Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

That Christopher Connor has repeated this behavior suggests to me that this editor is deeply insensitive to the feelings of his colleagues here, and I recommend that he be blocked from editing or, at a minimum, that he be appropriately restricted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, yeah, that's pretty disgusting. I'd support any restrictions or sanctions anyone placed on him. We don't need that kind of stuff here at Wikipedia. Not at all. Writing an essay about Jewishness and then filling it with images of Nazis, including one of Nazis shooting Jewish people is pretty egregious. --Jayron32 05:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been speedy deleted. Basket of Puppies 05:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trout me if it was the wrong decision. I noticed NYB applied __noindex__ to it, so I restored it, then deleted it again, because I'm fickle like that.
      Xavexgoem (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I don't mind its being deleted. My only concern was that deletion would make it harder for non-admins to follow this ANI discussion regarding the editor who created it, but I put in a brief description of the content above in case of just that eventuality. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked for 1 week, as well. He'd been warned.
      Xavexgoem (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Good call. Courcelles 06:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why exactly is this user not instead indef blocked?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh...I thought about it, but his contribs go back a ways and he doesn't have a history. Hopefully he'll get the hint. Otherwise, yes, indef.
    Xavexgoem (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Indef block until he gets it. There is absolutely no place for that kind of...(I don't even know what he was trying to do there, extraordinarily dark "humor" possibly)...anywhere on this encyclopedia. Indef block and wait for a full apology. This is a second occurrence.
      N419BH 08:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • An apology?
        Xavexgoem (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Support one-week block. Not the first time this has happened and given prior warnings it's reasonable. Opposed to indef-blocking a perfectly okay content contributor based on just this, but CC must treat this as his very last warning, or an indef would be very deserved and appropriate. StrPby (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Both the one-week block or an indef block until the user demonstrates that he understands the problem are (or would have been) an appropriate reaction.  Sandstein  11:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see the deleted page, but based on NYB's description and the earlier "BLP Nazi" page (which I did see), one week seems to be appropriate to drive the message home. Hans Adler 11:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A week sounds ok to me. Having peeked at the essay, didn't bother to read it through, given I found it so... ugly, guess it looked to me kind of like where failed sarcasm falls splat across the pale into trolling. en.WP's not censored but nor is it "ED II, the Unleashed." Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, without the at best entirely thoughtlessly and provocatively chosen images and captions, there might have been a point to be made here, albeit that it's not, in reality, specific to Jewishness by any stretch of the imagination. For those non-administrators who cannot read the now-deleted revisions:
  Godwin's Law manner. Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Just want to add here that there was some other strangeness recently, when he wrote an article about, and was half pretending to be, this Christopher Connor. Submitted it for DYK, said he was particularly keen to have it used, then refused to answer questions, there and on the COI board, from people wanting to make sure he was a different Christopher Connor. Discussions here and here. It was a minor thing, but it was odd. He declined even to acknowledge that people were asking him a question. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought at the time that that might have been being deliberately silent to make the point that according to
    Project:Outing an editor is not obliged to answer questions as to xyr identity, and that it's a little foolish to assume that there's just one "Christopher Connor" in the world. Or that someone's "conflict of interest" may extend only as far as having an interest in writing the articles about encyclopaedic people that happen to share xyr name. It seems that I was right. Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Christopher has now apologised and agreed not to repeat his actions in an unblock request on his talk page. I think with his previously clean record, we should give him this chance. StrPby (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC) :I concur. The article text and the images are at odds with each other as the text was not racist nor baiting but seemed to be an attempt tp clarify and help some BLP issues. The images were clearly beyond the line and the block seems to have gotten his attention. JodyB _talk 12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unblocking. After the reading the diffs below I must conclude that this is a pattern of insensitivity. Although his block log was previously clean there is ample evidence that he has been and remains clueless. JodyB<subBold text> talk 14:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree there, the images are what hurled it over the line. If he'd further say he'll be more careful with any images he uses in hoped for irony, I'd see no need to keep the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to oppose an unblock, given CC's later answers on his talk page left me neutral but mostly because I wasn't aware of the DYK diffs shown by iridescent. Taken altogether, I've meaningful worries he may not have made these edits for encyclopedic reasons. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I oppose an unblock. "Categorising an Aryan as a Mischling is a BLP violation" under an image of Jews being executed by the Einsatzgruppen. Hard to know how to describe that if not as baiting. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that caption. I took it as sarcasm which was so startlingly botched, it indeed looked like trolling, but likely was not. I think almost all sarcasm is baiting in some way. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unblock without question after seeing Iridescent's diffs, especially [1] [2] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unblock—so let's recap: this guy writes an essay at
  most serious case of gross insensitivity I've come across in a long while.
  In fact, the case, bears a striking similarity to Berlusconi saying that he shouldn't be blamed for telling a Holocaust joke in a speech; rather, "the bad taste was in those who published it."
  This guy seriously needs a block for more than a few hours to demonstrate to him that the project doesn't consider this sort of thing acceptable, thus preventing further future disruption. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 13:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  But blocks aren't punitive, and he knows that if he messes up again he'll likely end up indef-blocked. So what's the harm? StrPby (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The harm comes from us sending out a message that blocks for the most outragoeous behaviour will be overturned within a couple of hours if the perpetrator says, "Oh, I'm tho thorry I made a mithtake." We need to make it plain to this editor that we will not tolerate actions such as the ones they took; if we do not make this plain, it is plausible or even likely that they will repeat them. And by unblocking this soon, it looks suspiciously like toleration to me.
  The let's-unblock-and-then-if-they-do-it-again-reblock argument should really only apply to behaviours which the person involved didn't know were problematic at the time. But this guy must have known that his Nazi snaps were inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 13:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unblock. Lord help me, but I'm actually going to agree with TreasuryTag on something; an unblock for something which no reasonable person could have considered legitimate sends out the wrong message about Wikipedia's values and aims. This isn't a one off incident ([3], [4], [5], [6]); this looks to be someone with an agenda. – 
  iridescent 13:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose unblock Frankly, I one of the first to say Wikipedia can be over sensitive to Jewish sensibilities and throw round anti-Semitism charges far too quickly, which tends to have a chilling effect. However, this editor is clearly over the line. This is trolling. An apology might be good enough, if it had been a case of "he's learnt his lesson", but he was heavily criticised for his Wikipedia:BLP Nazi recently, and had evidently not taken the hind. A week block is very lenient, and should be served. Next time, I'd propose an outright ban.--Scott Mac 13:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the boosterism problem: Can either of the two of you remember where the criticism was that Wikipedia biographies tended to start in their first sentences with a whole string of religious, ethnic, sexual, and geographic associations, each with reams of citation cross-links, before even getting to the important stuff about a person for which they are actually known? I think that we already have a non-Godwinized essay on the general subject, which is far from specific to Jewishness, but I cannot remember where I saw it. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock. I fully endorse every word of iridescent's rationale. Hans Adler 13:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock This Editor is not a a noob, Mr. Connor knows our norms here. Especially on the heels of the BLP nazi incident. Commons sense should have
  WP:CLUED him in. Its not rocket science to figure out that having an essay filled with images nazi would cause an adverse reaction with out the essay being called Wikipedia:On being Jewish. We are extremely lucky one of us found it and not the Media or a one of the many Jewish advocacy groups. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose unblock - User should be on a short leach also when it expires.
  Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose unblock. What Iridescent said, and the diffs Iridescent provided. Saebvn (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock I agree with Iridescent. There is something not quite right here. In addition to the diffs Irridesent gave, there are many other questionable edits, for example just recently a DYK with unnecessary details of a lynching. [7] In the diff where he created
  Merchant of Venice (the "lawyer" in the play was of the fairer sex). Thank goodness he forgot Peter Taylor, Baron Taylor of Gosforth in that first irksome diff. Was it some kind of bad taste joke? Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • When Christopher Connor created that article, it was actually entitled
    Jewish lawyer. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That doesn't help very much, does it? Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was relevant discussion at
        Neutron (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Renamed back to
          Jewish mother stereotype note. Uncle G (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Oppose unblock. I edit conflicted with Gwen Gale on declining the request. Editors have expressed concern over his edits in the past, in relation to DYK hooks and elsewhere, and those concerns should have given him pause - but did not. I appreciate that this editor works on articles where few editors are wont to tread, but that doesn't give him license for these edits. It may be helpful if he were able to show that he understands why everyone is so upset over this incident, and the previous ones, before requesting unblock again. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock at the moment. I'm not convinced the content was intended to be as bad as it was, but intent only gets you so far. Also, it's not necessarily racist to point out that "x% of people arrested for jaywalking are Lower Slobovian", if the police have a predilection to bust Lower Slobovians and let Upper Ombrians slide. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock It's pretty clear from his talk page that he doesn't get it and is blaming everyone else for the mess he finds himself in.
  N419BH 19:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose unblock per Iridescent's diffs. There is also something ineluctably weird about the apology itself. Not buying that. Bishonen | talk 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose unblock per Iridescent's diffs, and the fact that the essay was entirely inappropriate and a simple apology is not enough. —mc10 (u|t|c) 05:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock An apology is not enough. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 18:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Up to indef

My reading of the discussion above, especially the comment by Mathsci, is that we cannot trust this editor not to engage in subtle vandalism to insert anti-Jewish rhetoric into Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• support the diffs by Iridescent show crystal clear agenda that is harmful to wikipedia. The Article created log makes the pattern even more disturbing The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What harmful agenda is being revealed by 2004 European Open (snooker), Smolarek, Personality of the year, Protection of Children Act, draw sheet, and Climbié? Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said the diffs provided by Iridescent, show an agenda.[9][10][11][12] Creating articles like
      Criminal black man stereotype combined with Today's Nazi page show a troubling pattern which i think can be reasonably identfied as an agenda. I could also support the Topic Ban as well which would probably solve my concerns as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • You also said that that agenda was part of a pattern shown by the likes of
        Stationary office? What harmful pattern is Office of the Children's Commissioner revealing? ‎ Uncle G (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I am not saying
          Clueless. I said I would be willing to accept a topic ban as alternative but some of his editing patters do raise flags in my book The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
          ]
  • Weak opposeHaving read others comments a critique of my arguements and some thought off Wiki. i have stricken by support of topic ban. I still have serrious reservations about this editor but a topic ban seem to more appropriate for now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I support the block for the present essay creation (and the BLP nazi one earlier). However, I'm not seeing a pattern of vandalism. I'm seeing a number of politically incorrect editing interests, and nominations, but nothing more. Has been inserting stuff unsupported by sources? Perhaps he's being deliberately provocative — but I've seen worse. The essays are over the line, and he needs to get it, and not repeat it. But I don't want to ban for being offending liberal sensitivities.--Scott Mac 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, broadly per my comments above. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 15:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support His unblock request clearly demonstrates his lack of sincere apology, including a non-apology apology. It is clear he does not appreciate the horror of his actions have caused. No small number of my family were murdered in the Holocaust. I strongly support an indefinite block and severe future sanctions. Basket of Puppies 16:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - No block history, quite a few contribs. User had not been sufficiently warned for an indef. Remember that he's blocked for provocation, not for being anti-semitic (or generally white-supremacist), and it's just too easy to conflate things when reading his apologies or unblock requests.
  Xavexgoem (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support I doubt this will gain consensus, but it appears this user is doing quite a bit of race baiting here. If this isn't enacted, a topic ban is definitely in order. AniMate 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose indef for now. Block log was clean, I don't think it's fair to indef without warning an editor who in over 3 1/2 years has made over 3000 edits with few if any kerfuffles. At the very least, he has tried to sensationalize some racial articles and two essays and this is worrisome, but edits to racial topics have been a small slice of his editing history. His answers to questions about his edits tend to be a bit coy for me, it may be how he is though, I don't know, but it's why I don't support an unblock. The week long block may be needed, giving him time to think things over. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose indef block. Although I agree that some of this user's edits, and his lack of comprehensive explanations for them, are disturbing, the level of disruption is not very high. This is his first block and a repetition of this behaviour would quickly lead to a much longer block. I do not believe this editor engages in, or is likely to engage in, subtle vandalism to push any particular viewpoint; in fact he engages in somewhat odd borderline trolling and introduction of controversial material for unknown reasons. If he were trying to push a viewpoint, he would not be deliberately courting controversy as he appears to have done on occasion --
  talk) 05:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(clarifying my comment - I should have said "the level of disruption is not very high when compared with the constructive contributions" - I was not suggesting that the offensive behaviour itself was insignificant, even if not intended to be offensive) --

talk) 21:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose let's not get ahead of ourselves. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to this thread by Christopher Connor

On his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the whole thread on his talk page: User_talk:Christopher_Connor#Block_note

Regarding "But simply proposing those hooks is, according to ANI, racist. That seems to me to be twisted", you've had it explained to you (repeatedly) what the issue is, but each time go into

iridescent 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggest letting the week long block stand, and then imposing (preferably with his agreement) a topic restriction on all race-related content, commentary and comment. He also should not initiate any new essays without consulting others as to their appropriateness.--Scott Mac 15:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Without consulting others" is a woolly and meaningless phrase which is essentially courting disaster. Needs tightening. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 15:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; just make it clear that he's prohibited from initiating new essays at all if he cannot be trusted, or throw the last line out altogether. As for essays relating to race, that's covered by the first part of the topic restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supportin lieu of full of indef block this seems to be a good alternative The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC) This seems to be the most reasonable action for now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support the topic ban. The nature of the restriction on creating essays needs to be made clearer, if there is to be a restriction at all.--Korruski^Talk 16:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support the topic ban, can't see the point of the essay thing (assuming the topic ban wld preclude essays dealing with race/ethnicity issues)appears to be more a problem of pushing peoples buttons occassionaly, hopefully the block will get the message thru--Misarxist 17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The block should stand, and if an indef block isn't applied he should at the very least be restricted from all race related topics. AniMate 18:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, strongly. Basket of Puppies 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ban on racial topics/edits, broadly construed, throughout the en.WP space, which he can ask to be lifted after 3-6 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good solution. As others have said, it should be broadly interpreted so as to include all the problematic articles mentioned so far. Mathsci (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but... when I read this whole thread, User:Wassermann, indefblocked since June 2009, kept popping into my head. You remember Wassermann's incessant bad-faith category lawyering? Connor's ban must, apart from articles and essays, include categories, very broadly construed; i.e. he doesn't get to add categories touching on nationality or ethnicity in any way. We need to set something up that doesn't take up too much of the time and energy of other editors to check on and argue about. Do we also need to make a sock check? I'm asking, not accusing; not being much good with socks. Bishonen | talk 04:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment A broad topic ban across the en.WP space would mean categories were out of bounds, too. So long as the ban was broadly racial/ethnicity, I think that would cover any contentious nationality cats. A topic ban needs to be simple and straightforward, easy to understand and follow, otherwise breaches and a long block are more or less foregone, I think. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The essay alone shows he can't be trusted in this area, let alone the other dubious edits he's made. Skinny87 (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The diffs provided above show the editor is using Wikipedia to push an inappropriate agenda: if there is no indef block and no one is volunteering to closely monitor the editor, a strong topic ban is required to avoid further wasted time. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - have you looked at the article he created on the Lynching of Ell Persons?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, that was a worthwhile contribution to the project. I could support a time limited topic ban to allow him to edit constructively in areas unrelated to race and to gain some trust and more understanding of policy, perhaps three months?

Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment The article does not bear close scrutiny. Much of it is written using primary sources (contemporary newspaper reports from 1917) rather than paraphrasing summaries of the material from secondary sources. There is a problem with the whole of the first three paragraphs of the main text: they fail

WP:OR pieced together from local newspaper reports at the time. I tried to check the statements about the theories of Alphonse Bertillon (seeing the image of the murder in the dead girl's pupils): I found nothing in the 2001 Law Review. One published article relates [13]: "The most convincing evidence against Persons was an alleged photograph of Antoinette Rappel’s decapitated head in which Officer Paul Waggner claimed to see Person’s forehead in the victim’s retina." I did find a report that Waggner was trained in "Bertillon technique" in an uncited 1928 Ph.D. (J.R. Steelman), [14] But that is not what can be read in the article. Similar questionable edits on lynchings precipitated the indefinite block of MoritzB (talk · contribs) in 2007, also discussed here on ANI. Elsewhere this editor uses "google translate" to access French documents and has not so far noticed that "Par" is not a first name in French. There is something not quite right in all of this. Mathsci (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Mainstream newspaper reports are accepted by Wikipedia as reliable sources

WP:NEWSORG.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Local newspapers in Memphis in 1917 in the days of segregation? You must be joking. Mathsci (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Toddy1. Just let the block expire as planned.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A single article does not automatically make him a constructive editor. I'm going to need more than that to prove he's able to keep his opinions to himself. Given the essay, I don't think that's going to happen.. not to mention his past behavior. It's a problem that he can't figure out, and thus cannot be trusted with. Support topic ban per Toddy1.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In a nutshell, this situation is too complex at this moment for a simple solution like this. What puzzles me about this issue is that, prima facie, except for the images used I found nothing objectionable to this user's now-deleted essay: it was a a banal restatement of a number of such truisms as a proposed definition for labelling someone a Jew, that being identified as a Jew can be controversial, etc. This does not mean I endorse the essay: I just don't see why anyone would bother to write it, thus leading me to suspect that there is something in it only someone familiar with anti-Semitic hate speech would catch. (And while the apology on his Talk page isn't exactly what I'd label a "non-apology apology", it isn't what I'd expect to see in a sincere apology either.) In other words, this guy seems to be playing games with the rules, & while I can't say what his intent could be I don't entirely trust him. Subjecting him to anything but the simplest & clearest restrictions will only make the rest of us work harder to sanction him if it becomes clear that he is harming Wikipedia. I believe letting him come back after a week with no new restrictions -- but keeping an eye on him -- will be the simplest & best solution. If this guy pulls another stunt like that essay, we can then ban him for good without needing to take any further steps; if he is editting in good faith, & this was simply a case where he was putting his foot in his mouth, then all of us can step away from this with no unintended bitterness or dramaz & move on to better things. -- llywrch (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The hastily-applied air-freshener spray doesn't cover up the stink. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supportish - Editor should be allowed to submit work via proxy editor if that work is acceptable within an article (I'd volunteer). It walks and quacks like a duck, but is it a duck? If that's the impression that's been created, perhaps some sort of absolvency (<-- new word) should be permitted.

Xavexgoem (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose: seems overkill per those opposing above. -

talk) 13:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose: Text of deleted item is innocuous in the extreme - sans the images this is storm in teacup. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Resolved

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

Since I'm not (Kyle Baker) the subject in question over the line 'I lie all the time', I was informed that I cannot sue (anyone) for libel. So this issue is moot. And the line seems to now be in context within the article, instead of randomly placed near the end. Yworo seems to be an over-zealous comic book fan. (SIGH) Cheers! Peace is contagious (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peace you have been asked to remove it, unless you do that and retract it, you will likely be blocked (again) wikipedia takes legal threats very seriously.

Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Near of the end of User talk:Peace is contagious, at 16:53, 16 November 2010, 40 minutes after the above, User:Peace is contagious again makes legal accusations against me: "Mr Tenebrae seems to be a bit slack w/ his Wiki edits, if not even libelous. I suggest u take a few law school classes urself, sir."

As someone who has indeed taken classes in journalism and the law, I can tell you the first thing you learn is, "Truth is not libelous."

In any event, Peace is contagious himself expanded on the quote and moved it to a section of the article where it fits perfectly well. He did this at 15:16, 16 November 2010 — so even after doing so, when presumably the quote is no longer an issue with him, he specifically returned an hour and half later to made his accusation against me. That just seems gratuitous and a late shot, for no reason other than to maliciously attack another editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd point out the irony of someone with the name "Peace is contagious" threatening anyone with anything, but I think you all get it. HalfShadow 17:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind the old satirical definition of peace: "Short period of preparation for the next war." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think with the excuse that the editor isn't somebody else doesn't matter. A threat to sue is there and not retracted so I think

no legal threats needs to be applied to get the point across much stronger. This is not a game to play which is what it is starting to look like with doing it again an hour and half later. Make sure this time it get through, no legal threats are allowed, period. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Legal threats are not to be tolerated, and the editor refuses to retract. So why is the editor not yet blocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is indeed a very good question Bugs.

Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

And now answered by an admin. He gawn (until or if he retracts). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though currently banned, he's still threatening me

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

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

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

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

"I'll remove the comment, simply cuz I want to edit other pages, but I'll put it right back if anyone should choose to be irresponsibly libelous, as it should be" sounds pretty "unpromising". This was in this latest post, and the original threat still remains (despite extensively refactoring the comments of others yet again). Doc talk 21:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have advised him that if he repeats that kind of edit, I will remove access to his talkpage.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but moments after Elen of the Roads posted, Peace is contagious deleted that and the last several posts that civilly and quite politely requested him to remove his legal threats and his insults, name-calling, and making fun of people's appearance. But he deleted all that here and left only his own remarks, which, now out of context, makes it appear that because non-admin are commenting that he does not have need to listen to comments/requests for policy-adherence and civil behavior. I honestly don't see any reason for him to continue haranguing others as if by right.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He also deleted a post from Elen (which she repeats above), who had failed to sign her post. It's fairly clear he has no intention of changing anything on his end. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some vandalism patrolling and come across an IP editor making edits to a large number of Birds in (A Country) articles. No edit summary, and I have no idea if this is vandalism or not, but thought I should raise it. See

It appears they do not understand the term

N419BH 19:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

98.65.217.30 (talk · contribs) was making similar edits a couple of days ago too. The edits are similar to what the IP was blocked for last year too. I'll start rollbacking as the edits are clearly incorrect but any help would be nice. SmartSE (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All rolled back 68 pages in total. I can't explain biodiversity well some one wanna leave the note? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. I left another note, perhaps lacking in zoological technicalities but sufficient if they ever read the talk page and decide to engage with others.

talk) 02:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

He just did the same thing to two more today... Can We get a Block laid down before he starts another spree?The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and a few more. They've been AGF reverted.

N419BH 23:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Now blocked I think. Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Resolved

 – Thanks, folks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)

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

Don't think revdel is needed there. If it was you should email one of

CAT:RFRD rather than advertising it here. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Absolutely nothing

RevDel worthy in the edits to that article. The "drama queen" part is just common vandalism. Stickee (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I doubt there's a need to RevDel on behalf of someone who's been dead for over a century. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno; those dead types can get pretty surly... HalfShadow 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't turn your back on them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking approval for a bot that will activate one day after my death and tell everyone on Wikipedia what I really think. I'm considering NoTravellerReturnsBot for the name, keep an eye on your watchlist (but hopefully you won't see it for a long time). Franamax (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a banner saying it's an orphan. What would be an appropriate article to link it from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• While the subject of the legitimate article is indeed long-dead, the target of the vandalism is living, and potentially recognizable from the information added to the vandalized version. Since the living person is apparently private, I think we should err on the side of caution and remove what appears to be ridicule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you're getting at. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• The debate there is not quite as lame as the swimming pool debate from a few days ago, but it's definitely in the neighborhood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neighborhood swimming pool? –MuZemike 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. At the shallow end. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this one of those swimming pools with the special chemical that turns blue when something unpleasant is released in it? --Jayron32 01:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Royal blue, perhaps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarcastic comments by a non admin on an admin page are not especially helpful. Lame or not, we are attempting to discuss content and reach consensus in the proper way, but are being hampered by this user. --
    talk) 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You could probably learn something about
      BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • So, you approve of sarcastic comments by an admin? Well, that is an example of equality in action in the "encyclopedia anyone can edit"... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does wikipedia have any standards as regards who qualifies as a "notable resident" of a given city? Obviously, the citizen has to already be notable, so the core issue is defining what a "resident" is. What is the minimum number of days/weeks/months/years that are needed in order to qualify? Or is it on a city-by-city basis? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though we have some notable people already, if Stephen Spielberg moved to Ottawa, he would become a notable resident of the city on the very day the moving van unloaded his first Oscar onto his new mantle. (
      BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • I'm sure that we have, and it looks like people are trying to apply them. Someone who has never verifiably been a resident of the place at all is not a notable resident, for example. Uncle G (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct, although the guidelines are not as comprehensive as they could be
        talk) 13:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Over several months, a single purpose account using a dynamic IP to avoid 3RR has been tendentiously inserting POV content into

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

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

Page semi-protected for a period of 3 months by Courcelles (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warned[15][16][17] But today did it all over again.[18] I am not going to bother adding the diffs since his recent contribs show it plain as day. Repeated copyright violators are supposed to be blocked. I am sick of cleaning up his mess and he has already been to ANI once for it.Cptnono (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with this. AndresHerutJaim is a long-term abuser of non-free images, over and over he adds them to the same articles and ignores all requests to stop. O Fenian (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And he has done it again.[19] That is not a sufficent FUR for multiple articles. And just to be open, a couple good edits got caught up in my cleaning house. Apologies.Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wow, nothing? Still? Resolve templates below and plenty of time. I might as well upload kiddie porn sine admins still don't care about images for whatever reason.Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#User:AndresHerutJaim and images, User talk:AndresHerutJaim#Images and User talk:AndresHerutJaim#Using fair use images as icons. This editor is little more than a single purpose account abusing fair use images, and still did so after being notified of this thread and did not even reply here. How much longer is this going to be allowed to go on for? O Fenian (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Says he'll stop.

Acroterion _(talk) 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• "Doctored" is an understatement. "Posterized to death" would be more like it. I have no problem with protecting the page with the encyclopedic image agreed upon by consensus and dealing with the edit-warring editor - this is close to image vandalism. Acroterion _(talk) 13:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've semi-protected the article for two weeks to keep the IPs under control and warned Omulazimoglu (talk · contribs); if he resumes, a block for edit-warring and disruption would be appropriate. He seems to be trying the same sort of thing in other articles, replacing encyclopedic images with his favored images, then reverting challenges to these changes. Acroterion _(talk) 13:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that it's more subtle than that. According to the information for
      ownership as to which of two images that xe uploaded is the proper one. And my goodness it should have been taken to talk pages a fortnight ago!

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

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

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

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

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

I ask to check behaviour of Ckatz^chat_spy who repeatedly disrupts Wikipedia article American College of Pediatricians by removing facts documented by highly reliable expert source simply since he don't like those facts and threats me on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Destinero#November_2010 --Destinero (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had problems with Ckatz before that I recall, but this does seem odd and inappropriate on Ckatz' part. I don't understand the reasoning behind this removal at all. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At first sight, Destinero and Ckatz appear to be edit warring at American College of Pediatricians. Ckatz may consider that his actions are justified by his admin role, since he is taking out a passage that deplores the ACP in Wikipedia's voice, and which uses a reference linked to a primary source, a brief that was filed in a court case, though some of the participating organizations might have published their views elsewhere. Some of the language Ckatz was removing was "This small faction's views are out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions.." This is being stated in Wikipedia's voice as a matter of fact about the American College of Pediatricians. At a minimum, the language needs fixing for neutrality, and a legal brief should probably not be cited. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE

policy specifically requires: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

WP:GEVAL

policy specifically requires: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world."

Please, explain and clarify what exactly should be fixed for neutrality in current version of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_College_of_Pediatricians&diff=397345997&oldid=397268492 I consider it fully in compliance with Wikipedia standards. --Destinero (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Destinero needs to stop the edit warring and justify the changes they want to make. They appear to be inserting analysis not supported by the supplied source. Franamax (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Amici curiae (National Association of Social Workers, National Association of Social Workers - West Virginia Chapter, Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, North American Council on Adoptable Children, and West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence) are national and West Virginian organization dedicated to the welfare of children. "Amici sumbit this brief to (a) inform the Court of the extensive body of social science research demonstrating that children raised by same-sex couples develop just as well, and are as healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual couples; (b) show the Court that this research has been embranced by every authoritative professional organization devoted to the health and welfare of children." (page 1) "Every authoritative child welfare and child health organization of which amici are aware recognizes, and an overhelming body of scholarly research demonstrates, that children fare just as well in families with same-sex parents as in families with heterosexual parents." (page 10) "Every leading professinal child health and child welfare organization recognizes that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted childre. The policy statements issued by these organizations reflect their professional experiences and their expert reviews of the research related to the effects of parenting by gay men and lesbians on childhood development. The statements are striking in their unanimous rejection of the assumption that optimal development requires heterosexual parents. Indeed, amici are unaware of any authoritative child welfare or medical organization that gas taken a contrary view of the research and policy implications." (page 12) "A group of approximately 60 of AAP´s more than 60,00 members opposed APP´s adoption of this policy and in dissent, formed the "American College of Pediatricians" ("ACP") in 2002. This small and marginal group has filed an amicus brief in support of Respondents in keeping with the ACP´s position that "it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation." Dr. Joseph Zanga, one of ACP´s charter members, has described the ACP as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group´s core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of childre." "This small faction´s views are out of step with the research-based positions of the AAP and other medical and child welfare authorities." (page 15) http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/briefs/march09/34618SocialWorkers.pdf

Thus, to put it simply, there can not be absolutely any doubts I contributed solely the facts supported by the most credible expert sources in the field describe the views of ACP "in their proper context with respect to established scholarship" as fundamental Wikipedia policies reqires. --Destinero (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither one has posted anything to the talk page. Destinero, there's no question in my mind that the lead should include something along the lines of what you are adding -- but you're going to have to work it out on the talk page, and what you have been adding can't be framed in the voice of Wikipedia itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it is certainly premature to do so, I'm not surprised to see that Destinero has brought this matter here. Frankly, I think it is probably best that there is a chance for more eyes to look at the situation. I'll state categorically that this is not a "POV" or disruptive move on my part; a simple check of the article's edit history will show that I've no real interest in the topic. My concerns here - and with several other articles that touch on the same subject matter - lies in Destinero's approach to editing on Wikipedia. I have had to intercede on numerous occasions with regard to his habits, which often as not involve adding POV, non-neutral material to articles that reflect his personal pers\pective on the matter. The worst instances of this have involved incidents where he has dropped boiler-plate text into a series of articles, and where he has misused sources as references for a message he wants to get across. Please note this excerpt from the text [he has repeatedly posted to the article], which demonstrates the nature of the problem:

"This small faction's views are out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities recognizing that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted children."

Destinero likes to insert loaded terminology into articles; in this case, "out of step" and "small faction" are used to dismiss the organization in question. My apologies if my edit summaries were lacking in this case, but after a long period of dealing with the same problems one can sometimes get frustrated. Please feel free to ask any questions you might have; again, I would really appreciate it if more people could review Destinero's edit history with regard to these types of edits. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop acusing me of liking loaded terminology when I showed here that I contributed solely the facts presented by the national and West Virginian organization dedicated to the welfare of children including the largest social work association in the world to the Court, all of which can be everytime checked by everybody. I am expecting your apology since you not able to support by reliable sources how views of ACP are not out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities recognizing that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted children (see

LGBT parenting article for details on decades of conclusive and widely-accepted research on the issue) and you are not able to explain how ACP founded in 2002 by 60 charter members are not small faction in comparison with American Academy of Pediatrics with 60,000 members and all other mainstream expert bodies in the field including National Association of Social Workers (150,000 members), American Psychological Association (150,000 members), American Psychiatric Association (40,000 members) etc. --Destinero (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Destinero, since this entire discussion ought to be taking place at the article talk page and you still haven't started any discussion there, I doubt you'll get the apology you are seeking. Again, you can probably add something along the lines of what you are after, but go away and do it the right way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is this discussed here and not on the article talk page? There's zero discussion about this issue there. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably because this is indeed a user conduct issue: In my experience, (a) edit-warring to insert a patently inappropriate POV (sourced to a brief in a lawsuit!) into an article, and (b) wall-of-text-ranting about it on noticeboards are the classical symptoms of a soon-to-be-indef-blocked user. Destinero, if you keep this up, that will be you.  Sandstein  21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had my own disagreements with Destinero over cherry-picking (other) affidavits for strong language (which wasn't put in quotes). I find this troublesome, for both NPOV and COPYVIO reasons. Some parts of
  LGBT parenting, contributed by Destinero, were deleted by an uninvolved admin on copyvio grounds. I don't know if in the dispute at hand here Destinero picked the strong language from the source, or if it was his own. A clarification would help. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• In the current dispute, Destinero cited an
  amicus brief by the National Association of Social Workers to state the postion of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The 50-page linked pdf is non-searchable, so a page number would help. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I improved that by referencing the actual AAP position statement. Destinero and I had a discussion about this before: I think that citing one page position statements is preferable to dozen-of-pages briefs/affidavits. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The language was from the brief, bottom of p. 15. Something like that usually needs to be attributed. Again we had the issue of copy-pasted statements without quotes... Tijfo098 (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Sandstein's analysis here. Destinero's behavior does not look like civil discourse aimed at arriving at a consensus version of an article. It looks like trying, by any means necessary, to force through a particular viewpoint into an article, including stretching the use of sources of marginal appropriateness, coming to ANI rather than the article talk page to contest the edits of others, and most importantly, insisting that others (and not himself) have the burden to justify the removal of his additions.

WP:BURDEN makes it clear that the conservative approach must be taken with contentious material. Challenged material is to be left out, and it is the burden of the person wishing to add it to prove, via reliable sources and reasoned discussion with others, that it belongs it. When someone behaves in the opposite manner, it is a red flag that they aren't interested in playing by the rules. The issue of copyright violations and plagiarism is also MUCHO serious, and needs to be addressed as well. --Jayron32 04:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd like to ask that there is an examination of Destinero's recent edits, which - despite concerns raised here and on his talk page - are a direct continuation of his regular behaviour. Not only has he apparently ignored concerns raised over the American College article, he has also made significant undiscussed changes to LGBT parenting and Same-sex marriage that have raised concerns over copyright violations and the use of weasel words. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on new developments in the ACP article here. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed that from the ACP article, clearly very pointed. I think Destinero has a particular and deep POV on these topics; there is no reason to stop them from editing, but they need to understand why their edits are problematic and often

chat!) 11:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I am satisfied with the current versions of LGBT parenting and ACP article. What a difference to the Ckatz POV version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_College_of_Pediatricians&diff=397489091&oldid=397268492, isn't it? Yes, I care much about these topics, but please, that does not mean I want to push some POV agenda. I understand copyvio and other concerns mentioned and take them seriously and I really appreciate the movement and feedback. The reason why I wrote not needed in edit summary were motivated to reduce duplicate material and focus on the essence of documented facts and adress copyvio and weasel word concerns. For example, I see no reason why include rather esseistic and defendable writing than document clearly current scientific research-based knowledge and expert consensus to let readers to make up their own opinions on the topic. Is it clearer, now? --Destinero (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see
  WP:UNDUE
  .
• Therefore, I suggest that he be subject to a "softban" from inserting text in "Wikipedia's voice" on subjects relating to
  (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

LGBT parenting. He also may not write article prose in these topics in "Wikipedia's voice"; that is, he may not insert claims in articles on these topics as unqualified factual statements. Destinero may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator in the event of violating this limited topic ban. In the event of repeat violations, he may be banned entirely from editing articles within these topics. See also Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting

.

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

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

    • Yeah, content dispute. Though I would suggest that any editor suggesting that "cc" isn't the standard unit when discussing automotive engine capacity needs to have a good long look at their editing. This is an encyclopedia, not ascientific paper. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not about the unit, I observe, which is the cubic centimetre on either side of the dispute. It's about the abbreviation for the unit. But this dispute has sunk pretty low anyway, with one editor stating (in the section above on that very same discussion page) of England that xe "couldn't care less what moronic practice goes on over there; it doesn't have to blight Wikipedia". There's borderline conduct all around, it seems. Didn't Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Greg L get the point home about that sort of rhetoric in style manual discussions? Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Taken alone, I'm not sure the "moronic practice" comment to so egregious, but I'd generally agree with Uncle G's comments. I think Greg may need to take it down a notch, though I'm not super familiar with this editor, so I'll reserve judgement. NickCT (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Closed as snow keep. Jehochman ^Talk 20:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi folks:

User:Arilang1234 is seriously suggesting that Manchus are barbarians, and that these words should be used to describe Manchu people. As far as I'm aware of wikipedia policy, this kind of consistent behavior, especially after User:Arilang1234 was severely berated and warned about his racial slurs against manchus, and personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, warrants an immediate admin action to be taken. He just made his comment about manchus yesterday, the "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians" is over a year old, it seems he hasn't learned his lesson. He was warned about his racist edits another warning about Arilang's racism and personal attacksДунгане (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the following edits are blatant racism- Arilang1234 accusing manchus of being barbarian and savage, encouraging the inserting of the material into wikipedia article. [20] [21] [22](note: these are old edits, which i post here to show that Arilang1234 has not changed his behavior)Дунгане (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arilang1234 also is pulling original research out of thin air, arbitrarily claiming that Manchus are not chinese, and conducting a personal attack on me by saying that since i inserted the word "chinese" into the article to describe the army of Imperial Qing dynasty China, that i was "chatting on internet forum"

another personal attack on me, accusing me of speaking "pidgin english", yet i see nothing that indicates that i am am editing wiki articles with "pidgin english"

i present Arilang1234's earliest edits on the article again, to contrast on how he has not changed his racist POV against manchus, from 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaricДунгане (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of comments by arilang1234 containing racism and personal insults, but i will not bog this thread down with a list.Дунгане (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the main issue here, was made in the topmost comment by me, that arilang1234 is currently suggesting that manchus are barbarians, apparently warning him hasn't worked in the past, given his previous racist edits, it comes as a shock his account was not blocked for his earlier comments, he received only one block for violating edits on a BLP article. Since he hadn't received any blocks for his racism, he hadn't learnt his lesson. He claimed to have "apologized" in 2009 regarding his language and racism, personal attacks, and calling manchus barbarians, yet he does not seem to have been sincere, and continues with his racism and personal attacks regarding my english speaking ability.Дунгане (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arilang1234 has never been blocked for his earlier racist edits, he only received on block for a BLP violation.Дунгане (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If John King Fairbank can call Manchus "Barbarians", why is it that Wikipedians cannot? Is user Дунгане trying to impose Self-censorship allegations on English Wikipedia ? Is user Дунгане suggesting Wikipedia should block John King Fairbank too?

• "China's response to the West: a documentary survey, 1839-1923"

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs)

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

The above quote is from

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

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

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

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

An additional point I will observe: again,

WP:NPOV is paramount, and it dictates this: I may be able to write an advocacy paper or even a book arguing that ECFA is good for Taiwan and that the Democratic Progressive Party is pushing Taiwan toward financial suicide by opposing it. But in Wikipedia, if I were editing the ECFA article, I cannot write it as an advocacy paper or book; it has to be written in an NPOV manner and cannot be advocacy-based. --Nlu (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

(this comment addressed to User:Arilang1234) it is obvious from the tone and manner of your comments, that you did not use the word "Barbarian" academically, like John King Fairbank is using to describe nomadic peoples, but you used it with the intention of implying that manchus were somehow uncivilized, and inferior. POV against ethnic groups is not allowed by wikipedia policy. and in addition, wikipedia doesn't work like "if they do it, why cant we?". Wikipedia follows its own set of policies designed to enforce neutral POV.Дунгане (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote user Дунгане:"it is obvious from the tone and manner of your comments, that you did not use the word "Barbarian" academically, like John King Fairbank is using to describe nomadic peoples, but you used it with the intention of implying that manchus were somehow uncivilized, and inferior. " WOW, user Дунгане has became a sort of Psychic who is into "intention" and "implication". Well, would user Дунгане be able to guess what I might be doing next, is it (1) Go to have my lunch (2) Go to have a pee? Arilang ^talk 03:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False and illogical comments of

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

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

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

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

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

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

2nd appeal

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

The reason this came up again, was noted in the first comment by me, was that User:Arilang1234 again accused Manchus of being barbarians, he still insists on pushing that term into article mainspace. He was warned over one year ago as i noted in my above comments for inserting "Barbarian", and insulting other ethnic groups, yet he still continues to do so. Action against him is required for this to stop. He wasn't blocked for his original slurs in his first edits, this may have been a factor in him thinking that he is above wikipedia policy.Дунгане (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, he refused to acknowledge he is doing wrong, and defends his edits where he calls them barbarian. Дунгане (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dungane, are you going to stop? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough is enough. I suggest a 1 edit block on both parties if either address any of the terms Seb lists above, or anything essentially similar. Extend this restriction for 90 days. If further issues arise, address within this context. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User re-blocked

I would like to request a page ban for Nazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) due to long term edit-warring against literally everybody else at the articles of Prahlad Jani and Inedia. Nazar despite long conversations about OR and SYNTH just seems to not get the point thus wasting a lot of other editors' time which could be spent much better elsewhere. This massive effort has included multiple reports at RSN, ORN multiple RFCs and ANI reports including a recent WQA alert against me. At that WQA alert I was advised to bring the matter forward to this board. After some initial hesitation I did finally decide to bring it here. Thank you for your consideration.

Here is a sample of Nazar's long-term edit-warring at Prahlad Jani.

1. 17:52, 14 June 2010 Escape Orbit (talk | contribs)(→Reaction of Critics and Supporters: Removed paragraph of original research that analyses the cite provided rather than conveying what it says)
2. 05:15, 15 June 2010Nazar (talk | contribs)(→Reaction of Critics and Supporters: - restore strict info about video materials, remove POV, no personal analysis)
3. Revision as of 14:12, 15 June 2010 (edit)Escape Orbit (talk | contribs) (→Reaction of Critics and Supporters: This analysis is not IN the cite provided, but instead is OF the cite provided. That makes it original research which is not permitted in Wikipedia)
4. 15:21, 15 June 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (16,818 bytes) (restore as per WP:FILMPLOT, please discuss on talk page before blanking...) (undo) Here s/he accuses user Escape Orbit of blanking.
5. 00:41, 16 June 2010 Dr.K. (talk | contribs) m (15,744 bytes) (→Reactions: I agree with Esxape Orbit that this is WP:OR. Also FILMPLOT applies to movies. This is not a movie, at least not yet) (undo)
6. 09:54, 4 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (13,907 bytes) (→Reactions: - restore the info per consensus) (undo) The claimed "consensus" was by a single IP which was probably trolling, while all other editors disapproved of this edit. The relvent diff is: Revision as of 09:29, 4 August 2010 (edit) (undo)Nazar (talk | contribs) (→Request for comment: - agree, restoring...). It is also worth noting that Nazar waited three weeks for this reversion.
7. McGeddon (talk | contribs) (12,052 bytes) Revision as of 10:15, 4 August 2010 (Reverted 1 edit by Nazar; Rv unambiguous WP:OR - no consensus for including an editor's personal "closer examination of the video montage". (TW)) (undo)
8. 12:58, 5 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (14,365 bytes) (→Reactions: - reconstruct, no OR now, I hope.)
9. 13:11, 5 August 2010 Dr.K. (talk | contribs) m (14,264 bytes) (Removed synthetic observation.) (undo)
10. 16:45, 5 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (14,960 bytes) (Undid revision 377330681 by Dr.K. (talk) + improve)
11. (Reverted good faith edits by Nazar; We have an RFC going and a report on WP:ORN Surely edit-warring to add this synthesis can wait? . (TW)) (undo)
12. Revision as of 12:33, 25 August 2010 (edit) (undo) Dr.K. (talk | contribs) m (Too much synthesis. Restoring version by MiRroar (talk | contribs) at 12:02, 25 August 2010)
13. 12:52, 25 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (16,081 bytes) (Undid revision 380941035 by Dr.K. (talk) - please stop vandalizing the article.) Here s/he accuses me of vandalism.
14. 21:53, 1 October 2010 Johnuniq (talk | contribs) (10,431 bytes) (rv edits by Jumbo108: no useful information available yet; see Talk:Prahlad Jani#Austrian documentary) (undo) This edit is provided as reference. Article stands at 10,431 bytes due to a massive cleanup effort by user:MiRroar. In the next edit Nazar restores massively all the material removed by editor MirRoar during a cleanup.
15. 08:00, 13 October 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (19,214 bytes) (→Investigations: - update refs to exclude non reliable sources. restore official press release info.) (undo) Nazar restores massively all the material removed by editor MirRoar during a cleanup. Article now almost doubled in size (19,214 bytes) due to reintroduction of edited-out material.
16. 09:22, 13 October 2010 Nuujinn (talk | contribs) (10,431 bytes) (Reverted to revision 388203785 by Johnuniq; restored cleaner version, we need to talk about these edits. (TW)) (undo)
17. 09:28, 13 October 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (19,936 bytes) (Undid revision 390493189 by Nuujinn (talk) - remove questionable youtube ref, restore rest, as based on acceptable refs) (undo)
18. 10:46, 13 October 2010 McGeddon (talk | contribs) (10,431 bytes) (rv per talk - Nazar's edits appear to be the blanket reintroduction of inadequately-sourced material that was cleaned out last month) (undo)
19. 12:05, 13 October 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (19,936 bytes) (Undid revision 390506280 by McGeddon (talk) - please don't remove official referenced information. see talk. thanks.) (undo)
20. 11:51, 15 November 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (12,747 bytes) (→Investigations: - clarified who made the announcement) (undo) In this one s/he uses a misleading edit summary and removes maintence tags for OR and SYNTH. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Some background (I am involved in this dispute): The issue concerns
  WP:Wikiquette alerts#Dr.K.), where two uninvolved editors suggested a topic/page ban would be appropriate. I'm hoping for suggestions on how to maintain balance at Prahlad Jani and Inedia because policies that I've seen are currently allowing nonsense in these articles, nonsense that has to be cleaned out every couple of weeks with no long term resolution. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The current version of the page looks pretty neutral to me. It speaks of facts, findings, and criticisms of said findings. Furthermore, it is decently sourced. I'm gonna say you need to hash out on the talk page what should go in the article and what shouldn't. Work on a mutually agreeable solution. Include some of the claims and some of the criticisms of said claims. Be sure to provide reliable sources for this in accordance with
  N419BH 07:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A closer look at the history indicates to me that Dr. K. may want to read
    N419BH 07:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I really don't think that have to read BOOMERANG before I report this months-long, SYNTH-fuelled, long-term edit-warring by one person against six other editors, except if BOOMERANG applies to a centipede. Because in addition to my two feet we have another 10 for the other five editors who tried to stem this OR avalanche. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 12:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of this article or this editor before seeing the Wikiquette alert in question. Then I read the article talkpage, and found I can muster no understanding of N419BH's strange hints. Everybody is already on the talkpage; that talkpage is a monster, a monument to the way one editor can waste everybody's time. Please see Nazar's Wikiquette alert against Dr.K. where he claims everybody ought to apologise to him, including the neutral editors (me and the polite Looie496) who respond to the alert. The whole thread at WQA is telling. But it's on the long side, so I offer here a potted version of my own comment there:

I can fully understand the irritation sometimes expressed by the other editors towards Nazar, who indefatigably argues his points, big and little, word by word, against consensus, with great stubbornness and much repetition. Such editing wastes other people's time woefully and stops the creation of an encyclopedia in its tracks; you never get anywhere. I believe a page ban of Nazar on this article and similar subjects, broadly construed and including talk pages, is becoming necessary. Either that or a block for long edit-warring. I've considered an RFC/U, but those are only useful with editors who are somewhat prepared to take community criticism on board. Nazars resentment and conviction that he's right and everybody else out to get him seems to militate against the hopes for a helpful RFC/U — and everybody is already tired. It's time the other editors at Prahlad Jani got a chance to work on something more constructive than fighting a rearguard action against the story of the man who has eaten nothing for seventy years. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The timewasting aspect of all this struck me forcibly when I saw Nazar declare on the talkpage that he saw editing Prahlad Jani as a bit of a joke:

I also don't really care much about the changes. It's more a game for me. It's fun to play with you skeptic guys and see how you react to ideas which are out of your conventional understanding. In the process of this game I also hope and try to improve Wikipedia, but that is a secondary priority for me personally, so, even if all my edits are deleted, that's really not a very big problem ;) -- Nazar 11:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC).[23]<br

That post (from a month ago) is discouraging to see. For is Nazar's game fun for anybody else? I doubt that. Is it helpful for Wikipedia? Oh, dear, no. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

(Nazar, could you please not post in the middle of my post (again)? It really is confusing for other people. I'm moving it down again. It's right below. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC).)[reply]

• I think it's more confusing if you move my posts without proper indentation (like you did in WQA) from the place, where I put them to be relevant to my cited words. But whatever, please have it the way you like. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not 'have it the way you like', it is an accepted norm of this site not to post in the middle of someone else's post. As you have been informed. pablo 13:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. Thanks. But I was posting relevant to my own post, which was cited, therefore I posted below my own words (which were cited). Sorry if this was wrong, but this was my logic. -- Nazar (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my reply from WQA to the above passage, thanks. -- "I'd like to comment on that, to avoid misunderstanding. It's just my personal attitude, which, I suppose, is useful in cases when lots of my work invested into an article is removed because of some reasons (valid, or invalid). I believe it's more constructive to see it as a game, rather than make a tragedy out of the difficulties experienced. This 'playing' attitude also proves more productive in many cases, like children find it easier to learn new things and overcome emotional stress when they 'play' with the subject, rather than take it deadly seriously. This attitude is not intended to be a sign of disrespect towards other editors, or their work. Thanks." -- Nazar (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A page ban seems like a good start. Obvious troll is ... what's the word again? pablo 10:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this ANI. I think it'll be a good test and an opportunity to review their past actions for all of the involved parties. I don't claim that all of my previous edits were perfect, but I did my best to bring in new referenced information and ensure the neutrality of its rendering in the article. I respect the efforts of the opposing party to cut off the pieces which are not in accordance with the current Wiki Policies, as well as to represent a skeptic and critical view of the case, which is necessary too, of course.

I'd like to mention that I have no major problems with the current version of the article, and don't really see what more could be added based on the currently available references. However, it may be seen from the editing pattern of my opponents, that none of them originally cared to introduce new references or expose the case in a more accurate and versatile way. It was mostly me who provided the references and attempted to build the article, as well as it was me who started it and filled it with information. My opponents usually were the ones to cut off and remove, as well as critically edit the pieces they found not appropriate, for which I am thankful to them in many cases (although, I also think they might have overdone it in some instances). Since the case is an ongoing study, I'm concerned that if the page ban they request succeeds, then only one of the parties, namely the skeptic one, remains entitled to edit the article, or rather not to edit it and not to add the new information, which may become available as the research progresses.

Regarding the possible offenses other editor might have taken during our disputes, I'd like to apologize for these, as we've had many emotional points, and I'm sorry to say I wasn't always able to maintain a perfectly neutral and balanced attitude. Thanks everyone. -- Nazar (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not been involved here beyond a couple edits to
  WP:INVOLVED. Dr. K (talk · contribs) provides a fair summary of the relevant edit and talk histories. I believe that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions would be applicable here. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm also sorry my current time limits (it's currently office hours in my time zone) do not allow me to examine in detail the diffs provided by Dr.K., and since they are mostly pretty outdated and represent issues which had already been solved and discussed in much detail before, I don't see much sense in going into these old arguments again. But, as far as I remember the case, the edits of my opponents have not always been accurate and based on neutral rendering of available referenced information. Also, my opponents were reluctant to revert their own edits themselves and usually used the tactics of ignoring the points I raised, even if proved wrong in discussion. But again, I don't see any points which need more attention and further arguments at this moment. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to briefly review the first 10 diffs provided by Dr.K.. They are all related to the subject of inclusion of a neutral description of Sanal Edamaruku's criticism of the case, including my attempts to provide information about the video plot and subtitles, which were used as an argument in that criticism. That issue has been discussed in much detail on RSN, NOR and article discussion page. It's been closed since over 3 months now and all my subsequent edits were fully in compliance with achieved consensus on that issue. I don't think my opponents would be able to provide any diff to prove the opposite. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've reviewed all the 20 diffs provided by Dr.K.. I don't see anything bannable in them. 11 or 12 of them are about the video issue I mentioned above, which had been closed very long ago. There's one major update I made after MiRroar's edits. I'm sorry if this update was too massive, but MiRroar's changes were very inaccurate and did not correspond to the referenced sources. I think we've sorted out the issues raised in that update long ago too. At least over a month ago, I guess. I have no problems with the points raised there at this moment. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that I'm not very happy about Dr.K.'s attitude towards me and my edits. I wouldn't like to repeat offenses I suffered from him and enumerate again the points where he was inappropriately aggressive towards me. I don't have a problem with that at this moment either and would not like to request any sanctions against Dr.K., though I would be pleased if he reconsidered his attitude and his position towards me. I only think it's relevant to say in the context of this dispute that the edit-warring which I'm being accused of can be attributed to Dr.K.'s actions in the same, if not greater degree. No offense though. I believe it's a part of the game ("game" here not meant as 'just for fun', but the serious editing process) we play here, and we have to be ready to spend our time for sorting out such issues. -- Nazar (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this ANI is Dr.K.'s revenge for my WQA request regarding his use of the word "hectoring" No.2 to describe my polite notifications, then I'd like to remind that I addressed WQA for mild non imperative mediation and as a first test of how that noticeboard works. I explicitly stated there that no administrative actions against Dr.K. are requested. I'm sorry if that was taken as an offense, but the repetitive use of "hectoring" No.1 to describe my messages does not make me very happy. -- Nazar (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You raised the same points at WQA and you were thoroughly rebuffed. Now you repeat them here as if they have a better chance to stick. They do not. Until you own up to your actions noone is responsible for your edit-warring except you and you are liable to repeat the same pattern of behaviour that brought you here. The list of reversions I added above shows you edit war against multiple editors and not only me. Stop blaming the victim. You are talking about revenge for me bringing you here. I don't think that you read my initial post carefully where I mentioned I was reluctant to do it. But three respected admins Jehochman, Elen of the Roads and Bishonen gave me a strong hint to do it. I agreed. Please

WP:AGF at last. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry, but regardless of my own faults I don't think that "hectoring" is an appropriate word in civilized discourse. While I do admit my actions were not always perfect, I consider Dr.K.'s accusations excessive and overly aggressive, trying to negatively interpret my attempts to improve the article in question over a very long periof of time. They are also outdated, as the issues to which the diffs were related had been solved long ago, and I've taken into account the remarks about my own failures at that time. Bringing them up again now after I just briefly mentioned that I'm not happy about the use of the word "hectoring" seems more like an attempted revenge, than a constructive work on the article content. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my reply to you from WQA:

In the link you provided you mentioned: == Skeptic SYNTH == Please kindly avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH into Prahlad Jani article. Your last edits removed reliably referenced factual information. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Your tone in telling me to avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH is reprehensible. Using the verb "push" against other editors is demeaning and incivil. I proved you wrong on the article talkpage and McGeddon agreed with me. It was a clear case of SYNTH on your part, yet you chose to come to my talkpage and accuse me of "pushing skeptic SYNTH", but you did not come to the article talk page to reply to my arguments and McGeddon's. I call this harassment. What is "Skeptic SYNTH" anyway? The only SYNTH added in the article is by you and it keeps getting removed by many other editors. If I need any mediation is by someone to save me from your personal attacks and innuendo.Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may follow the hint of the mentioned users, if more baseless edit warring is experienced in future, but it's probably not very wise to follow it, when all the issues have been settled and there was no edit warring for extended period of time. I'm also not seeing the diffs in your request which were not within the limits of acceptable dispute, although a bit lengthy and stubborn at times. -- Nazar (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your logic that my message to your page was related to the points you discussed on the article talk page saying : I proved you wrong on the article talkpage and McGeddon agreed with me, I'm sorry but you're likely intentionally misleading the readers here. Your message on the talk page came almost 2 hours later after my notification to your talk page, and it was related to totally different edits. -- Nazar (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My message on your talk page was related to this edit you made. Thanks. Please also see the timing of the messages. -- Nazar (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x2I'm sorry but you're likely intentionally misleading the readers here. shows your clearly bad faith. Your message on my talk did not specify which edit you were referring to. As far as I remember that was the only edit I reverted. I don't have time now. I have to go offline. But anyway your SYNTH is so massive who really cares if it was one SYNTH edit or the other. But I will come back to your accusation later. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"But anyway your SYNTH is so massive who really cares if it was one SYNTH edit or the other." -- can you please provide the diffs showing this "massive SYNTH"? I'm sorry, I did not mean to be of bad faith, therefore I used the word "likely". If it was not your attempt to mislead the readers, then please accept my apologies. My message on your talk page page came very clearly after your removals of reliably referenced information, which removals were promoting a one-sided exposure of the case. Later on other editors agreed to include the information I referred to to uphold the neutrality of the rendering. Nevertheless, you keep messing up the issue now in this massive attempt to accuse me of the things I did not do, confusing the readers with misleading cross-linking to passages which were related to completely different points and were handled differently. That is one of the things in Dr.K.'s behavior which causes a lot of stress for me, and which is also a clear cause of massive edit-war required to clarify the issues he occasionally messes up. I'm very sorry to say this, but this behaviour, whether made in good faith or in bad faith, is seen as rather aggressive from my point of view, and I'd be happy to receive at least a mild apology for that. I have to spend a lot of time and go through A LOT of stress and humiliation to prove simple, clear, and valid points, and then at the end all I get is "who really cares" from my opponent. This is not Civil, at least in my understanding. -- Nazar (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably noteworthy to say that also the previous time Dr.K. used the word "hectoring" No.1 to describe my messages, he tried to mislead the administrator who was involved into the dispute by manipulating the timings of the messages and trying to show the sequence of events in a twisted way, thus distorting the facts and demanding an administrative action towards me for things I did not do. Maybe this had been done in good faith too, but here it happens for the 2nd time in the circumstances very similar to attempted revenge on a particular user. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just presenting the facts... And I'm just wondering, because I had to spend a few hours of my office time to untangle this confusion at least a bit, who's wasting who's time here? And what would have happened if I just wasn't there to dig up those discrepancies in timings and show how Dr.K. manipulates the situation? Would it just go unnoticed, or maybe I'd get a straight ban for his baseless (but skillfully mustered and presented) accusations? Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, again, facing no unsolved article related issues at the present moment (and it cost me really lots of time and nerve to deal with confusion and incompetence of skeptics in that article, but that is OK), do I really have to spend hours of my office time for rebuttal of these highly aggressive, revengeful twisted accusations by Dr.K. presented in this ANI? Don't you think that a page ban for him would be more appropriate (though I'm really not requesting it)? -- Nazar (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Request that both Nazar and Dr.K. leave this alone for a while until some admins have a chance to evaluate and comment. pablo 14:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • <Sigh of relief>. Happy to oblige Pablo. Let the facts speak for themselves. Take care and thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that reading through all of the above is painful, but it would be helpful to get some additional feedback on this issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

PS: The account seems to be a re-incarnation of the blocked user Operamadrid (talk · contribs). See also global contributions. -- Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 09:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Musicintime indefblocked for the repeated copyvios. Operamadrid was soft-blocked for having a promotional username; I guess it could be argued that rather than requesting the change they just made a new account, but their lack of communication makes that difficult to ascertain. I've tagged both accounts with sock templates anyway, but if anyone feels this is OTT please go ahead and remove them :) EyeSerene^talk 14:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This user also removes maintenance tags relating to notability and sourcing problems, e.g. [24] and any attempt to clean up promotional language both in
  International Punta Classic Opera Festival (singularly non notable Festival which has produced exactly one opera) of which Manasi is the Music Director. I'm not sure whether this account is expendable, but he/she certainly needs a stiff warning or two.

  I suspect another incarnation is Espagna2020 (talk · contribs) who similarly removes tags, e.g. [25]. Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Thanks. I am admin on de.wp and we decided to indefblock the German SUL-account. However, he can still edit his disk. So if he is still interested in contributing to WP according to our rules, he may contact us and we might consider unblocking him. But my educated guess is, he will just get a new account and continue on his course. -- 15:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wo st 01 (talk • contribs)

Thanks Voceditenore. I've sent Espagna2020 the same way as Musicintime, though that looks like it was a throwaway account. It may be that because the original Operamadrid account block was soft (ie username only, no IP autoblock) it facilitated the creation of these alt accounts. Hopefully that's now been remedied with the hardblocks on the others... but I guess we'll see. If article protection would help, feel free to drop me a note (I notice that the articles are largely unsourced). Thanks also Wo st 01 for your report and your diligence in chasing this guy around :) EyeSerene^talk 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wouldn't bother. You're unlikely to get a meaningful response. Where on earth did a six month hardblock come from though? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These always make me laugh, except that some idiot ends up falling for them. I don't know that revdel was necessary, though I won't formally object. No problem with the hardblock, either. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USER:IANVS has reverted a large number of edits to the White Argentine article (diff here), describing them as 'multiple issues of vandalism'. The are clearly nothing of the kind. There is a long-running content dispute over this article, and the edits are evidently part of this.

Given that (amongst other issues), much of the text restored by IANVS is in clear breach of WP:BLP as it includes an unsourced categorisation of living individuals to a supposed 'ethnic group' that the article itself provides no valid evidence for the existence of (the term 'White Argentine', or a close equivalent in Spanish is not a term widely used in Argentina, as one of the leading contributors to the article (User:Pablozeta here) himself acknowledges), I ask that IANVS be required to work within Wikipedia policy, and deal with issues on a case by case basis, rather than engaging in mass reverts with misleading edit summaries, and furthermore, to ensure that any text restored confirms to WP:BLP.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "mass reversal" I did was because the IP user effectively did not made a case by case edit of the article, making it impossible to separate the viable edits from the vandalic ones. In fact, after the mass reversal I began to re-introduce valuable edits by the IP user. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any edit to improve the Wiki - even if it is incorrect or misguided - is not vandalism and should never be called such. --

chat!) 15:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I apologize, I've should said "rv mass edits including some vandalism in it". Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I said "estore last good version -. multiple issues of vandalism." Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please make clear what it is you consider 'vandalism': I can see no evidence of any. And can you furthermore assure us that any restoration you make conforms with

WP:BLP, and does not make assertions about the supposed ethnicity of living persons? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

IP editor deleted links to other WP article, deleted references and sourced content, and segments or entire sections without a rational explanation ("c'mon be serious" kind of explanations). Much of these was vandalic behavior, that I could not undo without this mass reversal. I restored his valuable edits however, and I recently hid the extensive lists of names possibly subject to BLP policy, while tagging the most problematic section (Influence in culture) with a BLP concern tag. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is very clearly a proper reversion by IANVS, as a significant amount of things by those two IPs were vandalism. There were one or two good edits in there that might want to be reinstated, but it was for the large part just section blanking, reference removal, and the addition of non-neutral sentences. IANVS was right in reverting it to what it was before. What BLP problems are you speaking of, Andy? Silverseren^C 16:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• - Article is the subject of mediation
  Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Response to Silverseren - A content dispute is never vandalism.

With regard to BLP issues, I'd draw everyones attention to the following (from

Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

):

General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted, with the following considerations:

...

Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.)

...

Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest. Moreover, inclusion is not transitive to any other activity. (For example: a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances.)

Note that even if the supposed 'ethnicity' is sourced, it arguably fails to meet the requirement to be "specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities". In any case, the article provides no valid justification for using the term 'White Argentinian' as an ethnic group: ethnicity is something one ascribes to oneself. Instead, it is using an external 'ethnic category' as a basis for inclusion or exclusion. This is entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern on BLP policy is tangencial to this partial reversion (I restored everything that was not vandalic, hid the most problematic lists from the BLP perspective, and even added a BLP tag). We should be discusseing this in the article's talk page, Andy. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks based on nationality

Resolved

Hi,

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

There is some discussion about which pictures should be included in the

DIREKTOR added the image File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-126-0347-09A, Paris, Deutsche Truppen am Arc de Triomphe.jpg

to this section. This image depicts German troops marching on the Champs-Élysées with the Arc de Triomphe in the background. Some heated discussions and reverts happened next, actions that I did not take part in.

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

I then decided to

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

), Napoleon being the one that ordered the construction of the Arc.

I knew these changes would be controversial but did justify them in the discussion page of the article ([26]) and did personally notify the 2 contributors involved in this edit war ([27] and [28]). I was also prepared to have these changes modified but was not prepared for what happened next.

DIREKTOR started to be arrogant and insulting me. This is how he commented my contribution : "Rv (badly disguised ;)) image censorship." ([29]) and this is how he commented is addition to the talk page : "Nice try" ([30]

).

He has falsely accused me of removing discussions from Frania Wisniewska talk page. ([31]). He also accused me of considering other contributors as "stupid". ([32])

All this attacks against me made me decided me to set up a request for comments on that issue so that it could be finally settled with more than 2 contributors. I made sure to present the issue in the most objective way I could. ([33])

DIREKTOR is mentioning. He also mentions my presumed "patriotic sentiment". ([35]) He goes on with calling me a patriot Frenchman as part of the "patriot Frenchmen" he mentions. He uses an arrogant tone by using the expression "you and your buddies". ([36]

)

In conclusion, in this issue I wanted to improve the article by correcting the layout and the chronology of the pictures. I knew there would be discussion over this change but justified my changes and notified people. When the discussion stopped because of attacks over my nationality, I opened a RfC only to have

talk) 01:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The user is trying to get me blocked for opposing his edits based on my statements of the above. Instead, I would like to invite you guys to have at this strange mess [37]. --

TALK) 02:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• One of the user(s) there claims there is a conspiracy against the French military. They have also complained in the past that that iconic image of the Nazi troops marching near the Arch of Triumph is somehow connected with support of the Nazis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French Military? You mean the national running team? (I kid, I kid) HalfShadow 21:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Talk of various conspiracy theories doesn't seem very helpful here, nor grouping users together according to their presumed nationality. There are compelling reasons for the prominent use of this picture in articles like the
    Eiffel tower where there is a very balanced set of pictures and detailed content about the German occupation. As far as "iconic images" go, the victory parade of De Gaulle qualifies just as much. The images have been moved around a lot lately: my proposal would be to gather relevant images, including this one, in a gallery, with detailed captions. Mathsci (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC) [Multiple disclosures: I have contributed to an article about another triumphal arch in France, the Porte d'Aix. I am not a member of the French military or any other category that might come to mind. I have received money from the French state.] [reply
    ]
    • One can take it personally or one can accept that that is certainly one of the most famous historical photographs of the arch - and also the only one which shows it being used in its actual function. --
      TALK) 12:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]

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

talk) 13:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

All sorts of interesting images could be put in a gallery without endlessly discussing their relative merits and demerits—that's always subjective. As far as French sensibilities are concerned, perhaps the issues with this image might be similar to those with equally "iconic" images of the collapse of the twin towers in Manhattan (see below and the image actually used in the article). Mathsci (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the contributors being talked about & wrongly accused of conspiracy by DIREKTOR, I think that the best way for me to describe the situation in which I am involved is to "copy & paste" the last comment I left earlier in the day at the Arc de Triomphe discussion page[38]:

"RE the conversation between two fellow wikipedians, there for all the world to read even if written in French since most participants to France-related articles do speak & read French, it is a shame that the meaning of that conversation has to be twisted out of recognition.

1. 11NOV10, 0359hrs: Article Battle of France: I reverted Baseball Bugs who, the previous day, had put the marching naz photograph as leading picture, and had left the comment: It's already been discussed at length, and this was the consensus., leaving as my own reason for reversal: There was absolutely NO consensus for changing the photo, in fact, the change was done by force, ramming it thru the throat of those opposing it / placing marching naz in their chronological place /). Thus, I cannot be accused of removing the picture of the marching naz.
2. 11NOV10, 0420hrs: Article Arc de Triomphe contrary to what is being said by DireKtor, I did not remove any, but switched two photographs, putting the one with the French flag floating within the frame of the AdT closer to the top & the one of the marching naz at the bottom where the French flag had been - with the comment: On 11 November, the Arc de Triomphe with French flag is more appropriate than marching naz of June 1940.)
3. 11NOV10, 1345hrs,
   Badzil
   , with whom I am being accused of conspiring, reverted my edit - with comment: Please, an encyclopedia should not be modified for a particular day.
4. 11NOV10, 1442hrs: I reverted "my fellow conspirator"
   Badzil
   - with comment: Picture where it belongs, keep marching naz where they are if you wish : as said before, if this was the US flag, it wouldn't be relegated at bottom of article but would be flying on top.
5. 11NOV10, 1452hrs: my talk page[39], Badzil left a msg in French explaining his reversal, saying that although he did not like the marching naz anymore than I did, no change could be done without a debate, i.e. wiki rules had to be followed. He also wrote somewhere in his comment that he did not "support" my action although he understood it. I would hardly call this a conspiracy.
6. Then, before DireKtor entered the scene, I wrote (summarizing) that I know what historical documents are, and that I have nothing against their use, but that, not being an imbecile, I also can identify dirty tricks from the start, suspecting that D. did not add the photograph by respect for History, but out of spite toward the French, in other words, with harassment in mind - comparing the inclusion of the picture of the marching naz to France-related articles to the sending of a rope to the family of someone who had hung himself, or been hanged.
7. Finally, as my archiving bot archived the section because it laid dormant for over 48 hours, I not having answered his piece, DireKtor accused
   Badzil
   of removing the whole thing. I then reinstated the discussion yesterday, and the archiving bot archived it again today.

The above is the summary of the whole "conspiracy" between

Badzil

and myself.

Now I have other & better things to do than rehash over & over facts for the enjoyment of a young lad who wants to give himself importance with his one-sided knowledge of the History of France, the Battle of France, World War I & World War II, but cannot give a straight & true account of recent facts plain for everyone to read & see."

signed: --Frania W. (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

--

talk) 16:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

There's no reason to unarchive a thread just to say that the issue is closed.[40][41] -

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

]

He has now reverted this technical edit for a third time [42] [43] [44] and I suggest now that he be blocked for a day or two. This is an inexplicable continuation of completely disproportionate behaviour.

talk) 22:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

(ec) I wholeheartedly agreed with your installation of the gallery. Bravo et félicitations !! The reformatting was a completely minor technical point about the way you encoded the gallery. My reading, perhaps faulty, was that you appeared to be a little unsure of yourself here. [45] But your instincts were perfectly correct. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

TALK) 22:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The use of the template

D'accord. Une tempête dans un verre d'eau. :) Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Request review of my comment at an RfC

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

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

I'd hazard a guess that 74.72.154.158 and ManofThoth are the same individual, but that aside I think the comment was unnecessarily acerbic. Refactoring would be the adult thing to do. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, if my judgement is out-of-whack on that, then it may be best that I take a wikibreak until the real-world stress passes (should be resolved in the next few weeks - I hope). --- Barek (talk) - 19:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

I'm rarely edit on wikipedia and just when I went ahead and actually did some work. I get a great response on my talk page that is quite an inflmmatory personal attack. The editor in question is supposedbly seasoned and but did not even want to discuss anything and just kept pushing unilateral POV's before responding to my attempt to talk to him with blaring attack. I don't even want to care about wikipedia anymore. The POV pushers are too much and the people are simply too mean and assume whatever they want. I don't know what posting here does but here's hoping that someone notices what kind of an editor Dr. Blofeld is and taken some action against him. Personal attack happened on my talk page. User_talk:Pal2002 More nationally-aimed personal attacks and false assumptions on this page. User_talk:Lerdthenerd No response on the article's talk page where I tried to start a dialogue. Pal2002 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diff in question is here.

iridescent 18:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

<edit conflict>Blofeld makes a clear threat of violence in that edit. "I'd knock your teeth out if you in this room right now" is completely unacceptable. Regardless of the circumstances, is the appropriate response really "be politer"? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious civil POV pushing tends to bring the worst out of people. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here, but there might be more to the picture than what meets the eye here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that there is more than meets the eye (hence my caveat "regardless of the circumstances"), but a veteran editor threatening to knock another editor's teeth out is just...wow. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care what else Blodfeld adds as long as he doesn't clutter the article with way too muchd detail or push his POV again and again as in the removal of the census table. You should read the article before I forced Blofeld to condense it. 70% of it WAS on random buildings. All whatever problem he's got with my point, it does not warrant his blaring personal attack. Pal2002 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No—neither you nor he gets to set conditions on what the article says. Since Blofeld has a long history in writing reasonable-quality articles on Asian cities, frankly I trust his judgement. – 

iridescent 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Look. I know you really like this guy, but go back and look at the state of the article. If you think 70% of the article on New York City should be on its skyline and buildings. More power to you.

WP:Tibet or without myself and Nvvchar you would not have the gift of good articles on Tibet like Sera Monastery, expansions to Norbulingka, articles on Lhasa Gonggar Airport and so on... NOt to mention articles like Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, Kathmandu, Thimphu all of which are wee balanced and informative articles on Asian cities which I was gradually working on with Lhasa to get up to a similar status. I'm not sure what he is trying to achieve. Ban me so I can't improve Tibet articles? Not even going to waste me breath here. The article history of Lhasa and the original message on my ralk page explains my reaction. If not see my comments on the situation at User talk:SarekOfVulcan. I will say no more. Grill me if you like but the fact is this trouble maker removed the entirety of Architecture of Lhasa form the article without warranty and then had the cheek to talk to me as if I'm a lousy contributor see his original malicious message left on my talk page. Time waster. Most people who removed sourced content like that without even discussing it from Tibet articles are PRC pov pushers. CHeck the history of the Tibet article. I've alreayd apologised for being civil but I will only apologise to Pal2002 once he stops tring to make the situation worse and works in good faith to improve the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

"I've alreayd apologised for being civil but I will only apologise to Pal2002 once he stops tring to make the situation worse". I'm sorry myself that I just cannot find any real apologies anywhere. I hear "it happens on wikipedia" and that you still think I'm a PRC POV pusher and a "time waster" and I think you probably want to punch my teeth out even more foor coming here if I read that statement right. Pal2002 (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to get an apology just because you or someone else demands one. What is clear is that Blofield has appreciated that he overreacted, and he's not going to continue saying he wants to punch your teeth out because it is so frustrating to work with you. Notice how Blofield isn't demanding an apology; he simply wants you to cut this drama and work in good faith to improve the article. That you've repeatedly acted in a manner that seems to want to inflame matters rather than resolve them is a problem. If you genuinely want to resolve them, please take the advice you've been given below; back away from the carcass and move on. You are not accomplishing anything useful at this venue; anything.

Frankly my dear I don't give a damn. It was a figure of speech for "how dare you speak to me like that". No it is not civil or accpetable but neither is it for you to talk to me like that given what I've done for Tibet on wikipedia. If you genuinely want to improve the Lhasa and are not the usual People's Republic of China POV pusher we have on here trying to deny all existence of Tibetan heritage which I had initially (maybe wrongly) passed you off as given your peculiar edits which stripped the article of its heritage I would be happy to work with you. But coming here to get me blocked or banned?? makes it look as if you are intentionally causing trouble and are miffed because your edits were reverted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Its hard to piece together the timeline between snarky edit summaries and edits on various people's talkpages. Where in the timeline of edits did you tell him things looked 'terrible'? Is that before or after he got mad? Syrthiss (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very much like a content dispute and the only thing I could think to add to Iridescent's reply would be consider taking in a

_complex 18:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His message was: "Your detailed additions to the Lhasa city article are NOT improving the article. In fact, it turned an okay article into a mess where 70% of the article is dedicated to buildings. It is an article on the city in general and does not need history on every building in it or even a carpet factory. It is far better to create new articles and LINK those to the city article than adding all the clutter to the city article. An example of what a city article should read like is New York City