or for) as there were other significant problems, but I want to make sure we have our ducks in a row, so to speak. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC) I appreciate your concerns. I think Dr. Blofeld explains it best here. (Search string: "I urge him to respect the community views") Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban. I can't tell whether it's sheer intransigence or WP:COMPETENCE that's the problem, but it's obviously not going to stop unless and until we put a stop to it. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC). It can't be intransigence, as my comments User_talk:Maheshkumaryadav#Respect_to_the_community_views may show that, But i agree i need to learn a lot. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban after this user was courteously greeted, well advised and energetically supported. All this effort went into a black hole and there was no reciprocation from him. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban as one of the two users who have spent far too much of their time trying to deal with the detritus as well as the person. I really do not believe that we can help or advise any more, yet what has been said clearly has not actually refined Maheshkumaryadav's contributions or attitude in the slightest. He is as far away from the community norms now as he has ever been. I'm weary of seeing his name popping up in a negative context, his impatience, his arrogance and his apparent double-standards regarding policy knowledge. Not to forget that he keeps accusing me of attacking him for cleaning up the problems he has created. Perhaps now I have attacked him, so feel free to block me. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban. This editor is either ineducable or playing with us. He's cost too many good editors too many hours of work cleaning up after him. --NellieBly (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban. I and others have tried for nearly a week to get through to this user. He's been editing for a long time, yet still doesn't know the basics regarding stub creation and copyrights. On top of that, he can and does quote and cite numerous arcane and nearly unused guidelines on this site. I for one have had it and his cry of action against me is utterly unjustified. Anything I have done and will continue to do with these rubber-stamped nanostubs I do after much thought and community feedback. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Comment - MKY is currently requesting people (via his sandboxed page he refers to above) to take a look at List_of_villages_in_Mohali_district, which is an article not likely to survive for much longer per Anna's sandboxed page. After much persuasion, Mahesh did go back and remove duplicated entries from that list but perhaps do not be fooled by the blue links that remain: when I clicked a random few yesterday before the mass deletion they almost all went to disambig pages with totally irrelevant content. - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support ban I did try, perhaps unwisely, to give this user some sensible advice, still visible on his talk-page. He clearly has paid no attention to it, nor to any other advice he has received as regards his editing. I do not see him as intentionally disruptive, but I do see him as ineducable, at least in wikipedia terms, and I believe that his presence here is, and will continue to be, a negative one. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Comment from Maheshkumaryadav: Respect to the community views: I would like to share that after retrospecting and reading views of some contributors that i respect. I would be more careful to the community views and consensus. Within Wikipedia with so may different persons with different motives, it had been difficult for me to understand when individual users become community. I shall be taking the suggestions more seriously. In future, i intend to improve the articles that i had started, and shall avoid mass stub creation. It would be better for me to work with some mentor. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC) After listening to the community views, I have no complaints for the deleted articles created by me. I am trying to change the attitude, it had been a bigger problem then edits. I intend to show the changes not only in my words, but also through my actions also. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Comments: you have promised most of this before, then carried on with your "usual" you are not supposed to be creating any stubs, except in userspace, for the time being I'm not sure which contributors it is that you respect, but you haven't shown much sign of respecting any so far. In fact, I think you have either ignored or downplayed the comments from every contributor on your talk page except possibly one ... and that one is the person immediately above your comment here, who has just recently expressed the opinion that in fact you have ignored what he advised, so maybe I've misjudged that. judging by your talk page "mission statements", you seem to change your stated intent several times a day. This takes me back to the first point in this comment. It is a shame, it really is, but some people just are not suited to Wikipedia. This does not make you a "bad" person and there are probably other projects more suited to your skill-set and interests, but we cannot keep trying to resolve issues only to find that you move the goalposts back again (as with your desire to overturn the creation band firstly within minutes of it being imposed and then, later, today). Sorry, because I know that this must seem cruel. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC). Support ban After tracking the situation in the last few days and being somewhat involved, I think there will be a net negative from the user in the future. I did hope to oppose the ban thinking the user would improve over time but the problem is more attitude than knowledge. Plenty of time has been wasted cleaning up articles and there is more left. The user has learned some policies well and disregarded those that ill-suit them. This just leaves a strong possibility of gaming the system in the future and an overall failure to respect to basic policies like consensus.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I mean no disrespect to anyone above, and I believe you're all acting in good faith, but I want to be sure that we are properly following our own principles--that we are protecting the encyclopedia, not punishing an individual who has caused us so much vexation. I have asked Mahesh a series of questions on his talk page, to see if he will accept formal mentoring. While the community is still welcome to attempt to achieve consensus on a ban (as it seems likely that they will), I'd like to ask for a day or so before this discussion is closed to see how Mahesh responds, and whether or not his responses indicate that there is any hope for getting a productive editor out of the process. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC) If everyone could kindly take a look at Mahesh's response at User talk:Maheshkumaryadav#Serious question, is there anyone who thinks that there may be a possibility for redemption here? Or has Mahesh already passed the point of no return? My feeling is, the only major loss is to my time (as mentor); the conditions of the mentoring (which I will write up formally here if there is interest) would be extremely strict, with violations leading to an immediate indefinite block. However, if others involved feel I'm simply being too trusting and that Mahesh has already demonstrated that xe will never be a net benefit to the project even with a period of close supervision, then I'll accept that, and the door can be closed. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I trust you to be able to mentor Mahesh, although what the end result will be I can't say. Wouldn't mind mentoring over a community ban. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Qwryxian, if you feel like undertaking the effort I'd agree with holding off on a ban until we see the results of some mentoring. This diff does not fill me with confidence for the outcome, but have a go by all means. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Comment. I feel proposal of community ban is an over reaction on part of the community and is brought up in undue haste. Shyamsunder (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I strongly disagree. A lot of time and many pages of words have already been wasted on this editor. Quite the contrary, I think the community's patience has shown to have worn thin. Nothing hasty here — we already gave him an article creation ban which he tried to get removed within the first two days! Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Tried to get removed inside the first hour, actually. Then again yesterday. And created some new redirect pages after the ban was in place, which were retroactively accepted by User:Fram as being borderline ok behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Comment: It is requested to look at my edits, contributions, articles and portal started. All (99%) contributions are in good faith. The efforts have been to expand the Wikipedia, cover the topics required in society, mostly India related. The topic of articles started by me can prove that i try to work for the social cause. The reasons for me being present here is that i want to contribute to society. Mostly (more than 99%) of my edits have been within Wikipedia rules. I hope members will try to look things from my perspective. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC) "Look at things from your perspective", where you're right, everyone else is biased against you, and you again make promises of good behaviour when threatened with sanctions? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I don't want him banned out of revenge or anger. I just don't want to clean up any more debris. If you want to mentor him on a short leash, and he becomes productive, it's conceivable that he could, over time, mitigate the damages in terms of productive contribs. If you want to take responsibility, please do, although I'm not optimistic that what he could give would out weight what you would spend. We are all exhausted from this, and still have work to do at silver, so forgive us if we are not so enthusiastic in being humanitarians. It's not so much that this editor has burned us. It's more that we're all tired...and that he's burned us. There 'is' that. Somehow, I think his interest is not in making boring, useful contribs, and he will lose interest. You may end up eating your wiki-hat on this one, my friend. But if you pull this off, and there are contributions that negate this mess, I will send you the finest wiki-faberge egg this site has to offer. It would be nice to see this end on the plus side. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC) To all supporters of a ban: I am right on the line with this. I am not optimistic. It's a shot at recoupment. My faith is in Qwyrxian. My faith in Maheshkumaryadav remains the same. If you reject Qwyrxian's offer, I am 100% fine with that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I agree with Anna. Qwyrxian deserves the highest level of praise this site can offer whether or not he can turn this situation around. Mahesh, you're being handed a real opportunity. I hope that you take it and I hope that you stick to the terms of the agreement. Channel your enthusiasm in creating quality. Quality knows no time limits. PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC) If it works out with MKY to begin, I agree as well. It is better than a ban I guess. I trust Qwyrxian.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I am not at all confident this will work out but if Qwyrxian wants to have a go then fine by me. It will not be him who causes it to fail. - Sitush (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Support ban - the contributions made by him are unfortunately serious matters. On top of that, he has utterly disappointed us with his actions and his copyvios. So, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Qwyrxian, do you have an update on the mentorship proposal or should/can an admin enact the community's consensus here? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC) My apologies, I've only had time today to barely cover my watchlist. While I, like many others, am far from certain that mentorship will work, I do believe it is worth a shot. I will draft a specific set of rules and post them here just as soon as I can; should be within 24 hours. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Wait and see if mentorship is workable. I have a lot of respect for Qwyrxian's idea. Yes, a lot of the past contributions have been problematic and wasted a lot of other people's time; but we are talking about an editor who is pretty active in an area that is poorly covered by wikipedia. If we can bring that editor into the community and within the rules, so that they create lots of nice content, then it's a big win for both sides. Definitely worth trying. Mahesh should realise that they have been given several chances, and this is the last one. bobrayner (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Maybe get someone to fork your watchlist. Hm, I'm struggling to think of someone who likes doing that sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Mentorship proposal Proposed rules for mentorship of Maheshkumaryadav: Maheshkumaryadav will enter into mentorship under Qwyrxian in lieu of being community banned. Mahesh understands that this does not in any way imply that the community's concerns were wrong, that xyr prior actions were proper, or that xe does not need to improve significantly to become a full, productive member of Wikipedia. The topic ban on article creation which was currently agreed upon by the community remains active. Mahesh may not create any articles of any type in mainspace, including splits or redirects. Mahesh can appeal the ban following the normal procedures at WP:UNBAN after no less than six months time, and is strongly encouraged to seek approval from Qwyrxian prior to making such an appeal. For no less than the first 2 weeks of mentorship, Mahesh will make no edits to mainspace without first getting approval from Qwyrxian. Mahesh's performance in the first few weeks will determine future progress. Even after Mahesh is cleared to make direct mainspace edits, xe is strongly encouraged throughout the mentorship to ask first whenever xe is uncertain about how to proceed. Mahesh will endeavor to take all community input (past and future) under consideration when making edits. If Mahesh undertakes an action/series of actions that others object to, Mahesh will desist and discuss the issue until such time as consensus is clear to continue. Mahesh will assist any editors who ask for help regarding in cleaning up his prior contributions (though xe still must abide by the other points on this list when doing so). The exact mentorship process will be worked out between Qwyrxian and Mahesh. If for some reason Qwyrxian will be unavailable for an extended or indefinite period of time, Mahesh will need to seek input from WP:AN about how to proceed. Note that by extended I mean several weeks or more--I make no promises to be instantly and continuously available, nor will I abandon all other projects solely for mentoring. If at any time Mahesh decides to "go it alone"--that is to violate the article creation topic ban, or make major changes to articles without prior approval, or add information to articles that seriously violates WP:NPOV or copyright rules, Mahesh understands that xe will immediately be indefinitely blocked. There will be no additional ANI discussion, no waiting for apologies--just an indefinite block, and xe'll have to pursue the standard offer. I welcome input from other participants here for any additional stipulations or changes. Once we're the "rules" are clear, then we'll make sure Mahesh agrees, and see if we can't possibly make some progress. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC) All seems fine to me. Very well composed, in fact. I'll back off when the agreement is, er, agreed as I would hope at that point there would be little chance of Mahesh going renegade. The list of past articles that may require assistance from him has been available for a few days now and he knows where it is. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Approve as is. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Approve - and kudos to Qwyrxian for the generous offer. I agree it would be good to harness this editor's energies and the best of luck in doing so! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Approve. I hope this works; Mahesh seems to have caused some substantial problems but they might have the potential to be a really valuable editor. Best of luck to both Qwyrxian and Mahesh. bobrayner (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Very well, I hope Mahesh is rehabilitate-able. Good luck, Qwyrxian, and props for taking this on. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Sounds like a better solution, I would like to echo the kudos to Qwyrxian for taking this on, Sadads (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Strongly approve I really hope this works, I like the looks of the proposal. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Looks good to me. Thanks Qwyrxian. Mahesh, I hope you accept this and that it works out. We do need articles on Indian villages but you need to figure out how to go about creating them properly. Good luck. --rgpk (comment) 13:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Strongly approve as well. The very best of luck to the two of you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Strongly approve. (edit conflict) A ban seems very harsh to an editor who otherwise appears to want to contribute positively, despite not doing so in a way that the community would like. This feels like a very workable solution that hopefully will leave everyone somewhat satisfied. elektrikSHOOS 15:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Approve per WP:ROPE. We will watch what you do --Guerillero | My Talk 19:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Given the clear support here, I've asked for Mahesh to come here to officially state his acceptance of these conditions. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC) I officially accept these conditions. Special thanks to User:Qwyrxian for accepting to be my mentor. Thanks to others also. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC) I think that officially wraps things up here. Is that right? Are we done? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Censorship of Islam related articles by Adamrce

Summary of issue

This incident is related to the controversial Jihad article regarding the user Adamrce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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

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

• 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

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

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

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

Reliance of the Traveller, Northern Kentucky University

Secondary source 2

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

Secondary source 3

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

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

Comments

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. 64.85.214.12 (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頭 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 · 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 www.khilafah.com, 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 www.khilafa.com, 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:

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)

request for page freeze , with sourced content i added

I talked to an admin on live chat and they suggested that i should request a page freeze, including the content i added on the alternate view. on the rules of warefare [see here]

Will any admins consider? I would close this AN/I, if Adamrce would just tell me what i have to do such that he wont remove the content i added. i already asked the question above, but user avoided question--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Either, I'm not speaking English, or you're not reading English.

I avoided your last question for one simple reason; I've answered it already: two times here, two times on your talkpage (where you deleted them), two times on the article's talkpage, and I think another time on another article's discussion page. You gave your side of the story and I gave mine, so I was asking for an admin to comment and thought that keeping the same repeated discussion going will slow things down.

I'll repeat for the last time. I suggested that we can open a soapbox to work on that edit and link the soapbox to the discussion page, because it's a large content and any error is misleading to the readers. Those edits might take some time to get ordered. It really is as simple as that. You never commented nor listened to my suggestions. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 17:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already discussed with you enough, no need for soap box. you will keep argueing with me. just tell everyone (or if you already have, please repeat), what i must do, such that you wont revert my edits. Just tell me what you find wrong with my edits ! (also i have been told that the AN/I will take 14 days at least to settle, so stick around for next 10 days please)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A soapbox is a place where we can both make edits without misleading readers, and it can be under your control (on your account) while inviting editors to join with us. If you don't like it, fine. I have a lot of contribution to do, which I will continue. This topic can be discussed here till it's done, if that's what you want; even though we won't be able to insert any content here.

These are primary sources, based on what many editors told you before (not just me). Therefore, we need to summarize it fairly, not just pick what you like. What I had in mind, is to work on each source at a time. You can add the picky sentences you love, then I need to add a summary regarding the reasons for the war (as explanation in my first edit in the "Requesting an opinion on the procedures" section above. I also have to mention that each book doesn't represent the whole sector of Islam, like Hanaffi, as each book only represents a single scholars' opinion. So, there's many books for each sect, as told to you by another user, too. I'm just trying to make you aware of the things that you misunderstand, because you're not a Muslim nor have any experiences in Muslim sources (in my opinion). I know you're gonna say that you supplied secondary source, but your inserted quotations are from a primary source; so we need to be double careful! Take care ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 03:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Worklists in mainspace article text

Has pasting worklists into mainspace and striking out text as you deal with it ever been an acceptable method of merging articles? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. If it is only temporary, and the editor finds this method helpful, then there is no issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks longish-term by the length of the list. In any case it's pretty ugly and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be on the Talk page instead. Not a big point, but aesthetically pretty crap.... DeCausa (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. This kind of work goes on in userspace most of the time for a reason. This is not how a proper encyclopaedia presents itself. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The tutorials presented to students in the Public Policy programs advise editors to work on lengthy revisions in userspace, as I recall. Granted, most editors aren't going through anything as structured as a college course in Wikipedia editing, but I'd still like to see more usage of userspace and less major revisions on the fly in article space. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Good use of {{uc}}, if you ask me. It is good to show work in progress every now and then, to remind readers that this is not a finished work, but an encyclopedia you can edit. —Кузьма^討論 06:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Would an admin (or admins) clear the backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

User Maheshkumaryadav creating a slew of poor articles

Maheshkumaryadav agrees to mentorship as proposed by Qwyrxian (for terms see below} in lieu of a community ban. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Maheshkumaryadav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:Maheshkumaryadav was recently the subject of a discussion here regarding a slew of articles he created about corruption in Pakistan - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive693#User:Maheshkumaryadav. User:Rob commented in that discussion at 11:55 6 May that part of the "problem" was the sheer number of articles being created. Today, Maheshkumaryadav has created another slew of poorly sourced, incorrect and mostly cloned articles regarding certain villages and police forces - Special:Contributions/Maheshkumaryadav. Some people, including myself, raised concerns about this on his talk page. In my case, the concerns got no response and some further articles were created after I had raised the issue. As an example of the problem, Manipur Police contains a statement that the force has nine departments ... and then lists them as being three. This is elementary stuff and can probably be fixed if someone can find their way around the relevant police force's website. However, the sheer number - as Rob noted a couple of days ago - makes for more work than it should be. That statement about departments appears to have been applied to all of the police force articles, as have the inclusion of sections on officer ranks and insignia which may or may not be applicable to each force. I have nothing against stub creation but the scale of these is a little intimidating. Is it acceptable practice? I sought the opinion of an admin, who referred me back to here because of the previous instance. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC) That's not stub creation, it's creating loads of pages with the same content, all of which is irrelevant. We should not list the insignia of Indian or Pakistani police of the page for every police station, that's self-evident. Maheshkumaryadav doesn't seem to listen to the advice he is repeatedly given. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I know that villages - however obscure - are deemed to be notable. Are police forces? - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I suggest a timed article creation ban. The editor has been warned before but doesn't appear to get it. --rgpk (comment) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC) If this is the case, please no more then a week, Sadads (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC) - (edit conflict)I strongly advise against blocking Mahesh. Though his contributions are sometimes a little rash, he has been slowly learning the values of the community and, I think today after weeks of hints, we have gotten partially through to him, and unlike his previous offenses, is not pushing pov rampantly anymore. I suggest instead that we continue to monitor his edits heavily and try to keep an eye on what he is doing. I am currently checking in on his contributions almost every day, and there are several more people watching his talk page, and increasingly his contributions are becoming more useful. Even thought the police department articles are not ideal, the lack of coverage of Wikipedia on these subjects is again pushing forward the issues of the WP:Systematic bias and undoubtedly, as the Indian internet population becomes more and more active (as we have already observed) these articles will get many more careful eyes looking over them. He is being rash, but at this point I don't think administrator action is necessary, and he is not being too disruptive, Sadads (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC) A block is not necessary. An article creation ban will take care of this problem. He/she can always create articles in user space and asked for them to be moved to article space when they are ready. --rgpk (comment) 21:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC) The village articles are also a problem. While human settlements are considered inherently notable, the stubs contain literally no information other than the village name along with the state and district its in. No coordinates, no census data, no details. Most importantly, they contain no references. Without at least geo-coordinates, we have neither verification nor any easy way to gain verification that these settlements exist. We don't know where Mahesh was getting these names from, if they're current, nor were we given any way to verify that event the name is correct. Technically speaking, they're all immediately deletable as being unverified. Still, I'm not sure there's anything an admin can actually do here; I guess what we need to decide is whether Mahesh must stop creating unverified sub-stubs, and, if so, whether someone should write xem a very clear warning to this effect. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I am grateful for Qwyrxian's contribution here as I am aware from the history that xe has been involved with this editor previously. While I do understand the intent of Sadads' comments, I feel that there is a limit of tolerance. My gut feeling is that the suggestion proposed by RegentsPark should in theory achieve something but am aware that Maheshkumaradav has previously put forward the argument that WP stifles new article creators. So, it is possible that by stifling Mahesh we could actually alienate him completely. Would that be a loss in the circumstances? Well, I'd like to hope that it doesn't actually push him over the edge but if it does then, frankly, that is just tough. The situation at present seems not to be working too well and if the "hints" are having any effect then the rate of improvement engendered by them appears to be dismally slow. Something (somebody) has got to give way. I am not experienced enough to make a judgement as to where, when or how but the situation at present seems to me to favour quantity over quality. If that is acceptable then so be it. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC) There is an element of disruption in creating lots of new stub articles at one time and Maheshkumaryadav needs to see that. A timed article creation ban will give him/her the chance to work on creating articles in their user space, so their new article creation tendencies won't be stifled, only channeled more appropriately. We don't want to stifle new article creators but neither do we want to have to put up with the work of cleaning up when an editor creates too many meaningless ones. (I don't question the good faith of the editor but, just because he/she is acting in good faith doesn't mean that the end result is not disruptive.) --rgpk (comment) 23:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC) That makes sense to me. If we make it clear that continued creation in userspace, with appropriate review prior to moving into mainspace, is still ok then hopefully we are all beneficiaries from the situation. If someone throws a hissy fit about this proposal then I would be astonished. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC) That sounds reasonable, several of us are monitoring his talk page now, so I think we could handle inquiries/thoughts he is having right now. Again, I would like to reiterate a moderate time of banning though placed on him. He is extremely high energy in editing, and I fear anything longer then a week or two might be a little oppressive, Sadads (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I also think a weeks article creation block is a good idea. We shouldn't have to hint and explain for weeks and months to get somebody to listen. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I see nothing to seriously take issue with concerning his recent contributions in the last few days. The police articles are not about local police forces such as the US small town police forces articles we keep properly deleting, but regional police forces, such as are considered notable for the various US states & are therefore notable in India also. The content in them is basic , but I see nothing wrong in starting with basic content. The articles on towns are highly appropriate though they need at least the demographics and location, not just the jurisdictional material, and he should be encouraged to add the content, not discouraged from making the articles. There is more to be said in each case, but we are better having the articles than not having them. I'm aware of earlier problems with NPOV, but this is another matter. I see no reason not to make them directly in mainspace--stubs are permitted. They are not meaningless, just not as meaningful as they should be. It is just as good an option to start many articles to be finished later as to write a smaller number of more finished ones. This is an area of the world where we badly beed content. Sirtush says "the situation at present seems to me to favour quantity over quality." -- actually, the situation at present favors both ways of making articles. Let those who want to do them in a particular way do so, and not try to inhibit the ones who prefer the others. It would be very highly inappropriate to ban anyone from creating valid articles in whatever manner they care to do so. In some previous cases involving other editors, it was alleged that a large proportion of the articles were incorrect--which, if proven, is indeed a problem (it never was proven, just a few selected errors given which might or might not have been pervasive) . I don't see this is being even claimed here. Qwyrxian, as there is documentation that the places can be shown to exist, why not help trying to find the geolocations instead of objecting that someone else has not done so? (Above unsigned comment by User:DGG) Sorry, transmission error. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC) My comment about the "situation" was with regard to Mahesh's work, not the project's policies and guidelines. I also do not think we are better having unreferenced articles which, by WP definition, are actually invalid, despite your apparent belief to the contrary. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I think the above comment is Sadads'. I have a problem with the final statement--as far as I can see, there is no documentation that the places can be shown to exist. Since no sources were provided, how can I, as someone not from those provinces, have any faith that they exist? I suppose there's some element of WP:AGF, but I know from having worked on other articles by this editor that they have made basic errors or intentional misinterpretations of sources. But Mahesh has given us literally nothing to work from, besides the name. I am not joking when I say that I have no way of knowing where these names of villages came from, and, for all I know, could be entirely fictitious. Again, if he had provided even a single source, like a vaguely recent almanac to verify location or somewhat current census data to verify government recognition, then I would accept the existence of these articles, and actually think them great--I have no problem with the creation of sub-stubs on human settlements, so long as there is at least a little bit of current, accurate, verification. To me, these articles are essentially a type of reflection of the problem of the other article's Mahesh created that were impossibly NPOV flawed. It's fine to create articles that are incomplete. It is not fine to create articles that are fundamentally in conflict with one of the core pillars. These settlement articles do not yet meet WP:V, and I don't see why they should exist until they do. The Indian Corruption articles didn't meet NPOV, and in many cases couldn't because they were fundamentally mis-structures, mis-named, or undue. At this point, I'm coming to believe that an article creation ban is necessary until Mahesh can show that xe will create articles that meet the key tests of being neutral and have at least a minimum of verification. At the same time, xe either needs to go back and fix the ones already created, or accept that they may be deleted for lack of verification/neutrality. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I only checked one or two, and they did have refs in newspaper articles. If there's not even that, yes, the thing do is to to remind the user to get a ref first before writing, as is universally agreed to be good practice, and to make a priority of finding something for the ones without. (with, I continue,to suggest some help. I think some of the people here have more experience with sourcing geographical data than I, which is my only excuse for not helping directly. If someone who knows how tries and cannot find, then AfD is the way to get gemore general specific attention to material that appears impossible to verify.) And yes, I had realized how this evolved out of the earlier editing--when over general unrepresentative material was appropriately challenged, an attempt was made to provide some hopefully solid and non-controversial background. I think that was probably a good choice. Qwyrxian, I apologize for anything unintended or misattributed--i think you and I have the same goal--our only difference is that I would continue to try to keep everything positive, and a matter of continued encouragement to do it right. Forbidding someone to contribute articles would only be appropriate if they were shown to be not just unverified, but unverifiable. Encouraging them to be more careful can be done without the threat. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid I don't completely agree with you on this. I do agree that Indian villages are probably poorly served on wikipedia and we do need articles, even mere stubs, on them. However, we do have a responsibility to at least minimally fact check the existence of these villages before we create these articles. Mass creation of village stubs makes this sort of fact checking difficult, if not impossible. Maheshkumaryadav is not a new editor and he has a history of creating article stubs on all sorts of non-notable topics as attested by his talk page history and I believe that a user-space only restriction would help him create better articles and will stave of a lot of unnecessary leg work on the part of other editors. --rgpk (comment) 13:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC) The articles in question about the Indian police contains no references, just duplicated content. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I need help to geo tag the villages. Each village is having approx. population more than 1000 people. Help in expanding the village topics can be taken from google. eg. for village Parwala google returns a good info that can be used for that particular article. [25] . I am not having enough time to add content to each village article. The persons belonging to those villages are not internet savy and cannot create the quality of stub i have created for those villages (aprox 250 something), but they can improve the stubs i have provided. If the stubs are removed, it might take 5 years form most of articles to come again of wikipeida, but if they are left and improved with geotags and other data, within 12 months they can start growing. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Regarding police articles, these are nearly 10 -12 articles, each state police article is for police force that serves nearly 5 crore citizens (50 million people), there are only 20 something states in India an each have there police state police, these articles are for those state polices. There are approx. 10,000 to 50,000 employees in each state police force. A Google result for individual article will say a lot for the articles like http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Chandigarh+Police Most of the police articles have link to official organization website and with Google search others are welcome to improve the articles.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Regarding discussing of my blocking, that won't serve any purpose, at this point of learning curve and with style of creating articles, i am doing my best. Regarding my being active for last few days, i had time thats why i gave it to wikipedia, but maybe i won't be able to give that much time in future. Like each individual i have may own unique way of working. Because of low internet penetration in India and less computer literacy in rural areas, most of the stubs for the region are being removed compared to developed nations. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Would you perhaps agree to not making any more articles without references? That would solve the WP:V half of people's concern, at least. Alternatively/additionally, would you be willing to be mentored, as has been suggested before? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Actually, Mahesh added 21 police force articles yesterday, all of them containing huge chunks of (to me) cloned unnecessary detail. I accept the issues raised regarding literacy, internet access etc but feel that the project should not be moving its standards to suit a geographical area. Inclusion is A Good Thing, but surely not at the expense of standards? Mahesh has been asked before to do some minor expansions of his content rather than "hell for leather" creation and I thought he had accepted that this would go a long way to placating the situation, but it seemed not to happen and there was no response to my messages. FWIW, I have spent a lot of time fettling subcontinent articles, so you can count me among the inclusionists on that score. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I really don't want to endorse an article creation ban. And, I dont' want to chase away such an enthusiastic newcomer. But this is all falling on deaf ears. He is saying that he doesn't have time to fix up the village articles, yet he has time to keep creating these products. He is leaving a lot of work for others, producing articles that should have consensus first, is moving content out of articles unnecessarily, is asking for our help, while not accepting any guidance. If he has the energy to produce these articles, he should have the energy to stop and fix them up. Some sort of solution is quite urgently required. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Note that the editor in question is not a newcomer and also has a history of apparently improper article creation (see the editor's talk page history). Discouraging editors from creating articles is not something we want to do but neither do we want to be in the position of forcing other editors to do the busy work of cleaning up after over enthusiastic editors. --rgpk (comment) 13:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)I'm, sorry but this is now getting silly. Mahesh is steamrollering splits of school lists without discussion on the main article, without much regard for the content and without much care. Several people have weighed in on his talk page this morning but I sense that AGF may be wearing thin. He has time to do this but not enough time to fettle the existing articles he has created? - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built can give some of us the perspective to help grow the stubs. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC) That article you quote is an essay. The policies and guidelines say that content must be notable and verifiable by reference to reliable sources. Furthermore, you should seek [[WP:|Consensus]], use edit summaries, maintain the licensing when splitting articles ... and umpteen other things that you have either not done or (which is great) sometimes have started doing after being prompted. You are not a new contributor here and you are not dealing with new contributors in this discussion. I think that I can safely say we are all familiar with how stubs can grow. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry to say that I agree that we have a problem. I've just swung by his talk page to see how he was doing after my encounter. He is simply continuing to create these malformed stubs en masse under the assumption that others are going to rush right in to fix them. WP:COMPETENCY may be an issue here as well. I loathe the thought of dropping a whammy on a well-meaning user, but something has to be done. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Article creation ban proposal In the interests of figuring this out, either way, I propose the following ban on Maheshkumaryadav: Maheshkumaryadav is banned from creating new articles in article space. He may continue to create articles in user space and may request any admin or other editor in good standing to move the article into article space. He can request a review of the ban after a reasonable period of time and after he has demonstrated the ability to create minimally sourced articles on notable topics. Please indicate whether you support or oppose this ban below. --rgpk (comment) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC) The !votes below are pretty much a snow. Can we please instigate this immediately? The contributor is once again creating numerous articles against the advice of experienced editors and is basically riding roughshod over multiple WP policies and guidelines. AGF has pretty much gone here. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Support Support --rgpk (comment) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Support - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Support - he's continuing to create contentless articles and lists. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Support every article creation I looked at had problems. This is clearly an editor that is willing to improve, but is going forward way too fast. A little time just editing would be a good idea. --Errant (chat!) 19:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Support --OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Support Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 00:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Support; the user may be well-intentioned but the article-creation has substantial problems and consumes a lot of other contributors' time and goodwill. Spending some time improving existing articles would be good for all concerned, I think. bobrayner (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Support - The sheer volume of unverified content coming at once is difficult to deal with. I applaud the enthusiasm, but it needs to be reined in a bit. -- Atama頭 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Support - It's great when a good faith editor is interested in article creation; however, in this particular case, valid concerns have been raised over the content and accuracy of the articles and the editor has failed to acknowledge these concerns. Temporary sanctions appear necessary in order to allow the editor to review and address the problems. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Support - I was in support of this before. Then the user said xe was taking a wikibreak, and even had a little productive dialogue going. So I thought things might work themselves out later. Today, xe's back, creating more new articles. While some are good, others are not--Monsoon session, for instance, currently has no sources that actually discuss the concept in detail (it only has sources that mention the word in passing--i.e., using the neologism rather than talking about it). Now that article may be worth keeping if we can find source, so I'll have to do some WP:BEFORE work on it to know for certain, but it's disheartening that once again its going to be up to other editors to do the hard work for Maheshkumaryadav. I also feeling like we're being played with--xe says xe's on Wikibreak, xe says xe doesn't have time to work on the stubs xe created, but xe does have time to make more articles... Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Support - Though I regret having to prevent a user from creating articles, it seems only the best way to keep him from creating any more of these excessively problematic articles en mass. I would strongly suggest a limited time on the ban, with a sanction which will reinstate the article creation ban, if he starts doing mass creation of articles again after he comes off it, Sadads (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Support --Guerillero | My Talk 10:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose Oppose: 2011 land acquisition protests in Uttar Pradesh is an new article, created by me in last 10 hours. It seems a quality stub. An article creation ban will devoid such articles from creation. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 2011_Saudi_Arabian_protests, 2011_Omani_protests, 2011_Sudanese_protests,2011_Moroccan_protests, Allegations_of_support_system_in_Pakistan_for_Osama_bin_Laden are some of the articles started by me, those were not great stubs when i started them, (can be checked on history of those pages) a ban might result that such needed articles might not see 'light of the day'. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Clarifying that you can still create articles in user space if the community approves this ban. You'll need to ask an editor in good standing (I see many on your talk page willing to help out) to move these articles to article space for you. --rgpk (comment) 18:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Comments Comment - whilst supporting the proposal as stated, I would ideally like it phrased to say "... to create at least minimally sourced articles ... ". Encouraging Mahesh to develop existing articles (including his own recent stubs) is a worthwhile thing, and adding "at least" sort of emphasises the point. However, I am probably being pedantic here. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Wikibreak - within minutes of posting a report about me below (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive694#User_Sitush_is_merging_articles_in_undesired_way), Mahesh has decided to take a wikibreak, per his own talk page. The final straw appears to have been my actions in reversing his non-consensual splitting of a list of Indian schools. Sorry about that, but he was advised in advance of why the splitting was not a great thing to do without discussion. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC) ... and now he is back. Not sure if a good night's sleep really counts as a break. Anyway, another new article has been created by him. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC) He just created List of villages in Mohali district over objections. He's made it clear that he intends on creating a new group of stubs. Please block this renegade editor from creating articles. We can't keep up with the trail of debris he is leaving behind. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Can we implement the creation block per the poll above, he started implementing the articles, see his contributions, Sadads (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Indef block I have now indef blocked this editor for blatantly ignoring community consensus (he was well aware of this discussion, and continuing despite it is not really collaborative). As I explained on his talk page, this "indef" is just to be in place until he agrees to no longer create any pages in the mainspace, or until this discussion concludes that the block on article creation is not enacted after all. If I had the technical means to only block him from article creation, I would have done so, but I am not aware of such a possibility... Fram (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I have now unblocked this editor, who has indicated that he or she will not create any articles until this discussion is finished. Fram (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I feel the need to contribute to main space with creation of new articles and redirects, But as i have promised that i will not create them till this discussion is finished. I request to conclude and close the discussion. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I have learned the way of working here in last few days, and would incorporate that in my working. I assure i will not create unreferenced village articles, like that of Panchkula. I will keep trying to improve the quality of my edits. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC) There is nothing to stop you creating the articles in your userspace. Your impatience is bordering on bad faith, coming so soon after being unblocked. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC) "In the last few days?!?" You have been editing this site for several years! Lots of us have tried to help you and you just go on your merry way. I am within a millisecond of reinstating that indefinite block and deleting these doggoned substubs in one swoop. I had hoped that you would have learned from your mistakes, but you just keep doing the same thing over and over and over again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC) But don't, please don't. I wish that someone would consider something stronger but you shouldn't because you were involved. A nuisance sometimes, I guess ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC) That's why I haven't done so yet. My first encounter was over the 472 orphaned village rubber-stamped nanostubs and I've been getting a headache over these shenanigans ever since. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:34, 12 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. Maheshkumaryadav - multiple copyright violations Maheshkumaryadav (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) While reviewing this user's articles (listed here), we have encountered and documented a dozen or more cases of copyright violations in the form of verbatim copy/paste of content. Despite multiple notifications regarding this on his talk page, this user has not acknolwedged or addressed this issue. This user was previously blocked for this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Most of the times the content was from Wikipedia only, and was taken from parent articles, and the bot marked it for copyright violations. In few cases it was re-written by me, in others the content was removed. I haven't knowingly fetched it from outside violating any copyright. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Still i would like to take extra care regarding copyrights in future. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I am sure, but I am also sure that you have said this before. Many of these violations have occurred after your last block. As with many of your actions recently, it is not enough to say that you will adjust your editing habits. You actually need to do it. This continued failure to put your words into action (except when it suits your own purpose) forms a large part of the problem that people have with you. Even today, you have been blithely rewriting history with regard to your interpretation of the above closed discussion. I must say that I am not the only person who has reached the end of his tether regarding these issues. You should count yourself lucky, I feel, that you have not been indefinitely blocked from editing here. Take advantage of that luck, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC) For the sake of clarity, my comment above about your interpretation today refers to this comment, which you subsequently removed after I asked you to confirm that you understood it to be incorrect. I am still awaiting the confirmation, Mahesh. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC) At the time of that comment i was not fully aware of meaning of community ban, i found that the technically the software was not stopping me, Later read about the community bans and how they work, how should i move forward. Use of my comments against me, have been a reason that i was afraid to reply to the admins/users suggestions on my talk page and doing so i un-intensionally offended them. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Personal attack on user:maheshkumaryadav: In last few days, user:maheshkumaryadav and his work is specifically being attacked by User:Sitush. Not all but some of the acts of User:Anna_Frodesiak are also not neural. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I, too, have been reviewing the contributions of Maheshkumaryadav and can confirm multiple copyvios from non-WP sources. Maheshkumaryadav is correct to say that he has performed some bad splits & lost the CC-BY-SA license info as a consequence, but the issue goes way beyond that. I am becoming tired of his recent spate of borderline personal attacks on me, also. I am one of several people trying to clean up a problem which he still seems not to recognise. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Maheshkumaryadav's definition of a neutral person, btw, appears to be "someone who agrees with me". - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC) No, A neutral person means who can see things in complete perspective. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC) As a neutral, non-admin observer who's been following this thread with interest, I believe that with the latest developments, it would be appropriate to indefinitely block Maheshkumaryadav for the copyright violations and a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I have requested a WP:CCI. - Sitush (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I request to kindly not engage me such things, I have always respected copyrights and while scrutinizing my work of last 5 years, one should not consider it a single incident. Thanks.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC) User:Maheshkumaryadav I for one have reached the limit of my patience with this guy. He has created nearly 500 contentless substubs en masse, has been community-banned for doing so and now, according to a recent link on my talk page, is canvassing for sympathy under the premise of an anti-India bias. I am ready to block him and use the nuke option on all those blasted stubs he refuses to expand. He's taken up way too much of this community's time and patience. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Dear PMDrive1061, What i understand is that i was banned not exactly for creating the village stubs. I was banned because the users (community) i was communicating was asking me to stop creating furthur stubs (for punjab), but at that time i felt that as the new stubs were having govt. reference so it won't be wrong to create them. I got banned by you (or community) for not stopping, and going forward to creating those well referenced Punjab stubs listed here. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I have to agree. Even if his aim is to better Wikipedia, the end result is a lot of mess to dig through, and he's made it clear that he wants to create stubs and then never touch them again. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC) PM, deal with it, haha. You wanted to be an admin and get paid the big bucks--time to put your nose to the grindstone. I agree--this incommunicative and belligerent editing is not helpful. What type of consensus do you need to nuke them? I mean, is that what you're looking for here? Drmies (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Have you seen this, User:Anna Frodesiak/Silver sandbox? Drmies (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC) There is a similar section above on this page where he was banned from creating new articles. There seem to be suggestions that a large number of the stubs created may have been copyright violations. I would suggest it's time to discuss a community ban from Wikipedia, not just from creating articles. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC) My point exactly. BTW Drmies, I love that link. Of course, you realize that the mop, bucket and three bucks get me a venti cup of Pike Place coffee at Starbucks. :P Seriously though, yes. I'm looking for some sort of consensus since I've been deep in this issue since Monday, if memory serves. Cooler heads on the recent AfD suggested that I not drop the hammer due to my involvement. However, I really think we're being toyed with. This guy can cite the most arcane and little-used policies you can imagine, but he still acts like a new user when it comes to article creation and the posting of multiple copyright violations. He rubber-stamps nanostubs literally by the hundreda and states quite clearly that he will not expand them. Then, he starts crying "bias" when his "articles" are either under AfD or being deleted as having no content. Grrrr....! PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Well, you know what I think about it all. I've said it often enough. Feel free to wield a nuclear mop. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Boom. Got most if not all of them. I need to double-check the list but I think most are now history. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC) You have only missed 469 of them. Whose side are you on here? <g> - Sitush (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC) No one likes a wise guy, you know. :P First time I've ever used that tool and I'm thinking there's more than one page of these things of his. BRB...PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC) OK, I found out what I was doing wrong, but I think I'm overloading the servers. There are simply too many of them. I'll simply have to delete them a few at a time tomorrow. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Well, the village links have all gone a funny colour on the list. Red, I think it is. - Sitush (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC) User PMDrive1061 PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:PMDrive1061 have mass deleted stubs related to state of Punjab, India. All of them had been provided references from the official government website. The list can be found at here. The reason given for deletion "unverifiable nanostubs" doesn't hold good as each one can be verified, by reference provided in it. Kindly look in the matter as the stubs deserve to be restored. An action against User:PMDrive1061 is requested. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC) See above for related information. - SudoGhost (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC) The villages listed here can be verified by reference provided in them. The above discussion doesn't talk about verification of these villages, instead seems to cheering about success of deletion. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) That list is a copy of Anna's list. Why did you not just direct people to hers, since that has already been referred to? It contains all sorts of notes, which your stripped-down version omits. - Sitush (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC) BTW, it was not cheering from me. It was derision. Perhaps it did not come across as intended, in which case I apologise to you (PMDrive1061 seemed to understand). - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC) It was an attempt to lighten up a difficult situation and not a personal attack. I'm sorry of you took it that way. What I'm doing in deleting these stubs is in no way personal. As an administrator, it is up to me to try and aid users who are unclear on concepts. Sadly, none of us have been able to get through to you and the ability to laugh at the situation made it somewhat more bearable. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Removal of article creation ban As the Punjab village stubs pass the minimum standards required for a stub creation. a) So see if the stubs may please be restored. This list may be checked here b) User:Maheshkumaryadav was banned from creating new articles in article space, because of creation of Punjab stubs, against the wishes of some experienced users. Some of them were also not against those stubs, but the timing of creating them. I also feel that the timing of creating them was not good, i should have waited. As these stubs seem to pass the minimum standards for stubs the article creation ban may please be removed. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support Removal of ban as proposer. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Comment - nope. The consensus for the creation ban was already there (& you knew of it) prior to the Punjab stubs being created. You were urged by several contributors not' to create those stubs for that reason, among others. This, I am afraid, is another example of you distorting events. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Time for a proper community ban As Mahesh appears not to get it, and has even now had the cheek to ask that his not-even-two-day-old article creation ban be removed because he created "stubs (that) pass the minimum standards" while he was banned, and still has not adequately addressed the issue of copyright violation, it is time to consider a proper community ban. Not simply a ban from article creation but a ban from the English Wikipedia, perhaps with the WP:Standard offer. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC) The Punjab stubs were created before i was banned. I request, the contents of Punjab stubs must be checked here before proposing. Thanks.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC) I would request to have a look at User_talk:Maheshkumaryadav#Respect_to_the_community_views before arriving at an opinion.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban as proposer. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban He apparently has knowledge of overly specific policies that he brings up when he feels they will benefit him, while ignoring core things such as WP:N and WP:V. I also agree with Strange Passerby's comments, so there is no need to repeat them. - SudoGhost (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC) As per my knowledge, Wikipedia considers a human settlement as notable WP:N, and a reference from govt. site would shall be sufficient to take care of WP:V part.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose any type of ban: The Punjab stubs must be checked before proposing. They pass minimum standards required for a stub. Thanks.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC) This ban proposal has nothing to do with the standards of the stubs, but your persistent refusal to listen to the community. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Listening vs agreeing. Some members were against creation of those village stubs, i listened to them, and improved the quality of stubs i was creating. The last lot was Punjab stub with reference from official government websites. While i was creating them, i was banned to let community discuss those first. It's a good time to discuss. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC) You can still create those stubs in your user space. Your refusal to do this while you argue to get the restrictions removed is just more evidence of you not listening. That attitude is likely to land you a community ban. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban on the following grounds: This editor still is only concerned with restoring the stubs and creating more. He does not care about the wishes of the community. He has no intention of expanding the microstubs and has said so. He is well-versed in policies that serve him, and writes beautifully to that end. Yet, hasn't a clue about even the most basic policies when editing, and leaves a trial of destruction behind for others to clean up. For example, yesterday he made only about 3 actual article edits. Here are two: A typical mess for others to clean up. ...and... He added content unsupported by the ref, and made empty sections and then walked away. He has wasted dozens of hours of community resources, and over 400,000 back page keystrokes. His statements in response to this all of this have made it clear that he intends to continue this way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Can PMDrive or another admin confirm whether or not those stubs ([User_talk:Maheshkumaryadav/Silver_sandbox|listed here]]) he's claiming were sourced to the Indian gov't website had such a source when deleted? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC) I'm not an admin, but I saw them. The creator refers to the refs here. The sources appeared to be a survey list and a parent page from the same site: [26] and [27]. Although they were deleted as "Mass deletion of pages added by Maheshkumaryadav; all are rubber-stampedand unverifiable nanostubs", the decision to delete them was supported by the deleting admin, myself, Sadads, Sitush, et al. This was in lieu of tagging each page, and was done, I believe, on the grounds that they contained no meaningful content. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC) I've just temporarily userfied one of his articles — I can vouch that they were all identical; if you wish to review it, it's here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC) I just looked at the article Salvio userfied, and I'm not trying to criticize the highly competent editors involved here, but what exactly is wrong with that article? It seems to be a standard human settlement sub-stub, and it has the sources that we asked Mahesh to get. The sources appear to be directly from the Indian gov't, which would seemingly make them reliable. Am I missing something? The village articles I had complained about before had no sources of any type...but it there were sources....Note that I'm still not arguing against a band (or for) as there were other significant problems, but I want to make sure we have our ducks in a row, so to speak. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC) I appreciate your concerns. I think Dr. Blofeld explains it best here. (Search string: "I urge him to respect the community views") Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban. I can't tell whether it's sheer intransigence or WP:COMPETENCE that's the problem, but it's obviously not going to stop unless and until we put a stop to it. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC). It can't be intransigence, as my comments User_talk:Maheshkumaryadav#Respect_to_the_community_views may show that, But i agree i need to learn a lot. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban after this user was courteously greeted, well advised and energetically supported. All this effort went into a black hole and there was no reciprocation from him. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban as one of the two users who have spent far too much of their time trying to deal with the detritus as well as the person. I really do not believe that we can help or advise any more, yet what has been said clearly has not actually refined Maheshkumaryadav's contributions or attitude in the slightest. He is as far away from the community norms now as he has ever been. I'm weary of seeing his name popping up in a negative context, his impatience, his arrogance and his apparent double-standards regarding policy knowledge. Not to forget that he keeps accusing me of attacking him for cleaning up the problems he has created. Perhaps now I have attacked him, so feel free to block me. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban. This editor is either ineducable or playing with us. He's cost too many good editors too many hours of work cleaning up after him. --NellieBly (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support community ban. I and others have tried for nearly a week to get through to this user. He's been editing for a long time, yet still doesn't know the basics regarding stub creation and copyrights. On top of that, he can and does quote and cite numerous arcane and nearly unused guidelines on this site. I for one have had it and his cry of action against me is utterly unjustified. Anything I have done and will continue to do with these rubber-stamped nanostubs I do after much thought and community feedback. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Comment - MKY is currently requesting people (via his sandboxed page he refers to above) to take a look at List_of_villages_in_Mohali_district, which is an article not likely to survive for much longer per Anna's sandboxed page. After much persuasion, Mahesh did go back and remove duplicated entries from that list but perhaps do not be fooled by the blue links that remain: when I clicked a random few yesterday before the mass deletion they almost all went to disambig pages with totally irrelevant content. - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Support ban I did try, perhaps unwisely, to give this user some sensible advice, still visible on his talk-page. He clearly has paid no attention to it, nor to any other advice he has received as regards his editing. I do not see him as intentionally disruptive, but I do see him as ineducable, at least in wikipedia terms, and I believe that his presence here is, and will continue to be, a negative one. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Comment from Maheshkumaryadav: Respect to the community views: I would like to share that after retrospecting and reading views of some contributors that i respect. I would be more careful to the community views and consensus. Within Wikipedia with so may different persons with different motives, it had been difficult for me to understand when individual users become community. I shall be taking the suggestions more seriously. In future, i intend to improve the articles that i had started, and shall avoid mass stub creation. It would be better for me to work with some mentor. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC) After listening to the community views, I have no complaints for the deleted articles created by me. I am trying to change the attitude, it had been a bigger problem then edits. I intend to show the changes not only in my words, but also through my actions also. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Comments: you have promised most of this before, then carried on with your "usual" you are not supposed to be creating any stubs, except in userspace, for the time being I'm not sure which contributors it is that you respect, but you haven't shown much sign of respecting any so far. In fact, I think you have either ignored or downplayed the comments from every contributor on your talk page except possibly one ... and that one is the person immediately above your comment here, who has just recently expressed the opinion that in fact you have ignored what he advised, so maybe I've misjudged that. judging by your talk page "mission statements", you seem to change your stated intent several times a day. This takes me back to the first point in this comment. It is a shame, it really is, but some people just are not suited to Wikipedia. This does not make you a "bad" person and there are probably other projects more suited to your skill-set and interests, but we cannot keep trying to resolve issues only to find that you move the goalposts back again (as with your desire to overturn the creation band firstly within minutes of it being imposed and then, later, today). Sorry, because I know that this must seem cruel. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC). Support ban After tracking the situation in the last few days and being somewhat involved, I think there will be a net negative from the user in the future. I did hope to oppose the ban thinking the user would improve over time but the problem is more attitude than knowledge. Plenty of time has been wasted cleaning up articles and there is more left. The user has learned some policies well and disregarded those that ill-suit them. This just leaves a strong possibility of gaming the system in the future and an overall failure to respect to basic policies like consensus.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I mean no disrespect to anyone above, and I believe you're all acting in good faith, but I want to be sure that we are properly following our own principles--that we are protecting the encyclopedia, not punishing an individual who has caused us so much vexation. I have asked Mahesh a series of questions on his talk page, to see if he will accept formal mentoring. While the community is still welcome to attempt to achieve consensus on a ban (as it seems likely that they will), I'd like to ask for a day or so before this discussion is closed to see how Mahesh responds, and whether or not his responses indicate that there is any hope for getting a productive editor out of the process. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC) If everyone could kindly take a look at Mahesh's response at User talk:Maheshkumaryadav#Serious question, is there anyone who thinks that there may be a possibility for redemption here? Or has Mahesh already passed the point of no return? My feeling is, the only major loss is to my time (as mentor); the conditions of the mentoring (which I will write up formally here if there is interest) would be extremely strict, with violations leading to an immediate indefinite block. However, if others involved feel I'm simply being too trusting and that Mahesh has already demonstrated that xe will never be a net benefit to the project even with a period of close supervision, then I'll accept that, and the door can be closed. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I trust you to be able to mentor Mahesh, although what the end result will be I can't say. Wouldn't mind mentoring over a community ban. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Qwryxian, if you feel like undertaking the effort I'd agree with holding off on a ban until we see the results of some mentoring. This diff does not fill me with confidence for the outcome, but have a go by all means. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Comment. I feel proposal of community ban is an over reaction on part of the community and is brought up in undue haste. Shyamsunder (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I strongly disagree. A lot of time and many pages of words have already been wasted on this editor. Quite the contrary, I think the community's patience has shown to have worn thin. Nothing hasty here — we already gave him an article creation ban which he tried to get removed within the first two days! Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Tried to get removed inside the first hour, actually. Then again yesterday. And created some new redirect pages after the ban was in place, which were retroactively accepted by User:Fram as being borderline ok behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Comment: It is requested to look at my edits, contributions, articles and portal started. All (99%) contributions are in good faith. The efforts have been to expand the Wikipedia, cover the topics required in society, mostly India related. The topic of articles started by me can prove that i try to work for the social cause. The reasons for me being present here is that i want to contribute to society. Mostly (more than 99%) of my edits have been within Wikipedia rules. I hope members will try to look things from my perspective. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC) "Look at things from your perspective", where you're right, everyone else is biased against you, and you again make promises of good behaviour when threatened with sanctions? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I don't want him banned out of revenge or anger. I just don't want to clean up any more debris. If you want to mentor him on a short leash, and he becomes productive, it's conceivable that he could, over time, mitigate the damages in terms of productive contribs. If you want to take responsibility, please do, although I'm not optimistic that what he could give would out weight what you would spend. We are all exhausted from this, and still have work to do at silver, so forgive us if we are not so enthusiastic in being humanitarians. It's not so much that this editor has burned us. It's more that we're all tired...and that he's burned us. There 'is' that. Somehow, I think his interest is not in making boring, useful contribs, and he will lose interest. You may end up eating your wiki-hat on this one, my friend. But if you pull this off, and there are contributions that negate this mess, I will send you the finest wiki-faberge egg this site has to offer. It would be nice to see this end on the plus side. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC) To all supporters of a ban: I am right on the line with this. I am not optimistic. It's a shot at recoupment. My faith is in Qwyrxian. My faith in Maheshkumaryadav remains the same. If you reject Qwyrxian's offer, I am 100% fine with that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I agree with Anna. Qwyrxian deserves the highest level of praise this site can offer whether or not he can turn this situation around. Mahesh, you're being handed a real opportunity. I hope that you take it and I hope that you stick to the terms of the agreement. Channel your enthusiasm in creating quality. Quality knows no time limits. PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC) If it works out with MKY to begin, I agree as well. It is better than a ban I guess. I trust Qwyrxian.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I am not at all confident this will work out but if Qwyrxian wants to have a go then fine by me. It will not be him who causes it to fail. - Sitush (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Support ban - the contributions made by him are unfortunately serious matters. On top of that, he has utterly disappointed us with his actions and his copyvios. So, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Qwyrxian, do you have an update on the mentorship proposal or should/can an admin enact the community's consensus here? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC) My apologies, I've only had time today to barely cover my watchlist. While I, like many others, am far from certain that mentorship will work, I do believe it is worth a shot. I will draft a specific set of rules and post them here just as soon as I can; should be within 24 hours. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Wait and see if mentorship is workable. I have a lot of respect for Qwyrxian's idea. Yes, a lot of the past contributions have been problematic and wasted a lot of other people's time; but we are talking about an editor who is pretty active in an area that is poorly covered by wikipedia. If we can bring that editor into the community and within the rules, so that they create lots of nice content, then it's a big win for both sides. Definitely worth trying. Mahesh should realise that they have been given several chances, and this is the last one. bobrayner (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Maybe get someone to fork your watchlist. Hm, I'm struggling to think of someone who likes doing that sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Mentorship proposal Proposed rules for mentorship of Maheshkumaryadav: Maheshkumaryadav will enter into mentorship under Qwyrxian in lieu of being community banned. Mahesh understands that this does not in any way imply that the community's concerns were wrong, that xyr prior actions were proper, or that xe does not need to improve significantly to become a full, productive member of Wikipedia. The topic ban on article creation which was currently agreed upon by the community remains active. Mahesh may not create any articles of any type in mainspace, including splits or redirects. Mahesh can appeal the ban following the normal procedures at WP:UNBAN after no less than six months time, and is strongly encouraged to seek approval from Qwyrxian prior to making such an appeal. For no less than the first 2 weeks of mentorship, Mahesh will make no edits to mainspace without first getting approval from Qwyrxian. Mahesh's performance in the first few weeks will determine future progress. Even after Mahesh is cleared to make direct mainspace edits, xe is strongly encouraged throughout the mentorship to ask first whenever xe is uncertain about how to proceed. Mahesh will endeavor to take all community input (past and future) under consideration when making edits. If Mahesh undertakes an action/series of actions that others object to, Mahesh will desist and discuss the issue until such time as consensus is clear to continue. Mahesh will assist any editors who ask for help regarding in cleaning up his prior contributions (though xe still must abide by the other points on this list when doing so). The exact mentorship process will be worked out between Qwyrxian and Mahesh. If for some reason Qwyrxian will be unavailable for an extended or indefinite period of time, Mahesh will need to seek input from WP:AN about how to proceed. Note that by extended I mean several weeks or more--I make no promises to be instantly and continuously available, nor will I abandon all other projects solely for mentoring. If at any time Mahesh decides to "go it alone"--that is to violate the article creation topic ban, or make major changes to articles without prior approval, or add information to articles that seriously violates WP:NPOV or copyright rules, Mahesh understands that xe will immediately be indefinitely blocked. There will be no additional ANI discussion, no waiting for apologies--just an indefinite block, and xe'll have to pursue the standard offer. I welcome input from other participants here for any additional stipulations or changes. Once we're the "rules" are clear, then we'll make sure Mahesh agrees, and see if we can't possibly make some progress. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC) All seems fine to me. Very well composed, in fact. I'll back off when the agreement is, er, agreed as I would hope at that point there would be little chance of Mahesh going renegade. The list of past articles that may require assistance from him has been available for a few days now and he knows where it is. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Approve as is. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Approve - and kudos to Qwyrxian for the generous offer. I agree it would be good to harness this editor's energies and the best of luck in doing so! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Approve. I hope this works; Mahesh seems to have caused some substantial problems but they might have the potential to be a really valuable editor. Best of luck to both Qwyrxian and Mahesh. bobrayner (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Very well, I hope Mahesh is rehabilitate-able. Good luck, Qwyrxian, and props for taking this on. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Sounds like a better solution, I would like to echo the kudos to Qwyrxian for taking this on, Sadads (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Strongly approve I really hope this works, I like the looks of the proposal. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Looks good to me. Thanks Qwyrxian. Mahesh, I hope you accept this and that it works out. We do need articles on Indian villages but you need to figure out how to go about creating them properly. Good luck. --rgpk (comment) 13:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Strongly approve as well. The very best of luck to the two of you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Strongly approve. (edit conflict) A ban seems very harsh to an editor who otherwise appears to want to contribute positively, despite not doing so in a way that the community would like. This feels like a very workable solution that hopefully will leave everyone somewhat satisfied. elektrikSHOOS 15:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Approve per WP:ROPE. We will watch what you do --Guerillero | My Talk 19:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Given the clear support here, I've asked for Mahesh to come here to officially state his acceptance of these conditions. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC) I officially accept these conditions. Special thanks to User:Qwyrxian for accepting to be my mentor. Thanks to others also. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC) I think that officially wraps things up here. Is that right? Are we done? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Censorship of Islam related articles by Adamrce

Summary of issue

This incident is related to the controversial Jihad article regarding the user Adamrce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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

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

• 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

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

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

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

Reliance of the Traveller, Northern Kentucky University

Secondary source 2

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

Secondary source 3

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

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

Comments

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. 64.85.214.12 (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頭 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 · 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 www.khilafah.com, 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 www.khilafa.com, 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:

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)

request for page freeze , with sourced content i added

I talked to an admin on live chat and they suggested that i should request a page freeze, including the content i added on the alternate view. on the rules of warefare [see here]

Will any admins consider? I would close this AN/I, if Adamrce would just tell me what i have to do such that he wont remove the content i added. i already asked the question above, but user avoided question--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Either, I'm not speaking English, or you're not reading English.

I avoided your last question for one simple reason; I've answered it already: two times here, two times on your talkpage (where you deleted them), two times on the article's talkpage, and I think another time on another article's discussion page. You gave your side of the story and I gave mine, so I was asking for an admin to comment and thought that keeping the same repeated discussion going will slow things down.

I'll repeat for the last time. I suggested that we can open a soapbox to work on that edit and link the soapbox to the discussion page, because it's a large content and any error is misleading to the readers. Those edits might take some time to get ordered. It really is as simple as that. You never commented nor listened to my suggestions. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 17:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already discussed with you enough, no need for soap box. you will keep argueing with me. just tell everyone (or if you already have, please repeat), what i must do, such that you wont revert my edits. Just tell me what you find wrong with my edits ! (also i have been told that the AN/I will take 14 days at least to settle, so stick around for next 10 days please)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A soapbox is a place where we can both make edits without misleading readers, and it can be under your control (on your account) while inviting editors to join with us. If you don't like it, fine. I have a lot of contribution to do, which I will continue. This topic can be discussed here till it's done, if that's what you want; even though we won't be able to insert any content here.

These are primary sources, based on what many editors told you before (not just me). Therefore, we need to summarize it fairly, not just pick what you like. What I had in mind, is to work on each source at a time. You can add the picky sentences you love, then I need to add a summary regarding the reasons for the war (as explanation in my first edit in the "Requesting an opinion on the procedures" section above. I also have to mention that each book doesn't represent the whole sector of Islam, like Hanaffi, as each book only represents a single scholars' opinion. So, there's many books for each sect, as told to you by another user, too. I'm just trying to make you aware of the things that you misunderstand, because you're not a Muslim nor have any experiences in Muslim sources (in my opinion). I know you're gonna say that you supplied secondary source, but your inserted quotations are from a primary source; so we need to be double careful! Take care ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 03:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)