Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive696

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

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

Well, given how retraded the argument is, I would protect for 2 weeks. Most fook wits will have given up by then, at least until it's near the compo itself and "support the shit country" can again be played by all. Egg Centric 20:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Egg Centric, I fail to see how calling editor "fuckwits" and calling their countries "shit" is constructive. Perhaps you should stay away from ANI if you think that is a proper contribution. Fences&Windows 23:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

See edits to Rebecca Black and photoshopped copyvio at File:Black pregnant.jpg with my CSD summary. User has uploaded their own story to CNN's user generated website, and tried to pass it off as real. 188.222.170.156 (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

He has uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons - File:Articleblacknews.jpg. I can't do shit about this because you don't trust me to edit the Rebecca Black page from an IP. - 188.222.170.156 (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Does seem to require urgent attention by an admin both here and at commons. I've tagged the commons image for a speedy as a copyvio of a website screenshot. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Daniel Case has blocked the user for 72 hours. I think you should go down harder on off site and on wiki BLP attacks. 188.222.170.156 (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that, plus his edits to his talk apge since the block, show that he's not interested in contributing constructively. Suggest an indef. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

His original edits seemed to be possibly good-faith, so I made it a definite block (one I have since extended due to his talk page behavior). I considered his lack of a previous block as well. I also think CNN can handle his misbehavior on their own. However, if another admin wants to make the block indef, I will respect that judgement. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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

May I suggest that an AN/i notice is posted on this user's page? Regardless of the validity of the outcome (which I don't dispute), I think it's probably both required and fair. If it's someplace in an older revision of his talk page, please ignore this. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the user wasn't notified. I just did. elektrikSHOOS 01:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't catch it either until I realized an IP filed this, which prompted me to check. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

It's to do with the templates: one being "Nastaliq". Someone could perhaps explain how to fix that. Nasnema  Chat  23:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't you just edit it out? --

☎ Contact me! • Contributions

) 23:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit what and where? Someone has done something now to fix it. Nasnema  Chat 

The template should be reverted at this point, and everything should be back as it was before. The user vandalizing the template was blocked. If there are any lingering problems from this, try purging your cache; if it's still there, reply to this thread. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The template {{Script/Nastaliq}} is the one which was vandalized. Inappropriate material has been removed and the template has been protected as a high visibility template. --Allen3 ^talk 23:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

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

↑↑↑ iz grawp ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The above is ridiculous trolling and should be ignored. --Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

resolved - User:Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion is blocked.

Off2riorob (talk

) 09:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Que? Why? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason I gave in the block log is, "obviously a sockpuppet". However the unblock request is now in, so the block can be reviewed and the previous accounts listed or their existence implausibly denied. Any checkusers around? -- zzuuzz ^(talk)

• Both sides were blatantly edit-warring, so I have blocked the IP too. Also, the page should not be blanked while it is under deletion discussion, so I have reverted the blanking and semi-protected it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I've reverted it to the version that was actually nominated for deletion, before the edit-warring started -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• The page was not blanked; SnottyWong's compromise version here was to have the content visible to Col. Warden only. Reversion of the sockpuppet
  WP:RBI, surely? pablo
  10:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, but hidden from view while it is under discussion is still not right - and any "compromise" version would have to have the agreement of the user himself and have consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  And no,

  WP:RBI does not permit edit-warring, as the IP was not reverting vandalism - and we are not having edit-warring on the page while it is under discussion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk

  ) 10:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  Uhm, how? Jack/IP was reverting a sock which he clearly said he believed was Grawp, and apparently with reason, because an admin also identified him as such and blocked him. Edits by ban-evading socks can always be reverted, not only if they are vandalism. The version Jack/IP reverted back to, on the other hand, had been created by an established, legitimate user in good faith. Just because you happen to prefer the version that the Grawp sock was reverting to doesn't give you the right to override the basic rule that ban evaders can be reverted without danger of incurring edit-warring blocks. I object to this block and am considering overturning it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how anyone, including you or myself, could have identified the sock as any banned user or Gramp in particular. If everyone edit-warred with every new user who looked like a sock there'd be chaos. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  Reverting a banned editor is always acceptable, and not edit warring. "Reverting actions performed by banned users" is a specific exemption to

  WP:3RR. If a legitimate editor restores the material created by a banned user, that can't be reverted without typical 3RR limits. If an admin blocked the IP as a sock, we have to credit an editor that came to the same conclusion. Personally, though, I'm getting tired of the whole Jack Merridew schtick, and can't look kindly on him editing the same article both as an IP and as a named account, so I'm not going to move in and unblock anybody.—Kww(talk

  ) 13:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  (ec) @Zzuuzz: If you didn't feel confident in identifying that account as a banned sock, then why did you block him as such? And, if it is okay for an admin to invoke DUCK and block it as a sock, how then can a normal editor be penalized for invoking the 3RR exemption for the same reason? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  I blocked the account as an obvious sockpuppet, not a banned user. It could well be a regular editor who chose to evade scrutiny or somesuch to vote in the deletion debate. It's a clear violation of WP:SOCK (a disruptive sockpuppet), even if it's not a violation of WP:BAN. I'm still rather curious whose sock it is, as well as how Jack would have identified this as Gramp. There's nothing in the edit histories to support such a conclusion that I've seen. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'll pre-empt the next question as I'm off for a while. I did not block the IP address. I had a quick look but didn't bother. I neither endorse nor object to its block. Edit warring with an obvious sockpuppet - there should only be one winner. However I will note the two things that make me indifferent to the block. First if you see a sock of a banned user you should get it blocked, not edit war with it. Second, Jack should have known better given his recent position. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  At the time of the edit war, as far as I can see the other editor had not been fingered as a sock, and so it does not look to me like a case of the IP reverting a "banned user". I agree with zzuuzz that one side looked like blatant sockery, but the IP doesn't look like an innocent newbie to me either -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  Ahem... "doesn't look like an innocent newbie"? But we are all aware who that IP is. I took it for granted you were too. Were you not? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  Nope, I had no idea - but if everyone knew it was also socking, I'm surprised there was any opposition to my 24 hour block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Are there any checkuser details back from it? If the account is connected to another account that account should also be restricted. Is it
    Off2riorob (talk
    ) 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  I think you'd have to start an SPI to find out. pablo 14:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser was asked to look at it here by one of the blocking admins -

Off2riorob (talk

) 14:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

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

This was a Delete closure, not a Procedural closure.  Please reclose as a procedural closure if you are going to G10.  The closure as it stands is an endorsement of the nomination, which is an endorsement of WP:NPA.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this not fall under

WP:NOTBURO? The closing comments make it crystal clear what the reasoning was. Perhaps it's worth changing to avoid drama though. Bob House 884 (talk

) 15:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've tried several times to parse what Unscintillating is getting at, and why it might matter. But I'm failing miserably. If it matters, please explain it to me (but I've got this sneaky feeling that if I did understand it, I might not care anyway.)--Scott Mac 15:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that (s)hes saying that because you closed this under G10, its not a close as 'delete' consensus but is instead a 'procedural close' and should therefore be closed as such - apparently by doing otherwise you are tacitly affirming that everyone who accused CW of personal attacks in the debate was correct (whilst closing the debate and deleting the page as an attack page directed at members of the wikipedia community would totally circumvent that). Whilst they might have a point if you hadn't explained yourself so throroughly in the summary, in this context it seems just like unneccessary nitpicking. (and I'm a lawyer!). Bob House 884 (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, as another lawyer once wrote: quod scripsi, scripsi.--Scott Mac 17:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Quidem. pablo 17:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that

WP:BURO is forcing good-faith editors to either participate in a disruptive nomination process or consent passively to the effects of the disruptive nomination.  Unscintillating (talk

) 22:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A [procedural closure] is "a null outcome based on the circumstances of the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page being discussed".  Is there any dispute but that the circumstance of the nomination was part of a personal attack?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

So, no, I'm not commenting on anything said at the MfD, nor am I commenting about aspects of the personal attack, only about the nomination and the effect on Wikipedia to allow a disruptive nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

G10 is covered – mentioned by name – at WP:Deletion process#Early closure, Speedy delete. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Glad to see teh colonel's attack page down ;> 125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

-

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

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

It seems that

WP:SPA. Block review welcome.  Sandstein 

19:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the block, on the grounds of the purpose of the accounts being to promote the editors own blog. I would hesitate to call the political stance as WP:FRINGE, since it appears to derive from the editors involvement in the

United Kingdom Independence Party - which has returned some local council members and MEP's in recent years. Regardless, I think the net result is correct. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 20:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Only just noticed this - I declined an unblock, as he did not address the block reasons - he just carried on arguing that his blog should be included in the article because it has the same name -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Summary of issue

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

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

What i want

I want an admin to mediate or decide whether Adamrce was right to remove the content i added (the content was well sourced), and is about the opinion of the

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

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

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

Proof 4

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

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

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

Rudolph Peter, Translation of Averores rules of Jihad

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

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

Sources used

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

Secondary Source 1

Book contains a primary source which is analysed by the author

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

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

Primary source 1

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

Reliance of the Traveller, Northern Kentucky University

Secondary source 2

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

Secondary source 3

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

Secondary source 4

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

Comments

As a note, I have informed the user that this discussion has been opened. -

Since it's fairly evident that both the reporter and the other user are engaged in an edit war, I've blocked both for 24 hours. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin observation Are blocked edtiors not supposed to remove block notices from their page except when expired/unblocked? Croben ^Problem? 16:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he reverted to having the warnings and notice. Well... My question still stands, if someone could answer it. Croben ^Problem? 16:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As per

talk

) 16:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I'll leave a note on his talkpage to make sure he knows. Croben ^Problem? 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? As long as they don't request an unblock, removing a block notice is the same as acknowledging it and waiting it out. It's only the denied unblock request that can't be removed, and that template even states as such (pretty sure it does). Leave 'em alone. 64.85.214.12 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP is correct, actually. The removal of block notices isn't prohibited by

WP:REMOVE, the text that SudoGhost quoted above omits that and nothing else in the guideline says otherwise. Any admin or other editor who wants to see if a person has an active block just has to look at their edit history, it will say so right at the top. -- Atama頭

19:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You're correct, it seems I misread 'ban' for 'block', my apologies. -

talk

) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

I also find it highly dubious to create a section called "Best Jihad" based entirely on a quote on what the best jihad is. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proof that user constantly changes reasons for removing properly sourced content

• 1)First he claimed he removed content because i only added 2 major opinions and that its not fair that i did not add the views of the other schools of islam here (note that there are only 4 major schools of Sunni Islam, see
  Madh'hab
  article)
• 2) After adding opinion of the 2 other schools, user removed data, now claiming "“You want to compete with BBC? Bring a secondary source!", and also said "All of the primary sources you provided have a section that explains the reason of war, which you excluded" here
• 3) All the sources were secondary sources, but to satisfy the user, i added more secondary sources and reasons for war, then user claimed "You're taking texture out of context"original resource is not allowed, and the article is already tagged with too many quotes" here

I came to conclusion that this user will never allow alternate views , he keeps changing reasons for removing content, now his reasons is that there is a dispute and cant add content until dispute settled, dispute is only between me and him, and no one else, and i think davidelah has disputed with him on the same topic also (before me)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

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

It's no secret that there's four major schools of Islamic thought, and it would be very useful to include summaries of their views on Jihad. It appears to me we have one editor who would like to do this and another editor who prefers the "western pop" version. Given the plaintiff's willingness to improve subject coverage, sources, and content and the defendant's obstinacy, I think we should warn Adamrce sternly to be more reasonable or be gone and award Misconceptions2 a Barnstar each for patience, scholarship, and perseverance. Rklawton (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you got an understanding about the debate, sir. You, for yourself, said summaries.

(1) The same discussion has been opened before. My main concern was not on the content nor the source. The two users were trying to prove that Jihad is to attack. The BBC source said that warfare Jihad is only allowed when under attack, which the four schools agree with that too; however, the editor was ignoring the content that explains the conditions in his source (i.e. in Shaffi: either attacked or surrounded by an enemy oppressing toward a war) and only inserted the parts that relate to a war. I insisted to discuss the topic before inserting, as it might be mislead to the readers. The user ignored most of my continues comments, and re-added the content after changing my least concerns. My main objective was to lead to a mutual agreed content on the talkpage, not the article. I wouldn't object on the schools if they were fairly inserted as a NPOV. I suggested to open a sandbox to fix the content together or get a third opinion, but I just don't think, in my opinion, that the editing should be done on the main article (especially as the inserted selection of content was picked based on a pov).

(2) The editor inserted a source that said "highest Jihad" solely talking about war and phrased it to "best Jihad", so I changed the edited phrasing from "best Jihad" to make it identical to the source, "highest Jihad'. Is that pushing my POV?

(3) The only dispute I got about my "Best Jihad" insertion is: "reverted Adamrce, there are many different quotes from muhammad about what the best jihad is". Another user put it back. I just put that source as a news article, but I would of inserted an alternative source if they ever objected (it already has another source referenced, btw).

Hopefully someone can take a look at what was going on, instead of deciding based on the selected number of claims AdvertAdam ^talk 08:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• If you removed the alternate view i added to the "best jihad" section on the grounds that it uses the word "highest", not "best".Then i could just as easily change the title of that section to "Highest and Best Jihad", so then you would have no reason to remove it? Or would you then have another reason to remove it. In my opinion, your arguments for removing content is putting you in a bad light here.

• update: for your information, the user wiqi, has added a more relevant hadith to that section from the same book now.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• I added the rules of warfare, but you did not like it, because you wanted the reasons for war. Which i added also. You clearly have in your head the idea that Jihad is only in defence, and that the 4 schools of Islam agree with you. Even the Islam article mentions [here] that , there are scholars who believe that Jihad is also offensive and to conquer. This is indicated in the following hadith of Muhammad, which i can also add to wikipedia with a secondary source, but you would remove:

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

• the secondary source to back this up would be:

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

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

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

• In section 9.9 it says:

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

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

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

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

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

It is simple really. "Reliance of the Traveler" is just one book of Shafi'i jurisprudence out of many, all of which are still actively being studied (some even considered more important than the Reliance). So what does the other Shafi'i books say about the rules of jihad? If you can't answer this simple question, then you should only cite secondary sources and not selectively quoting one primary source and ignoring all others (which violates

WP:NOR). In any case, I suggest taking this discussion back to Talk:Jihad, as we are off topic here. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵

) 16:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Requesting an opinion on the procedures:

I'm

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

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

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

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

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

User:Scott MacDonald have deleted File:Second control room.png without asking for consensus. According to the block log at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&type=block&page=User:Scott_MacDonald, he "Continues deletions agaisnt policy, without consensus support, after havign been repeatedly asked, waned and previously blocked". Tyw7 20:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin), Consensus isn't generally required for deletion of images, which are subject to copyright laws (which can't be circumvented by on-wiki discussion). In this case the image has been deleted because you haven't made a valid fair use claim, or haven't filled the claim in correctly, which is totally legit. Bob House 884 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I HAVE filled in the valid fair use claims. Tyw721:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I reminded Scott not to delete images out of process (CSD#F7 does have a seven day term for invalid FURs). But to comment on the image; it would not hold up to

WP:NFCC anyway; showing it would not add to the understanding of the article. — Edokter (talk

) — 20:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It would add understanding of the article as it shows the second control room, which is the first time it appears in such episode. Tyw7 21:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The understanding is derived from the text you've just written. I understand that a second control room was shown and the first time it's appeared in an episode without seeing a picture. In fact just seeing the picture would leave me without that understanding.--82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: the block you quote was undone by the same admin at the same minute as "Completely a mistake". Goodvac (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The

Impossible Astronaut, they simply uploaded another image and tried again, each debate lasting a week and each having the same result. It is tiresome. It is also gaming the system. Non-free content is suppose to be uploaded ONLY when the content demands it, the problem here is that the infobox decoration is motivating it, and then the NFCC being used to try to find a way of getting one image in somehow. I posted this matter to ANI last week, and we are back with it. Perhaps we need a way of forcing people to make their case, and get consensus, BEFORE uploading. It is too easy just to upload an image for an infobox, and it stays a week, and forces those enforcing policy to do all the work to have it removed. I'll restore it if that's consensus - but I'll stop enforcing policy as well, because I see no reason to have to have 3 seven day debates on each weekly episode.--Scott Mac

20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

First we need a clear rule about what goes in and what doesn't. a. Regarding your deletion of pics: Just because each consensus reach the same result doesn't mean that the same result would be made on every DW pic consensus. b. All pictures does have some "significance" to the article. Tyw7 21:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your stated reasons of "would be on interest to DW fans" is clearly a long way outside the NFCC --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

We have a clear rule. See

WP:NFCC #8. "Some significance" is not sufficient, because as you say all pictures have some significance.--Scott Mac

21:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, how about a lot of significance :P. FOr goodness sake, it is the first time the second control room makes an appearance. Doesn't it have ANY significance? --

little helps

! 21:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the significance of the "event", with an image adding significant understanding. The signifcant event can and has been explained in words by you several times, no picture required. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the 7 day wait is as clear cut as is being stated. F7 varies the time from immediately to the 7 day wait. The 7 day wait are in the circumstances where the fair use claim could be made, the others are where it can't. Since the uploader stated "I thought the article could use with a screenshot of the "second control room" because it would be of intrest to DW fans." it seems quite clear that this isn't the case where the fair use claim has been badly stated/omitted, it's of the kind that there is no real fair use claim to be made, much the same as case 2 of F7 "...are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately" --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The FUR was made on the deletion of the img itself... the actual FUR was: THis image shows what the secondary control room looks like It is where the "climax" of the episode" takes place Tyw7 21:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your reason for upload was stated here which is a different issue to the claim you placed on the image. Your upload reasoning wasn't because it added significant understanding... --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A. the actual FUR was added in the img iteself. and b. That was a quick "comment" trying to persuade the admin to undelete it. --

do unto you

. 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. When bad non-free images are uploaded in a series, the uploader has received appropriate explanations of what is wrong with them but continues nevertheless making uploads of the same kind, and the obviousness of the invalidity of the NFC claim approaches snowy levels, it is perfectly legitimate to shorten the 7-days grace period. The grace period is meant to give an absent uploader a chance to comment; it is not meant to give them the right to enjoy their bad uploads sitting around in the articles for a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I did NOT get any msg on my talk page about the deletion :/. I only know about it when the image just "disappeared" Tyw721:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for the 3 min delay between deletion and this polite message.--Scott Mac 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

But that was AFTER I posted in your talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scott_MacDonald&oldid=429132090) Tyw7 21:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

We actually cross-posted. It took me three minutes after deletion to write the note to your talk page, because my wife came into the room. Desysop me quick.--Scott Mac 21:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You chose your marriage over Wikipedia? I am shocked at this violation of WP:IARL. Your RfC is in the mail. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You got plenty of explanation of what the relevant standards are in at least two extensive deletion discussions of other, recent uploads of yours. You seem to have taken in very little of those discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes that img only showed a "mysterous" girl that only had about 2 or 3 min of air time, but this is different. This is the first time that a second control room appears on screen. Also, this episode is about the TARDIS itself and it "explores" the many tardis rooms. And secondly, I did not get any warning about this img and I believe each img is different and should be treated differently Tyw7. 21:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue of CSD verses FFD for images came up recently at

WP:NFCC

and the Foundation Resolution, that the only time admins should be deleting images outside of the process is very limited to obvious cases such as duplicate images, invalid copyright claims, or the like. Admins should not be deciding the strength of a rationale on the spot without (at minimum) the 7 day process of CSD (giving the editor time to improve the rationale) or consensus input at FFD.

Now I will say that if an editor has a history of uploading images willy-nilly without making any attempt to meet NFC, that's likely a special case that as long as the new image is still just as bad as the previous ones, single-admin rapid deletion is ok. This is clearly not the case here. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This img was actually of significance importance to the episode... and not like the previous img which is of no signifcance to ep. --

do unto you

. 21:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

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

But each imgs are an improvement... --

'em

all! 21:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If an image doesn't meet the NFCC, then it's not valid. So how is it an improvement? Twy, you are

no good either. Do not upload images in future unless you understand the feedback you are being given here. Simple. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chief Counting Officer

─╢ 21:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In your case NONE of the images will make the cut cause all can be described with words! What makes the cut?

• Y Significantly important image? This is the first time the second control room have appeared.
• Y Is there a non-free alternative? No.
• Y Can it be better described with a picture? Yes. It shows the user what does the second control room looks like. --
  Bake
  21:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  OK, I'm going to make one more attempt to explain this, then I'm not feeding you any more and you'll just have to cope with the agony of not understanding.
  Does somebody who wishes to understand the article need to have a perfect idea of the secondary control room's visual appearance, or is it simply enough that they are aware it is a secondary control room with a different appearance to the main one? ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  (

  reputations

  21:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  So say in the text that it's the same as the Tenth Doctor's control room. Why does the reader need to know exactly what it looks like? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 22:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Because pictures are worth a thousand words.... Are you saying even if it is significant to the ep, its not signifcant to the article? --
  ☎ Contact me! • Contributions
  ) 22:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  "A picture is worth a thousand words" is not Wikipedia policy, it's just a meaningless stab at proof by assertion. The point is, had the secondary control room been orange and pink, would the episode's plot have been radically different? What about if it had wood panelling? Or if the console was located at the edge rather than at the centre? Would any of these things have altered the plot? Yes or no? (Clue: if the answer is 'no' then it means that the aesthetics of the room, while perhaps quite nice to see, aren't directly relevant to the subject of the article, which is the episode.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 07:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

But how about the Tardis being "transfered" to the woman? I think that img would get deleted nontheless! Let me give you an example, one editor uploaded the Doctor getting "killed" during his regen cycle in

☎ Contact me! • Contributions

) 11:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)