Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Preempting discussion of Jesus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Futuretrillionaire keeps trying to archive an ongoing discussion on the Talk page of Jesus that has barely even begun. He's doing this without any communication, so I'm not sure what to say to him or how to respond. It seems extremely antagonistic. Strangesad (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

He's now done this three times, which seems like edit-warring. Strangesad (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Archiving the thread and referring you to the FAQ was an appropriate response to the revival of a dead-horse discussion. Perhaps you should try taking this up at Futuretrillionaire's talk page before asking for admin intervention? - Cal Engime (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I left a message at his Talk page. Interesting you don't think he should be leaving messages at my Talk page. He is the one undoing other editors' efforts. I was not the only one commenting in the thread before the conversation was stomped. Regardless of all that, even if the content of the article is a matter of consensus, no rule justifies blocking discussion of the consensus. Strangesad (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. Also, removing a large slice of cited content (at 16:57) before starting the discussion (at 17:00) was somewhat provocative. Let's keep calm and discuss the issue on the talk page. --Stfg (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussing the issue on the Talk page is what I was trying to do. Strangesad (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And then there was this. --Stfg (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Stfg: What did it say? I'm just curious. That edit has now been deleted.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to see there. Strangesad was making the "Actually, I think Dawkins has said Jesus existed..." edit that's now at the end of the collapsed section, but while making that edit, he inadvertently reinserted some disruptive text that had previously been posted by an unrelated vandal (the IPs in the edit history), so his edit had to be technically hidden together with those of the vandal. The legitimate part of his edit was later restored. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire: Like Fut.Perf. said. I'll just add that it wasn't directed at you (or any editor) personally. --Stfg (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

So, is there any guidance from admins on hiding discussions on Talk? The only presented argument is that the version being questioned is the consensus version. You are not entitled to stifle questioning of the consensus version of the article. By implication, these editors are proclaiming a right to invalidate any future discussion of these issues on the grounds that it is "in the FAQ" and WP:STICK. The civilized approach to such a thing is to ignore the discussion if you don't like it, not try to shut it down for everyone else wanting to pursue it. Strangesad (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing that was a kind gesture considering your argument about Michael Grant (author) was beginning to get into BLP policy for recently dead. Please be more careful espousing your opinion of real people as that could be seen as disruptive in itself.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 04:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I said Grant was an expert on Roman coins. Strangesad (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There is something very odd about the comments being made here. Here is the BLP policy on the recently dead that Mark cites above: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." Grant died 9 years ago, and the policy says "two years at the outside." The policy refers to "suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." Grant died at the age of 90, although I don't know how. The policy talks about "particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead, and I said his expertise was as a numismatist and not in the general history of the period. That is exactly what the Wikipedia article about him says: "some academics balked at his attempt to condense a survey of Roman literature into 300 pages, and felt (in the words of one reviewer) that “even the most learned and gifted of historians should observe a speed-limit".

So, what we have are utterly contrived suggestions of BLP-violations, and a lot of insistence that a certain discussion--in which several editors participated--should not be allowed to be seen on a Talk page. I am restoring the discussion, so that those who want to participate can, while those who don't still don't have to. That is how academic freedom works. Strangesad (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"Academic freedom" is not how Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That page is about legal rights, which isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about what it takes to build a healthy intellectual community. Is that how Wikipedia works? Strangesad (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

My point was that it seems this editor is bent of bashing legitimate historians because they are dead. Fine, then we can now begin bashing all those dead religious figures used as references here as well. Light your torches and pick up your pitch forks folks, there are reputations to destroy! --Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 08:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The entirety of what I said is: "The citation says stuff like Micahale Grant is a classicist, without mentioning that his specialty was Roman coins". Exactly how is that bashing?

Can I restore the discussion? The objections here are contrived. I'm puzzled by the lack of guidance. It appears I'm not going to "win" an edit war, but the implication is that only consensus views are allowed to be discussed in Talk, and that's not the intent of the consensus process. Strangesad (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The present wording of the article is firmly supporting by WP:RELIABLE sources from a variety of points of view. Do you know of better sources that say this is not the consensus of scholars? If not, then sorry, a vital article is not going to be edited to appease a WP:FRINGE view. - Cal Engime (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This thread is not about what the article should say. It is about whether a discussion of what the article should say is allowed on its Talk page. (It is also ridiculous to refer to views held by Harvard professors and Nobel prizewinners as "fringe.") Strangesad (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll have to explain what discussion there is to be had. You deleted important, well-sourced information based on your own interpretation of the words "virtually all" and "scholars of antiquity" (that phrase doesn't include Michael Martin). In your own words, "This has been discussed at great length", and "It always ends with the minority skeptics being chased off". Explain why another discussion will not just take up space. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The way to do that is start a discussion on the Talk page, which is what I did. Nobody has to start a discussion about whether it is permissible to start a discussion, and the idea that ANI would be the place for such discussions of discussions is absurd. Strangesad (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Strangesad (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest update. After censoring my attempt to talk in Talk, Futuretrillionaire is now reverting my article edits with the comment "discuss first." [1]. Pretty funny. This is fairly typical of my experience of few months ago editing a different Jesus article. It is how a group of dedicated editors maintains "consensus" on these articles. Gaijin has also continued the tradition of blocking skeptical discussion on the Talk page by closing discussions that are active. Strangesad (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The edits I reverted were of a different issue, so it's appropriate to discuss. In those edits, at least you're focusing on the arguments.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I didn't realize this issue was also discussed before. Still, the reverts were justified because they were POV-pushing for a fringe viewpoint.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You have provided ZERO sources that contradict the sources we already have included which comply with WP:RS/AC. Rehashing the same arguments that have been discussed ad nauseam are disruptive. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing issues. The edits FutureT reverted were non-controverisal, and the majority (re argument from silence) based on sources already in the article (which the article currently misrepresents). As for the "virtually all" disagreement, the problem isn't that sources contradict the article, it's that the stated sources are inadequate to support the article. If this has been debated thoroughly, you should know the stated problem.

Trying to bring objectivity to an article on Jesus via the "consensus" process is a waste of time. The community is unable to handle such cases according to its principles. As was said a few months ago, when I last visited this subject: Atheists don't win popularity contests. Strangesad (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"Jesus probably existed.” – Richard Dawkins (atheist), The God Delusion, p.122 --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"If Jesus lived today, he would be an atheist." - Richard Dawkins. You're distorting the sources. Strangesad (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins is not a reliable source on the subject of ancient history. His opinion is irrelevant. Besides, a historical Jesus who "would have been an atheist" is still a historical Jesus. - Cal Engime (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly.

Then stop citing him as a skeptic who believes Jesus existed. Also, many people identify the historical Jesus as somebody who definitely would not be an atheist today. What Dawkins means by the historical Jesus and what Richard A. Burridge means are different. This is the exact topic I tried to discuss on the Jesus Talk page--where it belongs--and which was closed/hidden/archived in-progress. Why are we having it now on ANI, instead of where it originally began and still belongs? Strangesad (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh. No, you are. The topic at hand is the historical existence or not of Jesus. His divinity is an entirely separate matter. On a related, but also separate issue is how much of what is written about him is historical vs apocryphal, and there there is much wider debate (which we already discuss in the article). But you are attempting to use arguments from those like Dawkins, who admit he existed, as an argument that he did not exist at all. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

FutureTrillionaire's Behavior on Jesus

• FT's last reverts of my edits are BLP-violations and misrepresent sources.

• The article says Robert Price is "an atheist who denies Jesus' existence". When I looked at the source, I found this statement by Robert Price (who is a living person): "...I was for half a dozen years pastor of a Baptist church and am now a happy Episcopalian. I rejoice to take the Eucharist every week and to sing the great hymns of faith.". I changed the article to reflect what Robert Price says about himself.
• FT reverted with this unhelpful comment: "Wrong. A Christian atheist is still an atheist)" [2]
• I restored the article to BLP compliance, with additional informarmation in the comment.
• FT reverted the edit again, and added a source which says nothing about Robert Price's religious belief.[3]

• As described above, FT has aggressively tried to close/hide an in-progress discussion of the article.

• He has made comments relevant to Jesus here, yet tries to keep it off the article Talk page there. Several others have begun discussing the topic here, showing the topic still has life in it. The discussion belongs on the Talk page.
• Despite his squashing of my attempts to discuss, he has never left a message for me on any Talk page, nor did he respond to the message I left on his Talk page.

• The article contains sources regarding something known as the "argument from silence" (drawing conclusions based on an absence of evidence). I added quotes from the sources (I didn't originate the use of these sources). I tweaked the text to make it clear that the sources are not rejecting the argument from silence--the article misleadingly implies otherwise. [4]

• FT reverted again. Again, no explanation on any Talk page.

• The article gives the background of a source as "secular agnostic." Aside from the redundancy, another relevant part of the source's background is that it is evangelical and his early degrees are from a Bible college and a theological institute. So I added that to the background info. FT immediately reverted that too.[5]

He has reverted virtually every edit I've made to the article and tried to censor discussions of some of the edits in Talk, all without participating in discussion. I believe this pattern meets the definition of "ownership". Strangesad (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all of your changes got reverted, because they are strongly against consensus that you have been pointed to repeatedly. You have introduced no sources that contradict the consensus. Your characterization of FT is grossly misleading, and you should look out for falling WP:BOOMERANGs Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that User:Strangesad is actually giving a good description of their own tendentious, POV editing. Strangesad thinks that just about every authority quoted in the article on the question of the existence of Jesus is biased or unqualified to discuss it - Bart Ehrman went to Bible college! [6] - Richard Burridge is a member of the Church of England General Synod! [7] - Robert van Voorst is a pastor! [8] Michael Grant wrote "popular books" and only knew about Roman coins! [9] Strangesad is causing serious disruption to both the main article on Jesus and the talk page and I ask that some sort of warning or sanction be issued.Smeat75 (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If it is relevant that Ehrman is agnostic, it is relevant that his training and background are not. Still waiting for an explanation of "Christian atheist." Strangesad (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

{od} Three of my edits pronounced "disruptive" have now been reinserted or accommodated, and are now part of the consensus. Strangesad (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, having looked at the quote above about Price, I guess it could be argued that he isn't actually indicating that he is necessarily in any way "Christian" however that term is defined, just that he really, really likes going to church. And it is, marginally, possible that he might be in some way someone who does not believe in Episcopalian beliefs, or that, possibly, the particular Anglican/Episcopalian church he goes to might in some way hold really unorthodox beliefs, even given the broad range of belief within Episcopalianism. Maybe. But that is a really weak argument. And I have seen "Christian atheist" used in some sources as describing someone who does not believe in god of the (mainstream, presumably) Christian belief system, making him an "atheist", but might, maybe, hold beliefs which might be consistent with some other system, which the individual himself might not have reviewed or know, which would only allow someone to say that he is "atheistic" at least relating to the beliefs of what might be the only religion he knows much about, Christianity. It is a term that is in occasional usage, and I think in general it has a clear definition, but I am not sure that the general meaning given the phrase would apply here. It would be a stretch to say that an Episcopalian is not theistic, and I don't see the source material used as being sufficient to make such a statement. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad

Strangesad's disruptive editing to the Jesus article continues and is escalating. Strangesad today removed a couple of sources from the article on spurious grounds [10] [11] and continues, against clear consensus on the article talk page, to alter the second paragraph of the lead, which has been arrived at through innumerable discussions over years and is a paraphrase of a cited quote from New Testament authority Bart Ehrman [12]. Strangesad says the cited source is no good because it comes from a "popular book" [13]. Strangesad has been disrupting this important article for days now and I request admin action to prevent further such activity. Smeat75 (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur. His eariler disruption is minor compared to the blanket removal of citations without discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed two citations, and explained it in the commentary. We are completely distorting what the sources say. Just as we did in calling Robert Price an atheist. I've made the edit once. Strangesad (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Gee, can you get the facts right? I added to the use of the "popular book." I don't think you even read my edit. Strangesad (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read it and speaking of not reading things, anyone who attempts to edit the second paragraph of the lead will see this notice, which you have either not read or simply ignore -

"-- The paragraph below was created by consensus after considerable discussion by a variety of editors. Out of courtesy for this process, please discuss any proposed changes on the talk page before editing it.

READ THIS FIRST. The following references are WP:RS sources which are used per WP:RS/AC guideline. The issue has been discussed on the talk page at length See the "talk page FAQ" about it—it may answer your question.

The main source says "scholars of antiquity", other sources say "scholars", "biblical scholars and classical historians" and "historians".

Sources do not say "X scholars" or "Christian scholars", so do not modify it as such for that will make it deviate from what the sources state.

The source says "virtually all", so do NOT change it to "most", "several", "many", etc."

Smeat75 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In his first edit in this latest controversy, he removed the entire second paragraph, apparently rejecting the edit notice.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Something needs to be done about this. Strangesad's edits are undoubtedly disruptive.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What the main source says is that there a "bona fide" scholars who question the existence of historical Jesus. Thus, I added to what the main source says. This discussion belongs in article Talk, where it would be now if FT hadn't tried to suppress it. Strangesad (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've issued Strangesad a warning about this disruption. Further edit warring will be met with a block. Enough is enough. --Laser brain (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There has been no edit warring, your warning is one-sided, and my edit now appears to have been accepted (for the time being, at least). Please retract your gratuitous display of power. Strangesad (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that one edit was not one of the series of controversial edits you made earlier.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it was. It was one of five edits I made. All reverted by Smeat with the single comment "(reverting to version prior to Strangesad's latest disruptive changes) ".[14] Still waiting to hear how removing misrepresentation of a source is disruptive. Strangesad (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't think Strangesad's edits were (originally) made in bad faith, they have now risen to the level of disruption. I hope Strangesad heeds the warning given. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, there was an attempt to get Strangesad indef blocked back in April: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#Proposing indef block for Strangesad.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In other news, and without making any accusations against specific editors, I find it highly coincidental, that two content disputes broke out at the same time about this tpoic, on two different articles, with no overlap of editors. It makes my WP:SPIdy sense tingle. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Paul_Barlow_at_Christ_myth_theory Gaijin42 (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Topic ban Strangesad from all articles related to religion This has been going on for far too long already. Many of us spent much of the spring involved in endless discussions about the behavior of Strangesad and her pal Humanpublic. Humanpublic was later banned for sockpuppetry. Strangesad actively encouraged Humanpublic to use socks. Strangesad also used highly abusive language directed at lots of other users. A long discussion about Strangesad saw about half of us supporting an indef ban. The closing admin understood that view, but opted for not banning "yet". Now we find ourselves back at ANI for I don't know which time concerning Strangesad and religion. Enough is enough.Jeppiz (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Strangesad started this latest controversy by deleting an entire paragraph of important information. The paragraph was constructed with consensus and had an edit notice clearly explaining that any changes to the paragraph must be discussed first. Strangesad is clearly asking for trouble.By the way, is Strangesad a woman? I want to get my pronouns correct. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. This "controversy" was started when you tried to collapse and archive an ongoing discussion. I made the edit you mention once, and attempted to discuss it on Talk. That's not disruptive, it is what you're supposed to do. (And, yes, I am more of woman than you could ever hope to be (or get).) Strangesad (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Gee, Strangesad, I haven't seen your name in a while. I thought (mistakenly) that you'd gone away. It doesn't appear that your edits or your approach to dealing with other editors has improved any.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Long time, no see. At the moment, the edit that is being called "disruptive" is one that I made twice and has now become part of the consensus. My approach to dealing with editors is according to policy, namely, based on discussion. You will notice that I've spent 10x the effort at giving my reasoning in Talk that FT has, and made no edit more than twice. The problem, which the community refuses to problem-solve, is that normal assumptions and polices don't work for articles like Jesus (or anything highly ideological with a clear cultural majority, e.g. Palestine, etc.). It's very easy for the majority on a ideological subject to drum up a witch-hunt. The question is not when will I change: I have done everything according to policy. Step thru all my edits to this article in the last few days: nothing close to anything that would be considered disruptive on 99% of our articles. Yet, an admin gave me a warning for an edit that nobody objected to. And, there's a topic-ban being proposed (and winning, no less). The question is when will wikipedia change. Strangesad (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to wax philosophical, I don't think Wikipedia will change any more than you will.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Jeppiz and FutureTrillionaire. I feel Strangesad is not acting in a neutral and productive manner and is overtly trying to push a certain fringe viewpoint (in a distinctly discourteous manner, I might add). —Cliftonian (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Topic Ban Consensus can change. If there is a FAQ, that does not mean that the FAQ is set in stone and that it cannot change. If someone wishes to challenge the previous consensus, they should be allowed to do so. All topic bans are good for are getting rid of opposing viewpoints.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment JOJ, could we please not go down that road of trying to say that this is a content dispute? Yes, consensus can change and nobody should ever be blocked for challenging a previous consensus. That is not the issue here. The issue is that Strangesad is obsessed with this topic, has engaged in strong personal attacks directed at users who disagree and, most seriously, has actively encouraged sockpuppetry to get her opinion into the article. It's not Strangesad's opinion that is the problem, it is Strangesad's disruptive behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of Strangesad from all articles related to religion per FutureTrillionaire and Jeppiz. Enough is enough.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 22:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Enough is enough of what? You do realize that Stranesad has only participated in two threads at Talk:Jesus and made 15 edits on Jesus and only one thread at Talk:Christ myth theory and no edits to the main page. How is that enough is enough? How is that worthy of a topic ban? Good Grief, a topic ban discussion of 15 total edits and three total talk discussions. Really?--JOJ ^Hutton 23:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit count. It only shows the amount of disruption caused by such few edits has been overwhelming in itself. You may continue to comment but my !vote stands.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 23:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No. It shows how quickly people want to start trying to get anyone who opposes them banned from a discussion. This fad of quick topic bans should be stopped. Topic bans should be the last resort. Not the first one. JOJ ^Hutton 00:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, JOJ, you're either intentionally dishonest (and assuming good faith, I guess that you're not) or you don't bother to check. Looking at Strangesad's edit history, there hundreds of comments and edits related to Jesus, to going after users who disagree with Strangesad's views about Jonas, and to endless ANI-discussions. You're perfectly free to oppose the topic ban, but both your comment above when you try to paint this as a content dispute and this comment about only a few edits are quite simply misleading.Jeppiz (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I only was referring to the recent ones, but I counted and there were about 100 edits Talk page/Main page on the subject. Most of the edits were on the talk pages. Just over 100 edits on the subject in about 6 months. Thats not a lot of edits to want to get a topic ban. And thats not the hundreds that you are alleging. And no I AM NOT BEING DELIBERATELY DISHONEST. So you can halt that line of thinking right now!!!--JOJ ^Hutton 13:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just say no to canvassing for bans [15]. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. He also canvassed Jeppiz [16] and Sergecross73 [17]. Exactly what is meant by "drumming up a witch-hunt." Strangesad (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You better be able to demonstrate that these editors are biased and that the attempt was to find editors who are on the side of the 'canvassing editor" otherwise you are just complaining about things you wish to raise to a level to defend yourself. Please show how this was canvassing or seriously, don't make the accusation because if they were not aware of the guideline we have to assume the didn't have a clue.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 23:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The canvassing is blatant. I've warned FT.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

How odd, I just got the exact same wording from an editor for another discussion canvassing only those with past problems with User:Sitush but that was not considered canvassing, nor when another editor canvassed editors to change their vote at an RFA. I will take you word for it Bbb23 as I would assume it to be but odd that thee seems to be no consistency in application of such warnings.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 03:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I deeply apologize. I shall notify all who have opposed the previous ban proposal (and only those) immediately.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I was not canvassed. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Again, I sincerely apologize. I don't know what I was thinking. I have now notified 9 individuals who opposed the previous ban proposal (I think that's all of them?), compared with the two three users I canvassed. I've also crossed out my own vote and will not participate further in this discussion. I will also not revert any more of Strangesad's edits.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know that any other editor has ever taken one of my warnings so much to heart. My compliments for trying to fix things.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. I'm honesty not seeing excellent behavior on either side of this mess of disputes, and I don't see a compelling reason to ban just the one editor. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Jeppiz. This editor has been arguing for giving undue weight to a fringe view. I think the drain on everyone's time and attention outweighs any contribution she might make. - Cal Engime (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Wikipedia is not the place to rub religious noses in TRUTH. diff Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That diff shows an edit I made once, with the text I added supported by a source already used in the article. Strangesad (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the diff user:Johnuniq presented is a clear example of an improper edit by you that places the "WP:Fringe view ahead of the mainstream view". And what is worse, you are fully aware of what the mainstream view is, and know full well that the item you added upfront is a fringe view, by virtue of the very quote from the source you refer to. That is a clear case of intentional WP:Disruptive editing on your part, which can not be excused based on the ignorance of the source on your part. The edit and your explanation make it clear that you knew you were trumping the mainstream view with the fringe view in that edit. There is no disputing that. Not here anymore (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I was notified of this discussion by FutureTrillionaire. In the previous discussion, I opposed a indef ban for StrangeSad, on the grounds that s/he has demonstrated an ability to make useful contributions to the wiki. However, it appears that StrangeSad has continued to show the same inability to work with others or to understand the concept of consensus versus Truth. This continuing pattern of bad behavior has caused StrangeSad to be a drain on wikipedian-hours that far outweighs his/her useful contributions. I thus continue to suggest as I suggested before that some sort of sanction be put in place to stop this fights from occurring, not because StrangeSad is necessarily wrong, but because s/he appears to be incapable of presenting his/her views in an appropriate way. -- LWG ^talk 07:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"Appears"? Do you know? Please list the edits I've made more than once against consensus. I'm pretty sure the list is empty, although I could be forgetting one. Strangesad (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Restored support for topic ban I was not canvassed, but have been watching the article talk page and its current FAC. Strangesad has been aggressively pushing a FRINGE view in a disruptive manner. This was continued in this edit to the Jesus FAC, in which Strangesad duplicated all previous discussion before adding her own comments. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to her explanation immediately below, but in the light of her unwillingness to entertain a good-faith explanation of FT's actions, even in the light of his two apologies, I am no longer prepared to do so, especially as she followed up the offending edit with four tweaks in a space of 25 minutes without noticing the error. The whole thing blew up because Strangesad edited against a consensus she know about before discussing it on the talk page. Consensus can change, but that's the wrong order. Original comment by Stfg (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC), heavily redacted by Stfg (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You do it by 1) Choosing "Preview Edit", 2) Seeing multiple errors, 3) Choosing "Copy All" forgetting that the entire article is in the edit field, 3) Making the changes in a word processor without noticing the extra text on top, 4) Choosing "Copy All" again and pasting back into the Wikipedia editor. The idea that I spent over an hour working on my comment for the FAC, and then tried to undermine the FAC is....what I've come to expect here. Strangesad (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for the explanation. To give you the benefit of the doubt, since your editing future is on the line here, I have deleted that part and revised my comment to neutral with an alternative suggestion. I hope you will make considerate use of any slack you may be given. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Benefit of doubt withdrawn in light of failure to AGF. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Holy sheitza. FT has now canvassed an additional six editors whose sole prior interaction with me was a ban discussion several months ago. He hasn't canvassed anyone outside of that one ban discussion..... Strangesad (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That is explained by this edit, which has received approval. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That is still canvassing people exclusively on the basis of a discussion to ban. It's a distorted lens. The damage was done when he canvassed Jeppiz, who had already tried to get me banned repeatedly, but hasn't edited with me in 4 months. Strangesad (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have the article Jesus on my watchlist since at least two years and would have seen Strangesad being back to form regardless of any "canvassin". I find it rather revealing that Strangesad opts for the defence that the "wrong" people are commenting, while ignoring the actual topic. As I said below, there have been few users who have encouraged so many violations of rules and few users who have taken up so much of the community's time with so little to show for it. In short, few users have done so much damage to Wikipedia during 2013 as Strangesad.Jeppiz (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@Strangesad: a pity you couldn't AGF as I AGF'ed for you. My support for a topic ban has been restored. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Totally Support topic ban: I quit Wikipedia sometime ago because of this type of illogical and contentious situation, as I had explained here. I happened to look on the Jesus page again today and guess w2hat I saw: utter chaos caused by Strangesad - and its discussion here. As Raul correctly stated here, users like Strangesad are clearly in the "liability column" of this web site. Strangesad should be certainly banned for the clear disruption of sources, and logic. Frankly, frankly, did Strangesad expect this edit to survive beyond 10 minutes? In my view the edit that started this chaos was a clear case of WP:POINT and this discussion is a clear illustration of the need to ban disruptive users such as Strangesad. This user has previously encouraged sockpupetting (as shown on their talk page) and has shown little respect for policy all the way. Personally, I think of user:Newyorkbrad as one of the very best and judicious editors on Wikipedia. Alas NY Brad certainly failed when he opposed a topic ban on Strangesad last time around. The reason for the chaos here is that the ban and the warning issued last time were too soft. This user is a liability for Wikipedia, not an asset. This user needs to be banned without further fanfare. I m so glad I quit this web site. There is nothing but contention here. Not here anymore (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a sad thing, to me, that editors are being driven away by the sort of thing you describe. In the topic area we are discussing here, two of the most valuable editors who had expertise in the subject and could edit from a NPOV no matter what their personal beliefs may have been, have recently gone - User History 2007 vanished and User PiCo announced today he had made his last post. Neither of them gave reasons for their departure, and I hope they will come back as in this topic area at any rate we need help to maintain objective balanced articles from being disrupted by highly motivated cranks, POV pushers and fringe theorists who often have minimal knowledge of the subject.Smeat75 (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That account was created 3 weeks ago. Strangesad (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• And what's to say the individual did not have an earlier account? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Background As some users seem to think that the issue is only the latest round of edits Strangesad had made, I thought it may be relevant to give a short background of the problem we've had with Strangesad.
  

- Strangesad repeatedly reverted others at AN [18], [19] despite being warned about it [20]. Ignoring the warning, Strangesad continued edit warring and reported the other for edit warring instead[21].
- Strangesad explicitly encouraged "allies" to create a sock to avoid their topic ban. [22].
- Despite several admins pointing this out [23], [24], Strangesad refused to withdraw the call to creat socks. [25]
- Strangesad argues in favor of violating Wikipedia policies [26].
- Strangesad often goes after people who displease here. [27], [28], [29], [30].
- Shorter blocks has no effect as Strangesad declares they won't change her style. [31].
The time we've all spent on Strangesad is mindblowing, and several good users have left Wikipedia because of her and her relentless fringe pushing. Few users have ever done so much harm and so little good to Wikipedia as Strangesad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeppiz (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

FT really scored canvassing you (Jeppiz). Those links are from the ban proposal you made 4 months ago, which followed a ban proposal you made weeks before that, which followed yet another ban proposal you made before that. Has anybody but you made one of these proposals? Why don't you provide links to, oh say, the article I created? Or the numerous non-disputed edits I've made? Meanwhile, still no diffs from the last 3 months showing any pattern of policy violations, unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation. Strangesad (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation - I think it is. This is not a place to right great wrongs, battle for the truth or challenge any religion, but neutrally to present verifiable information based on reliable sources, please see WP:5 and WP:SOAP. Smeat75 (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrally presenting verifiable information based on reliable sources challenges Christianity. [32] Strangesad (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The comments by Strangesad indicate a continued lack of logic. Strangesad is not just opposing Christianity, but all the respected Jewish scholars from Amy-Jill Levine to Louis Feldman who support the historicity of Jesus. Strangesad's position is pure WP:Fringe as multiple sources indicate. Strangesad does not have "a single professor of history" in a major university (not one professor of history) who supports the fringe view, and has never produced a source as such. As for the "article Strangesad created" it is just one page, nothing breathtaking by any measure - but it would not be an excuse for disruption even if it had been a major item. In any case, a quick review shows that the majority of Strangesad's time has been on WP:ANI fighting based on illogical assertions and with no sources to support that position. And the community has shown a "mind blowing tolerance" for these disruptions. It is time for that to change. Not here anymore (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm only challenging Christianity in the minds of certain Christians. The real point is that our sourcing is dubious, and selected to promote one view over another. Improve the sourcing and balance, and the objections go away. Who are you? Your account is less than a month old, yet you claim to be "Retired", yet you are obviously not retired (or a newbie editor). What's your previous account? Strangesad (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you are also challenging all Jewish scholars cited in the article. And again, you have not provided "one single professor of history" that supports your position. I was/am retired and will be again once this illogic is over. But please do not divert, and address the issues about your own disruption. Not here anymore (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I hereby authorize a Checkuser to verify that I am not a sockpuppet for any of the user who have commented on this page. Not here anymore (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation - that comment is the clearest possible indication that Strangesad is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to treat editing as a battleground - "Excessive soapboxing, importing or exporting of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia" and fight for the WP:TRUTH. Smeat75 (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

In my book this talk page comment was a clear WP:NOTHERE marker (in line with WP:GREATWRONGS), and all indications here are that the trend has continued. And having looked at the diff presented by another user above, it is clear that Strangesad "knows" what the mainstream view is, yet specifically edits the article to trump the mainstream view by placing the WP:FRINGE view ahead of it, and claims that it is supported by the source. This train of disruptive edits that ignore and defy policy needs to come to an end here. Not here anymore (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Topic Ban Hang on here... I don't see a topic ban offense. Edgy, bold, even a bit reckless? Yes indeed. But I do not think after reading most of this long thread that we have a serious disruption here, as I understand the term to mean. Challenges to orthodox thinking are refreshing, as long as they don't become a chronic condition. The Jesus article is one of the highest profile ones on the 'pedia, but someone who doesn't automatically think with the majority should not just be given a "fringe" label and tossed out. This is someone using the Talk page and working within the established system here. I see a lot of outrage and puffed up chests, but I think we as a group are better than this. Jusdafax 21:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a good and valid argument, and I fully agree with the principles you state. The problem as I see it is that with Strangesad, it is the chronic condition you describe. This started in December, spearheaded by Strangesad's pal Humanpublic/Minorview with the support of Strangesad. Humanpublic/Minorview was sinced banned for sockpuppetry, a sockpuppetry Strangesad encouraged as she thinks violating the rules are ok to achieve the "greater truth". We should never ever ban someone for the opinion, but when we've been going through the same arguments over and over and over and over again, it becomes tedious. Once again, we've been at this same argument since December. Since December, Strangesad and Humanpublic/Minorview have been encouraged to present WP:RS in support of their views. It's been eight months, and the discussion has never advanced from there. If that's not a "chronic condition", I don't know what is.Jeppiz (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, user:Jusdafax you just verified the comment I made weeks ago about the undue tolerance for disruption. So thank you for supporting my decision to quit. But did you say "a bit reckless?" This user knowingly breaches WP:FRINGE in the diff shown just above and you have fear of attrition? And you call it "someone who doesn't automatically think with the majority"? If I go off and edit the page on Earth to say that it is triangular am I just "not thinking with the majority?". Note that I made my comment about the problem with this website being the sudden defense of disruptive editors in these types of discussions weeks ago. It was not invented for you. And note that this user had been warned before and had been told that they precariously close to the indef block then. Not here anymore (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• First off, I detect symptoms of a WP:DIVA here, and citing the notoriously grumpy BWilkins (who actually finally banned Off2RioRob/YouReallyCan and is now just getting outta Arbcom, if unanimously) is counterproductive. Jeppiz, let's give this unbeliever a final warning and if you're still outraged if there's a next time, write up an Rfc that will probably get enough momentum to knock her outta here. Strangesad... time to chill. Take it from someone who doesn't know you but has a feeling he knows your POV a bit. Tread lightly when it comes to Christians on Wikipedia henceforth. Announce your proposals first, don't just hack away at stable versions. Think smart, edit cool. That way you'll still be around in a year. Otherwise you'll be on the ban list. And cool that sock talk too. OK? Now let's party, it's the weekend. Jusdafax 22:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect Jusdafax, have you looked into this situation at all? I've lost count of the times people have said "Yes, Strangesad is behaving badly but let's give her one more chance". I am not saying we should topic ban for that reason, but I am saying that it is not a valid argument. When someone has had umpteen "one last" chances, then the argument is not credible.

Second, I find it quite offensive that you claim that only Christians can care about sources and neutral editing. I am not a Christian user and most of my edits concerning religion go against Christian views. The question of whether a person called Jesus existed is not a religious question, and trying to make it sound as if the problem here is some "Christians versus non-Christians" is very far off. Surely you can concede that there is nothing inherently Christian in putting sourced scholarship above blind belief. As a non-believer, I would even say it is often the opposite.Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry Jusdafax, but I could not agree with your trivialization of disruption, and the invitation to party. And the diva comment was totally uncalled for - this type of undue tolerance of "continued disruption" was a serious factor in my decision to quit, and I am glad I did. As for user:BWilkins and whatever the arbcom story may be (I am blissfully unaware if it) it is really beside the point here, for as an admin he closed the previous thread and issued a warning. And no one objected or the warning. This user has been close to an indef block before, and now is close to a well deserved topic ban. And note that hardly any of these user's edits to the topic persist beyond a day - and just cause disruption. So I do beg your pardon, but your invitation to party can not be accepted. Not here anymore (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of Strangesad, at least from the historicity of Jesus sub-topic. The latest incident [33] wasn't that egregious, but he has a documented history of disruption [34]. This was the straw that broke the camel's back as the saying goes. (And I'm no fan of BWilkins if you really want to know that angle.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• I do not support a long-term or permanent ban of Strangesad from editing religion-related articles. However, I do believe that a cool-down period is in order. As such, I suggest banning the user from the article Jesus for 1-2 weeks, and directing her to the appropriate talk page where she indeed has something to contribute. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is probably not just user:Strangesad: Looking at the edit history, edit style, points made, the level of contention in the arguments, length of comments, etc. I do not think these last edits are just by user:Strangesad, who is usually short on time and does not make these types of arguments, although the use of the word "absurd" was likely her at the start of the discussions. I think in one of their meetups, the password was likely given to indef blocked User:Humanpublic, who is now using the account. The edit behavior is that of User:Humanpublic who was confirmed as a sockpuppet by User:DoRD sometime ago, but keeps going yet. Not here anymore (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll want to add this to your arsenal. Your contribs log now shows 75% of all edits are to this thread. Strangesad (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally I'm much more comfortable proposing improvements at the FAC than the article Talk page. I can comment in peace there. And, I'm optimistic that venue can have more influence. Strangesad (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The previous WP:SPI link is implied from the User:Humanpublic talk page in any case. I do stand by my statement, and I have previously authorized a checkuser on myself to verify that I am not a sockpuppet. Would you do the same in return please? Not here anymore (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This makes little sense. If HP is using Strangesad's account to edit here, a CU would be useless. As for a CU otherwise on Strangesad's account, it was fairly conclusively demonstrated that Strangesad's and HP's accounts were unrelated. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Minorview/Archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it does make sense. When User:King of Hearts issued the initial SPI, the accounts were unrelated, but that has likely changed now, given the edit trail. The way it will show up is that part of the edits in the last 48 hours will be from the OS and browser used by Strangesad, and will then interleave with edits from a separate device used by Humanpublic. That information is visible to the CU, unless the June edit by HP has gone stale by now, but may still be fine. In any case, based on that very statement by Humanpublic that "no one has caught me yet" it will make sense to look for sleepers, etc. That statement itself merits a check. Not here anymore (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a CU, so I don't know what all is revealed when one is done. However, I do think that any interleaving should be checked during the summer while all the leaves are still intact, that despite the fact that Southern California doesn't know from deciduous.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I was/am trying not to announce all the checks that a CU performs, so potential sockpuppets do not get trained on avoiding them. So let us just say that a CU sees items that are not obvious to a general editor or a general admin. But let us put it this way: A and B know each other, and A has been indef-blocked. A SPI in the Spring determines that they are not related, prompting A to go out and get a sockpuppet that he uses on other pages. To be sure that the sock is not detected, he meets and gets the password to the account for B (who has less time and is less contentious) so he can edit the same pages he was editing/disrupting before. Then in mid-summer he starts using B's account. But a sleeper check on A and B will likely turn something up. Not here anymore (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Just having done a quick review of the discussion, I would have to say that I am not sure that an individual ban is necessarily the best way to go here. The article is currently an FA candidate, and such articles tend to get more attention, positive and negative, when such. The edits are certainly problematic, and I don't dispute that in any way shape or form, but I am not sure that under the circumstances, particularly given the contentious nature of this particular topic, that this proposal is necessarily the best option to employ here. ArbCom is an option, and honestly, given some of what I read above, might be a better option, particularly as I seem to remember some of them also have CU. Alternately, maybe some sort of other short term editor restriction, or page locking, might resolve the question for a while. While I agree that there is good reason for the editor in question to maybe be at least warned about conduct, I am not at this point necessarily convinced that other, less dramatic, options might not yield better results in the short term with less possibly problematic long-term results. Having said that, I personally really would love to see ArbCom place most of the material regarding early Christianity under discretionary sanctions, and hope to maybe get them to do so in the near future, given the number of problematic POV pushing edits from multiple sides. But that is probably a separate matter best dealt with elsewhere, not here. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Arbcom is a separate issue and will take forever and a day. You could start that anyway. But these edits are certainly "problematic" as you said, and disruptive, as others have said. And I see that you are not disputing that. But puppetry will obviously render many of the other items on this thread moot in any case. The last round of edits were likely by Humanpublic, not Strangesad. Not here anymore (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban I'm seeing a content dispute with passionate editors more than I'm seeing severe conduct violations. Yes there seem to have been some problems in the past with socking and the like but I'm not seeing new evidence of repetition of past misbehavior. As mentioned before, WP:CCC, and sometimes consensus needs to be reassessed to determine whether it's changed or not. I generally do not find it appropriate to remove another editor's comments and to refuse to engage in discussion even if the matter is "settled" as doing so is a bit too close to WP:OWN than I'm personally comfortable with. If it is the case that Strangesad's case doesn't have a leg to stand on (and I don't know because all my "knowledge" about the historical Jesus comes from Dogma) then the best way to determine that is to invite wider community input. If after a DRN discussion or an RFC the consensus is still the same and then Strangesad continues arguing about it, it might be time for a topic ban, and if Strangesad is as wrong as people make him out to be then it should be fairly easy to demonstrate to uninvolved editors. N^oformation ^Talk 03:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean well, but we've already done all you suggest and more. This started in December, and I would guess at least 50 uninvolved editors have looked at it. I became involved in February, after two months of this. Of course any uninvolved editor who look into it will find that Strangesad&Humanpublic advocate a fringe view. There is not one academic in any relevant field who supports their fringe view. That is easy to demonstrate. The problem is that Strangesad doesn't give a damn. She is convinced she knows the truth, and if other editors disagree, then they are a "lynch mob" (one of her favorite phrases). So it's precisely because this has been going on for so many months and because it doesn't matter how many people get involved that I think a topic ban is necessary.Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You have done none of what he suggested. No DRN and no RFC. I advocate no view on the historical Jesus. The view that there is no meaningful historical Jesus does not meet Wikipedia's definition of "fringe." According to the article's reliable, cited sources (Ehrman), there are "bona fide" scholars who make "intelligent" arguments against the existence of Jesus. You, on the other hand, have now proposed banning me four times, yet the number of times you've attempted to talk to me on my Talk page (excluding warnings) is zero. Strangesad (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I have not advocated for a topic ban for Strangesad, I am not an admin, so it seems to me I should leave it to them to decide what should be done here but I am certain that some action needs to be taken to prevent this kind of constant disruption to important articles on religion / Christianity / the Bible. As I said earlier, two of the most valuable editors in this area have recently left, History2007 and PiCo, editors who have not been involved in these areas may not realise what a disaster this is for the project as these two were highly knowledgeable in these fields and able to edit neutrally and fend off constant POV and fringe theory pushers. They appear to have got tired of doing that and who can blame them? Dougweller in another thread where I raised this [35] says "In History2007's case, too many sockpuppets were a big issue. For both I think pov editing was another factor." To me, this indicates that WP just is not functioning any more and lack of effective action by admins has resulted in more or less turning over the project in the area of Christianity to fringe pushers. Should History2007 and/or PiCo see this, I appeal to you to at least come back every now and then and check the most important pages. WP is, perhaps unfortunately, now the number one source of information on the web and WP articles come up first on most web searches for information. History2007 and PiCo were doing a service to the world in maintaining those articles, I understand the frustration, no need for either of you to go back to being as highly active as you were here, but please help us out every now and then at least, this project is too important to be abandoned to cranks.Smeat75 (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I just missed it but I'm not seeing a diff of a discussion at DRN or an RFC. If I did miss it please point it out so I can review the discussion and determine whether sufficient outside input came to the same conclusion. As I said, if a DRN or RFC took place and consensus was upheld, and if Strangesad is continuing that same conversation then it might be time for a topic ban. If, however, neither venue has been exploited then a topic ban is premature. Just FYI - and though I'm sure you didn't intend it this way - "you mean well" can come off condescendingly. N^oformation ^Talk 02:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Noformation: DRN and RfC are used in cases where no consensus can be reached at the article's talk page. Since there is consensus for this issue (a consensus that involved dozens of users), I don't understand why DRN and RfC are necessary. Just because one or two users refuse to get the point does not necessitate the use of DRN or RfC. These two venues are used to establish consensus (if none can be reached via talk page discussion). They are not requirements for a topic ban. Strangesad is being nominated for a topic ban due to her continued anti-consensus and fringe-view-promoting edits.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN and RFC are used when a dispute needs to be resolved and is a standard progression of WP:DR - soliciting uninvolved advice is never a bad thing (and in this case apparently hasn't been tried outside of drama boards). Again, if the consensus is as clear as you say then there should be no objection to it being evaluated by neutral, third parties and doing so can only solidify the issue should it arise again. If you don't believe the discussion is worth your time you can sit it out and let other editors deal with it, since there are, as you say, dozens who agree. N^oformation ^Talk 03:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Noformation:: Actually, it was Strangesad who chose to come to this drama board. The topic ban proposal is something that appeared in the boomerang's flight path. --Stfg (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is relevant to my arguments. I did not make any statements about who brought the issues here, I simply noted that the content aspect of this dispute has not followed normal DR channels and ANI has been the only outside venue. Content disputes are outside the remit of ANI; indeed, Strangesad's complaint here is addressing a conduct issue: users removing her talk page posts - an issue I believe is valid for the same reason I cannot support a topic ban. To reiterate, if proper channels are utilized and if Strangesad continues to argue, then it might be acceptable to remove her posts as disruptive and to topic ban her. Until then I don't know how else to interpret it other than as an attempt to avoid discussion to maintain the status quo, which to me outside the spirit of the 5 pillars. Maybe you all are experts on the subject and Strangesad is on the fringe of the fringe - I don't know and it's not going to be determined on a drama board. The easiest way to solve the problem is to simply file the DRN and let the conversation take place. N^oformation ^Talk 01:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. For those commenting along the lines of "I've glanced at Strangesad's edits and I don't see anything seriously disruptive", I acknowledge that is indeed true. Deeper examination, however, reveals that this editor has engaged in behavior that is difficult to demonstrate in a single ANI thread: the long-term pushing of fringe views, coupled with a persistent and verbose rhetorical style designed to wear down detractors. The long-term effect is that contributors are pushed out of the topic area (or off the site completely) out of sheer exhaustion with dealing with the person. Strangesad is not offering anything constructive to this topic area, and should be removed while constructive editors are still around to maintain logic and fend off fringe positions. Now she is trying to derail the FAC. I do not agree that arbitration is needed at this point. Arbitration is for when the community has demonstrated an inability to solve the issue. If we can deal with it here, we can be done with it. For the record, I have nothing to do with religious topics on Wikipedia, so I am commenting from a neutral point-of-view. --Laser brain (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Update I see Strangesad has now started deleting comments by users she dislike [36], [37]. The first time, she deleted the comments outright, as seen in the diffs above. Fortunately FutureTrillionaire noticed it and reverted. Then Strangesad instead moved all the comments, creating confusion [38], this time she was reverted by Stfg. I honestly don't know what Strangesad is thinking, deleting other users' comments while this thread is going on. Unfortunately, it's not surprising and it is preceisly that kind of disrupting behavior that had made me suggest Strangesad be topic banned.Jeppiz (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And as if that wasn't enough, Strangesad has continued to move around other users' comments. [39], [40]. So in addition to all the disruption already discussed, Strangesad is now deleting comments by others, and edit waring about moving around comments. How long will this farce continue? Has any one user taken up more of the communities time in 2013, and with so little productive to show for it? Strangesad is most definitely not here to improve Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Number of times Jeppiz has tried to talk to me on my Talk page (notices/warnings excluded): 0
• Number of times Jeppiz (or anyone) has requested an RFC/U: 0
• Number of times Jeppiz has gone to AN or AN/I proposing to ban me: 4 Strangesad (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you excluded the notices and warnings sent to your talk. The point of these is to warn you, so that we don't have to resort to ANI. Also, RFC/U is not a requirement for a topic ban.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Strangesad is quite right. I've brought her behavior to AN or ANI four times. Not once has the community thrown it out as irrelevant. Quite the opposite, every time most users have agreed that Strangesad is disruptive, and there has usually been a quite even split between those wanting to ban Strangesad and those wanting to give Strangesad "one last chance". And it is quite revealing that Strangesad brings this up to try to change the topic, not commenting with even one word on her deletion of other users' comments or about her edit warring today. That is Strangesad's standard trick whenever her disruptive behavior is discussed, to change the topic to talk about others.Jeppiz (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly why you should file a DRN. Had you done so before bringing it to ANI in the first place, and if the DRN was closed as upholding prior consensus, you could simply point to it in an ANI and it would be positive evidence that Strangesad was being disruptive. This would give you a much stronger case - one based firmly in policy - for a topic ban. ANI should never be the first resort when dealing with an editor making proposals in good faith, even if you are personally sure they are wrong. Seriously, if you want this dispute solved then go right now, file the DRN, make your opening statement, notify Strangesad, let uninvolved editors hash it out and get your answer. If you're right and Strangesad keeps arguing I will support your topic ban proposal next time and I imagine you'll find few who oppose. As a matter of fact, if you do so then feel free to copypaste this comment to the next ANI and call it my support !vote. N^oformation ^Talk 01:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there are 10 supports for a ban, 1 support for some sort of limited ban, and five opposes. I myself don't know whether that is sufficient, or if the final results, whatever they might be, will be, but if they aren't I really think that maybe retitling the section, or starting a new subsection, to more clearly indicate that it is about a proposed ban of some wort would be a good idea, to make it clearer to others who see the discussion here and might be more motivated to express an opinion if they actually knew what was being proposed here. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Not Here Anymore

Request interaction ban on this account. Since registering, the vast majority of edits have been targeted at opposing me on this one topic. [41].

Also, what is the policy on breaking up someone's comments in a FAC with sniping and other attempts to turn my comment section into his debating forum? I expected this to be a bit more like ArbCom, where each editor has there own space, and isn't drawn into bickering by point/counterpoint sniping.

Also, please note that FutureTrillionaire reverted my attempt to get NHA's comment out of my section, after announcing (above) that he would no longer revert any of edits. It's harassment. Strangesad (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is this sleazy message [42], in which he says "there is now a discussion that they may have exchanged passwords." (The truth is that nobody has made that suggestion but NHA.) Strangesad (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Finally, continusouly calling me "Humanpublic/Strangesad" is sort of antagonistic. File a sock puppet report, or find a more constructive way to spend time. Strangesad (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Important development - Strangesad is now erasing comments made by users who do not agree with her.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I moved them to that editor's comment section. Very important. Strangesad (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop doing that. FAC reviews are threaded discussions. Your comments section is not your private space. --Stfg (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now put the comments back to their original position, as moving them obscured which comment was replying to what. --Stfg (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather definitely not happening: "I will also not revert any more of Strangesad's edits.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)". I wish admins would give guidance. I think NHA is clearly harassing me, and his arguing with my comments in the FAC is intended to disrupt. However, I'm now getting into 3RR territory if I'm wrong. Rather than blocking for being wrong that 3RR isn't mean to apply to this situation, why don't admins engage in discussion? Prevent problems before they occur. Strangesad (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

My reversion was a mistake in protocol, for which I have apologised on the talk page, but you clearly cannot forbid other reviewers from commenting after your signature. The current state of the FAC review page is that there are no comments by anyone else between your section header and your signature timed at 04:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC). That's all you're entitled to. The "protocol" you cited talks about nominators' comments, but it does not forbid other editors from commenting too. --Stfg (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting closure

I'm requesting an uninvolved admin close this report and defer it to WP:DRN. All the arguments are in and at this point it's just the editors involved in the principle dispute bickering with each other, a sock of someone created just to argue here, and me (uninvolved) explaining that proper dispute resolution has not been followed. Nothing productive is going to come out of this. Strangesad, you can help move this along by filing the DRN yourself immediately, which you should have done in the first place. And if it doesn't go your way then seriously drop it or you will be topic banned next time. Everyone involved needs to adopt a mindset of colaboration and to try and see the opposing side. N^oformation ^Talk 02:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to close this -- I'm not a good judge of that. But I trust all views and proposals will be considered, not just yours. You are presenting this still as an authentic content dispute. Many of us here feel that it is not an authentic content dispute, but a conduct issue, with editing against a consensus documented on the page's edit notice, deletion of another editor's FAC comments, and so on. You are in no position to state that next time she will be topic banned. You simply don't know how it would go next time. The only thing that's certain is that a lot more good editors' time would be spent if there's a next time. Seeing the opposing side doesn't mean we have to give credence to fringe theories. Collaboration isn't a suicide pact either. --Stfg (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Stfg. While I believe that N^oformation is right that it may be time to close, Stfg is right to point out that this is not the content dispute Noformation seems to think. More important, the last time this was at ANI about 50% wanted to topic ban Strangesad and the others said "let's give her one more chance, then topic ban the next time". Well, now is that next time. I don't say that that means Strangesad must be topic banned, but it does mean that Noformation's argument is moot. Either ANI sticks to "one last chance" or not. If it does, it should mean something. If it doesn't, then "the next time" shouldn't be used as an argument as it's meaningless.Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"a sock of someone created just to argue here" I don't believe User:Not_here_anymore is a sock, but a former editor who created the account to say what he thought about this issue. Smeat75 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, he said as much, and agreed to checkuser verification. Mind you, NHA had been making unsubstantiated socking allegations too. So many accusations, and not one SPI filing to date. Hmmm. --Stfg (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, Noinformation, I think you're widely missing the core issue here. This hasn't been a content dispute for a long time. It's been long-established that Strangesad is pushing fringe views and trying to edit against consensus. Therefore, this is a user conduct issue that should be handled here or, as a last resort, at ArbCom. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise but I take issue with your conclusion. Strangesad is an editor with less than 500 edits attempting to work on a page that elicits strong emotions, and aside from boilerplates it doesn't seem as though anyone has respectfully attempted to work this issue out in a non-aversarial manner. I'm not saying that Strangesad will not eventually be topic banned; it very well may be the case that she can't edit on these pages constructively - but the only way to find out is to attempt a real discussion on the subject. I'm honestly astonished that the experienced editors involved in this dispute are actually of the position that discussion on Wikipedia need not take place. Aside from content ground, what is the downside to following proper procedure by simply having the issue evaluated at DRN? ANI will still be here in two weeks if DRN fails and Strangesad continues arguing. Hell, this could have at least been posted to WP:FTN! What is the argument against trying to work collaboratively? It is difficult to interpret this, as an outsider, as something aside from an attempt to silence discussion to maintain the status quo (not from you of course, as my understanding is that you are uninvolved in the content dispute). N^oformation ^Talk 20:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In general, all the points you make are valid, even very good. That is why nobody objected to a discussion when the couple Strangesad-Humanpublic (along with various now-exposed socks) first turned up. The problem is the two of them have some kind of Wiki-record in WP:IDHT and dismiss any argument. As I've already said, we've been through this since December. What Strangesad and Humanpublic are pushing is an extreme fringe POV. That is not unusual. There are editors denying the Holocaust, denying the moon landings, convinced about Bigfoot's existence etc. Strangesad and Humanpublic's fringe POV is no different. It is a fringe idea dismissed by any academic in any field related to the subject who has looked into it. As you say, the topic of Jesus elicits strong emotions, and there are literally thousands of aspects on which experts don't agree. This simply isn't one of them, this is one of the very few aspects on which every academic agree. Just as we don't insert fringe theories about the Holocaust or the moon landings when dismissed by all experts, I don't see the need to do it here either. Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. That is not to say the question should be buried. Things may change, there may be academics who will challenge this aspect as well and present new evidence. Then we should of course take that into account. When Strangesad and Humanpublic first appeared, nobody told them to get lost, instead they were invited to present sources for the claims they wanted to insert. It was only after a long period of the two of them refusing to hear contradicting arguments, and refusing to accept that their view is contrary to that of all experts, that people started finding the pair (along with the socks, we did not know about the socks at the time) a bit disrupting as they never brought the discussion forward. From there, it just went downhill with increasing sockpuppetry, personal attacks, harassment, and more time spent at these boards than at any articles. Jeppiz (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I also think this should go to Dispute Resolution. At this point, there are too many diffs covering too many months of activity for parties who are not involved in the article editing to sort through. It may be a minority opinion, but I'm most concerned about present behavior (the past two weeks), than edits someone did April, especially if they were a new account and, unfortunately, dove into one of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia.

The point that sticks in my head is WP:BRD...Strangesad was bold, most of her edits were reverted and the next step was to discuss. But her original charge, and the reason that this case was even opened, was that her Talk Page comments were being deleted or collapsed. If this discussion had been talked out on the Talk Page, we probably wouldn't be here in ANI.

What I sense is that there are a lot of editors who, through a painstaking process, have created this article that they can more or less live with. Then, a new editor arrives, makes some edits, is reverted, comes to the Talk Page and the regulars are all talked out. These debates have gone on for years and it's a pain to go over it all again with every new editor (hence, I imagine, the FAQS).

I haven't looked at all of the diffs but gathering from the response, Strangesad probably made some bad edits (maybe really bad edits). But if an editor whose edits are reverted comes to a Talk Page and asks why, there should be a discussion, even if that discussion has been going on for 12 years. So, my question is, how did the regular editors deal with Strangesad's questions on the Talk Page? This is what a Dispute Resolution editor can get into.

There very well may have been some disruptive behavior here. But people tend to act out when no one listens or responds to them. That's not an excuse, it's just human behavior. On ANI, I often see a quick rush to ban/block which is a way for frustrated people to silence someone who is irritating them (whether intentionally or unintentionally). It's a knee-jerk reaction and I think in this situation, the parties would be better served by having DR sort through all of the claims and counterclaims and propose a scenario where the parties can work better together. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

False premise: Strangesad is not a "new editor". She has been involved in the Jesus existence "debate" for a while. Deleting an entire paragraph of sensitive information, and acknowledging that the paragraph was constructed with consensus, is not bold. It's disruptive fringe-view-pushing and refusal to "get the point". That along with deleting other people's comments are unacceptable behavior.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

443 edits since:2012-10-26 - I personally draw the line at 500 but you're welcome to draw it where you'd like. As for the rest, a DRN would certainly sort out whether or not it's true. N^oformation ^Talk 01:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Noformation and Newjerseyliz: It's actually refreshing to read your points here—they are those of editors who have not yet been worn down by the tendentious rhetoric of editors like Strangesad. This is exactly how they work. There is nothing overtly egregious about her behavior on casual glance, but you have to take a long view and see what effect she has on other editors over time. There are always fresh editors to appear and act as apologists every time she lands at ANI because they only see a cross-section. I encourage you to watchlist and babysit an article like Jesus that editors like Strangesad target for a month or so, and you will change your tune. --Laser brain (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

LB, my singular point is that if what you're saying is true and if a DRN is filed and consensus is upheld then that's all you have to point to the next time Strangesad edits against the supposed consensus. You're basically admitting that unless one has followed her edits for a while it's hard to see the overall problem, so how do you expect me to support a topic ban when you fully understand why I can't see the overall problem? And again, why is everyone involved so against a discussion at DRN? What could possibly go wrong if everyone here is correct on both the conduct and content issues? If the involved editors would put as much time into a DRN as they are into arguing that one shouldn't take place then the case would be half way finished by now. N^oformation ^Talk 01:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is useless for handling civil POV pushing—since a case can be made that religion is nonsense and that Jesus never existed, arguing about that at DR would result in a pointless sequence of "my source is better than your source" exchanges. The problem is that Strangesad is actively pushing the view that Christianity is bogus, and that kind of editing is a misuse of Wikipedia. For example, in this edit Strangesad adds "Resurrection is impossible..." to the lead of Resurrection of Jesus where the editor argues that since three references define death as irreversible, it follows that resurrection is impossible. Many edits of that nature have occurred since February. Strangesad is on a campaign to make sure that as many articles as possible convey the message that Christianity is bogus. It's fine to present the views of notables like Hume, but it is not fine to use Wikipedia for POV pushing—the encyclopedia needs to reflect standard scholarship and ANI needs to protect editors who follow that principle. A topic ban of Strangesad should be enforced until a case is made that they have learned what WP:NPOV means. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's come back to Earth. My view of how to improve the Jesus article can be found at the FAC [43]. My view is not that the article should say "Jesus never existed." I don't think Jesus never existed. I've said this many times (including in the FAC).

My views concern neutrality. One example I give at the FAC concerns the source Bart Ehrman. My critics accept him as reliable. He states "bona fide scholars" question the existence of Jesus, and that their arguments are intelligent and well-informed. Ehrman is used as a source in the article, but those particular comments are not allowed [44] Indeed, attempting to add them is used as an example of my POV-pushing anti-Christian agenda etc.

It is true Ehrman also says virtually all scholars agree Jesus existed. The explanation of the contradiction is that he is writing a popular book, and the language isn't rigorous. Digging deeper into his book reveals that the "virtually all" consensus consists of New Testament professors (many of whom are ministers) and religious studies professors. Whereas, when he says there are bona fide scholars who disagree, he is using a broader definition of scholar. To me this is relevant, and I think it misrepresents the source to hide this point in the article.

Holding this position, even if wrong, does not mean I am (as Johnuniq puts it) "actively pushing the view that Christianity is bogus." It entails no position on the validity of Christianity at all.

All of the accusations here have this character. The article misrepresents what sources say, and its selection of sources is dominated by ministers, priests, and publishing imprints with a stated mission of promoting Jesus. I question whether the sourcing is accurate or neutral, and am immediately accused of being anti-Christian. Strangesad (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You lost me with my losing you. I don't think there's no difference between a religion professor and a priest. Strangesad (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No one here is concerned with whether or not another editor is anti-Christian. What matters is whether an editor is consistently pushing a fringe view, and is causing disruption by repeated IDIDNTHEARTHAT deflections. If you are going to address my statement, please engage with it by responding to the diff. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It is really maddening the way Strangesad just says the same thing over and over. No many times you tell her that Michael Grant and Bart Ehrman are/were not priests or ministers of religion, she will then switch to saying "they wrote popular books" until the next time she says all the sources in the article are priests or ministers of religion. She fought for weeks to put "Resurrection is impossible" into the lead of the article Resurrection of Jesus, just look at the talk page [45], disappeared for a while, then came back to battle over the Jesus article. I left her a message today [46] - "The article Christ myth theory has been re-written with a full and neutral discussion of G A Wells,Ellegård, etc. Please have a look at it, I believe it should answer your concerns on this matter. The main Jesus article has a link to the Christ myth article. It would make the main article too long to go into the detail needed to explain it properly and explore the various views", she takes absolutely no notice or makes any response. I don't like to advocate for people to be banned or blocked but I do know something needs to be done to stop this, how anybody who edits in these areas is expected to stand this sort of thing all the time I do not know, no wonder some of the most valuable contributors have left.Smeat75 (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Refer to ArbCom. Clearly this is not a matter that DRN can ever hope to solve. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice also how Strangesad rejects all the sources used in the section of the article she objects to but never specifies or suggests who she wants to use instead beyond demanding that the unnamed ""bona fide scholars" referred to by Ehrman be included, see the discussion at [47] where I told her who, of contemporary scholars, he means by that, to wit Robert Price and Hermann Detering and suggested she find some quotes from them herself which could then be considered, but she does not even seem to read what people say to her and continues to insist that others find citations to her satisfaction from these "bona fide scholars" and revise the article to suit her.Smeat75 (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom requires previous attempts at dispute resolution. None of the editors berating me have attempted a non-berating conversation. Indeed, the incident that began this thread was my attempt at the most basic kind of dispute-resolution: a conversation on the Talk page. FutureTrilliionaire, with the support of several editors here, shut that down. Strangesad (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I had decided not to comment more on this (as I seriously think Strangesad utterly enjoys all the havoc she creates), but as I see that she is again playing the martyr game, I thought a small recap of the facts might be relevant. Strangesad laments that nobody has talked to her. That is a two-way street, Strangesad. Your first edit of topics related to Jesus consisted of deleting a well-respected sourced that displeased you [48]. Your next edit consisted of deleting even more content [49]. After that you spent a considerable time edit warring about inserting a claim nobody but you wanted, leading to you eventually being blocked for edit warring.[50]. When you first came to the talk page [51], the very productive user whom you eventually managed to push away from Wikipedia with your constant harassment responded politely and tried to inform you about WP:RS [52]. So kindly avoid trying to portray yourself as the poor victim of anything. People responded politely to you at first, it was only after your repeated edit warring and constant refusal to listen that people eventually grew tired. Disruption is not only vandalizing a page once. That's easy to fix. It's users who refuse to listen for months, thereby wasting lots of time of other users, that are the most harmful to the project. And as I said, I'm quite sure creating chaos of this kind if one of Strangesad's main reasons to be here. She may be many things, but she isn't unintelligent so I cannot in good faith believe she did not understand WP:RS or the principles of consensus already in February.Jeppiz (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The first diff in your comment is for an edit I made that was never reverted and is part of the current consensus. The rest of your comment is similar. Strangesad (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Jesus article has now achieved FA status, and the FA reviewer who promoted the article has said to Strangesad [53] "it appeared to me when judging consensus, as it appeared to the other reviewers, that your idea of neutrality is to put in more information and sources to support a fringe theory, which is not what WP is about" which is exactly what she does, along with myriad textbook examples of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:DISRUPT, WP:DEADHORSE,WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc., etc., etc. Smeat75 (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Refer to arbcom: My interactions with the editor in question leave me the impression that she is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push a certain point. My own request for suggestions of sources went unheeded twice, as if they were not there. Indeed, she went on a vector about how she does not believe the point of view she's fighting to have inserted in the article (see Suspiciously Specific Denial). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, Crisco "My own request for suggestions of sources went unheeded twice, as if they were not there," I have had that same experience with Strangesad more often than I care to remember. During the discussion you refer to [54] Strangesad says "I said, over and over.... I've said so about a million times....I've said this a million times....How many times does this need to be said?" Indeed, indeed, she does repeat exactly the same things ad infinitum without heeding what others say to her. It needs to stop. Also in that discussion she makes the revealing comment [55] "I don't care what the sources say." Could it be possible to devise a clearer statement of complete opposition to the entire basis of WP? Smeat75 (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The opposite is true. Not caring what the sources say is a statement of complete compliance to the entire basis of WP. We care about whether they are reliable, not whether we agree them. You know this. You have chosen to misunderstand or misrepresent what I said. Then, when I point out that you haven't really listened to me, you will accuse me of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, beating a dead horse, etc. Crisco 1492 is a pure case study. The entirety of my interaction with that editor spanned barely an hour. Nonetheless, Crisco is now quite certain ArbCom is required. Strangesad (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Anybody can open an ArbCom case. It's not something an admin does after assessing consensus. If you believe in it, do it instead of just yakking about it. Strangesad (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Or we could just topic-banned this exceptionally disruptive and combative editor and save loads of people loads of time to do something constructive on Wikipedia. As I already stated, Strangesad seems to cherish the drama boards and all the attention she gets. Even a brief look on how what percentage of her edits are at ANI or to deliberately beating dead horses to get other users agitated is very revealing. Strangesad is on Wikipedia with two purposes. To combat Christianity (which she does poorly, lots of Christian doctrine can be challenged by using good sources) but most of all to waste as much of the community's time as possible. She would love an ArbCom case but I see no reason we should give her that satisfaction. We had this same never-ending discussion in the spring, and it was eventually decided to give Strangesad one last chance. Now we are here again. If Strangesad isn't topic banned, we'll no doubt be here soon again.Jeppiz (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd go for a topic ban too. I tried to approach strangesad with an open mind, but the completely missing the point first reply and the deliberately ignoring my question of the second reply convinced me that the concerns posted here have merit. One hour may not seem much to you, strangesad, but you're forgetting I also had time to look up your other actions with other editors, and found the same issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom is not the answer

Arbcom takes only cases where the community has demonstrated its inability to handle the problem. Do all of you commenting "refer to armcom" realize that if you actually took a stance on the issue and argued for an action (whether it be a topic ban, a block, or no action), we could be done with this? We need to stop passing the buck and deal with this user. She is here to push fringe views, and not here to build an encyclopedia. Such editors should be shown the door with haste. --Laser brain (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've said 1) we need more peer-reviewed and non-promotional sources, and 2) I don't care what they say. Exactly how is it promoting anything to say I don't care what the sources say? You seem hate-filled. Strangesad (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well OK then Laser brain, you have convinced me to "stop passing the buck" and support a topic ban for Strangesad for anything to do with religion, broadly construed. You are an admin, can't you just do it? Smeat75 (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

And the topic ban for anything to do with religion should definitely include talk pages! Smeat75 (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Admins cannot impose topic bans. --Stfg (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not true. They can if there is consensus here at ANI. See Wikipedia:Banning policy. Smeat75: It would not be appropriate for me to take administrative action against Strangesad since I have been involved in the dispute. --Laser brain (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I already read it very carefully, Laser brain. The section WP:BANPOL#Authority to ban states explicitly: "Except as noted above, individual editors, including administrators, may not directly impose bans", and the only case "noted above" that extends to admins is discretionary sanctions. Consensus here at ANI would count as the community imposing the ban. Imposing and enforcing (with blocks) are different. --Stfg (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that, and I think you and LB are talking at cross purposes. In this situation, if an uninvolved admin determines there's a consensus for a topic ban, that admin can then "impose" the ban on behalf of the community. Also, discretionary sanctions aren't the only exception. Other kinds of sanctions permit admins to impose topic bans. Putting all of that aside, the central problem here is that this topic (with all of its subtopics) is an unholy mess. So, you're going to have to find a very brave admin willing to determine what the consensus is. A long time ago, the topic lost focus. BTW, don't look at me. IIRC, I'm not uninvolved in this discussion, although I haven't been following it for some time.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

How about an RFC/U? That's generally considered a prerequisite to ArbCom, and might solve the problem on its own if we're lucky. Bobby Tables (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U's, as I understand it, have no power to enforce anything, therefore it would be a process of endless repetition from Strangesad of saying the same things which, in her own words, she has said a million times already, and would achieve nothing as it would leave her free to go on saying them several million more times. I don't understand the point of this long discussion here at the administrators' board if an admin is not going to take some action, and now I join the others who have already called for a topic ban on Strangesad, to include talk pages, otherwise she will clutter those up with endless repetition of the same things she has said a million times before, on any religion related topic. I would call for an indefinite ban had she not shown in a few contributions that she can contribute something to areas other than religion. Smeat75 (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

And Strangesad continues inserting exactly the same tendentious, repetitive nonsense in various places - altered the FAQ on the Jesus article - [56], the Jesus article, just promoted to FA, itself [57],changing the definition of "Christ myth" from how the linked to article defines it, which was just re-written a couple of days ago after years of discussion and a consensus finally arrived at,repeating exactly the same stuff about sources on the Jesus talk page she has said "millions of times" (her own words) before, [58], and WP:FORUMSHOPing to try to find different answers to the same old junk [59]. How much longer is this going to be allowed to continue?Smeat75 (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• In this ANI thread as well as in the previous one [60], the community has amply demonstrated its inability to deal with the behavioral disruption surrounding the content dispute proper. (There was not enough consensus to indef block then, and there isn't enough consensus to topic ban now, after a sufficient amount of time and reasonably wide participation.) Therefore, referral to ArbCom is entirely appropriate, because there is no indication that similar events won't reoccur. This case is quite similar to the one currently being considered by ArbCom on the Tea Party movement. It has enough disruption spearheads proper (SPAs) and supporters from the wings (who prevent community action against the SPAs) so that it will never be settled at ANI or any other community venue. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't counted up the number of editors who support a topic ban here but I would be surprised if the consensus does not now support one. This needs to be dealt with right now, not embarking on some long drawn out process involving more repetition from Strangesad and waste of other peoples' time.Smeat75 (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Counting those who suggested referring to Arbcom as opposing immediate (community-imposed) topic ban, I get a rough count of 12 supports, 9 opposes. That's a majority, but it's hard to see it as consensus, as the opposes are at least as well referred to policies are are the supports. --Stfg (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

So "consensus" does not mean a majority? it means a subjective judgement as to the quality of the references to policies? I have no intention of wasting my time putting together a "case" of "evidence" about Strangesad, anyone who is interested should look at her user contributions, there are not that many, and it will be very clear what her agenda is here. Smeat75 (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That's right; consensus doesn't mean a majority and does depend on quality of argument. See WP:Consensus and search for "majority" in the text (there are two instances). There's more in the essay Wikipedia:What is consensus?. --Stfg (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that is an essay about building consensus in writing articles, not guidance for admins in determining consensus for what action to take about someone who has been discussed on this board. I think it really ought to be counting the number of editors who support an action, in this case a topic ban, as otherwise coming here is simply a waste of time.Smeat75 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The original purpose of this ANI was Strangesad's complaints about FutureTrillionaire's actions. This ANI has been open for 12 days and participants in the debate have come and gone. Lots of words written, lots of opinions expressed on a range of issues. Trying to assess consensus from the entirety of these numerous comments is a challenge for an uninvolved Admin.

While I don't support a Topic Ban, I think if that is the goal of some of the participants here, you should open a separate ANI and have THAT proposal be the focus of the discussions. This isn't to defer decision-making but the present conversation is so unwieldy, messy and personal that it is hard to objectively see what the problem is. Focus, present specific diffs indicating the problematic issues instead of just assailing someone's character or approach. Any act of blocking or banning right now is coming out of pure frustration and not because of evidence of disruption or lack of competence.

You need to a) isolate and focus on what the problem is, b) show evidence supporting your view and c) suggest a solution. You can't just vote, "Off with her head" and because 2 or 3 editors agree with you, have your will be done. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 15:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Number of edits Smeat75 has made aimed at communicating with me on the Jesus Talk page, since the beginning of this dispute: 2-3 (depending on how you count)
• Number of times he's reverted my edits: 3 (including an uncivil edit comment: "remove ignorant nonsense" [61])
• Number of comments he's made about me on this ANI thread: 17

It's not hard to engage people and care about why they think the things they do. Sometimes you learn something, and have the terrific experience of liking and respecting someone who is different from you. Strangesad (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the messages on the Jesus talk page Strangesad refers to, I left her a message on her own talk page [62], which she blanked without response (somebody else put it back) and another message in another discussion [63] which she did not respond to or give any sign that she had even read. I have reached the conclusion, after numerous efforts to communicate with her, that it is pointless as she never pays any attention to anything anyone says. Smeat75 (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

But, once in a while, and I have myself dealt with a few such similar cases recently, the people who want others to talk to them may be attempting to use discussion as a diversionary tactic. It is not required for anyone to calmly and patiently go through with each and every new editor who might question something exactly on what basis the current consensus, if there is one, was arrived at. Sometimes, the obligation really falls on the person who wants to perhaps waste the time of others in possibly tendentious editing to maybe make a reasonable effort to understand how the current consensus was arrived at, and, honestly, reviewing the article's talk page generally can explain a lot. I don't think that there is necessarily grounds for a topic ban, as per Laser brain above, but I do believe that there is grounds for believing that Stragesad may be engaging in disruptive or tendentious editing. With any luck, ArbCom might accept a case relating to early Christianity soon. If they do, there is a very real chance of discretionary sanctions of some sort being at least requested on articles relating to early Christianity, like this one. However, it might well be reasonable, should problematic conduct continue, after a lot of discussion regarding it here and on other noticeboards, for an admin at that time to sanction the problematic editor. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, nobody has a default obligation to explain the current consensus. You incur that obligation when you complain endlessly about someone on ANI, make dozens of disparaging comments about her character, motives, and beliefs, revert her edits with comments like "ignorant nonsense", and call for her to banned. The effort Smeat75 and Jeppiz have put into attacking far outweighs their efforts to communicate. Jeppiz has not discussed any of these current editing disagreements on any Talk page at all, at least not in many months. Surprising as it may seem, I don't accept that the starting point for discussion is that I am a trolling piece of shit whose sole motive is the tear down the efforts of others. Taking that assumption is not going to change my behavior (or anyone else's). I am here to improve to the project, and I believe my criticisms of this article will improve it by making it more neutral. Strangesad (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just skimming up through the comments again, I see a lot of talk about past and present misconduct and not much about the content of the dispute. It does seem like there is so much division on religion pages about origin issues. But the lack of respect and loss of assumption of good faith remind me more of the ARBCOM case about Tea Party than anything having to do with religious topics. They just are a subject people feel passionately about and, unfortunately, there are contrasting views on interpreting the few primary sources that exist so that makes the possibility of conflict almost inevitable.

This might well end up at ARBCOM but presenting a case for review requires a commitment of time and energy for whomever decides to take that on. Otherwise, I still recommend a second ANI focused on the particular problem that you see and hope that the conversation can stay on topic. More unasked for opinion from NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 19:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

As a point of order, ANI is specifically for behavioral issues, not content disputes. The entire point of an ANI discussion is that someone's behavior has become a problem, not as a means to resolving a dispute over content. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

STOP feeding, please

It's quite disheartening to see everybody continuing to play Strangesad's game. In case someone didn't yet understand, Strangesad is not here to build an encyclopedia. While clumsy trolls do the obvious vandalism act, they don't really harm the project as they are just reverted and perhaps blocked. Those who truly manage to disrupt the project are those who target popular pages, make sure they engage lots of other users there, drag out the disputes as long as they can, and in addition manage to involve users at ANI, ArbCom, RfC etc. Strangesad is a master at this. She has next to no actual edits on Wikipedia, but hundreds of edits on contentious talk pages of articles, and on ANI and AN. Strangesad has some 300-400 edits of that kind, and each of them usually trigger 5-10 other comments from other users. So Strangesad has singlehandedly managed to bring about thousands of such comments. It's a proof of her skills that she repeatedly manages to sound as if she was dragged her. Scroll up the page and check, it was Strangesad who brought this discussion here. Strangesad is a troll, pure and simply. What is more, she is one of the most successful ones, as she never engages in any overt vandalism. She makes sure to thread the line so that no admin will have the guts to intervene (as is clearly the case, look how long this discussion has dragged on), but still managing to cause maximal disruption. It's a skillful game, but I do wish people would stop feeding her. I end by citing from Wikipedia's own article on [|Wikipedia trolls]
Trolling is not necessarily the same as vandalism (although vandalism may be used by trolls). A vandal may just enjoy defacing a webpage, insulting random users, or spreading some personal views in an inappropriate way. A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people.
and
The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality.
Would someone argue that that isn't the exact description of Strangesad's actions on Wikipedia?Jeppiz (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well yes Jeppiz I agree with that, but I am alarmed to see numerous comments on this lengthy discussion saying "no need for a topic ban", "take it to DNR", "take it to an RFC/U", "take it to arbcom", in other words, drag it out for more months or years when it needs to be dealt with right now, stop the disruption by an admin giving Strangesad a topic ban, which is what most people here have been calling for - also alarming to note that most editors calling for an action here does not necessarily constitute consensus.Smeat75 (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peteforsyth & Russavia

On 19 June I blocked Russavia (talk · contribs) indefinitely for disruption and this block was overwhelmingly supported by the community [64]. On 24 June AGK locked Russavia's talkpage for a month as a consequence of using his talkpage to continue the disruption and threatened to remove his talkpage access permanently if this continued [65]. Following the expiration of that lock Russavia has been using his talkpage in a manner clearly designed to solicit desired edits on the project. For example, the following diff shows him striking out comments once they have been actioned [66]. Since then a further 4 edits designed to solicit edits have been made.

On 9 August I revoked Russavia's talkpage access as I felt that it was being used for an inappropriate purpose. I felt that another recent ANI discussion [67] concerning Apteva was relevant as their talkpage access was removed while blocked for using the page to solicit edits while blocked. While Apteva was more blatant than Russavia, I see no difference in substance between their actions - especially given that Russavia has been blocked indefinitely and, at the time, Apteva had been blocked for a month.

My block of Russavia's talkpage was challenged by Peteforsyth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - see discussion on my talk page [68] who subsequently undid it as well as removing the standard block settings preventing account creation and ip-autoblocking (basically turning a hard block to a soft block). I see absolutely no logic for this alteration and no satisfactory explanation for the change has been provided - referring to blocks being preventative rather than punitive seems to step around the strong consensus endorsing my original block. I am also concerned that Peteforsyth is not neutral with regard to Russavia - He is clearly friendly with Russavia on Commons and recently supported him in de'crating and de'admining discussions as well as a March post on Russavia's commons talkpage expressing his admiration [69]. I have asked Peteforsyth to clarify this but he did not respond to this question.

I basically have 3 questions that I would appreciate feedback on:

• Is it acceptable for an indefinitely blocked user to solicit edits on their talkpage?
• Is Peteforsyth sufficiently neutral to have undone my talkpage block without seeking a consensus here & was it OK to convert Russavia's block to a softblock?
• Should we leave the softblock be or restore the hardblock?

As noted on my talk, I'm on holiday and have sporadic internet access so may be not be able to step back to this discussion regularly. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

According to previous discussions on this noticeboard, Russavia was de facto community banned. Peteforsyth is a supporter of Russavia on Commons. He has expressed his personal view that the dispute between Russavia and Jimmy Wales will "blow over". That completely overlooks the Jimmy Wales topic ban of Russavia put in place by Newyorkbrad. Now that the dust has settled from mid-June, it might be worth formalizing a community ban of Russavia either here or on WP:AN. Mathsci (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Responding to the 3 questions in order: If the solicited edits are not themselves problematic, I have no idea. Probably not a WP:Involved violation, as such the conversion was permitted, but unwise. (unwise both due to the potential appearance of bias, and because an admin action should only be reversed prior to discussion for very good reason) I can think of no justification for the change to a soft block, and so Support restoring the hardblock. Monty₈₄₅ 05:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• I do not understand why concerns about copyright (see here) or images not conforming to WP:NFCC (like this) lead to the removal of the talk page access as they were considered as not being helpful. In his reasoning, Spartaz claimed that In the case of indefinitely blocked users, talkpages should not be used to post material about article content. Is it really the intention to have notifications about copyright problems suppressed just because an editor is blocked? --AFBorchert (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: Just an observational note. The block is a hardblock, and Russavia came into #wikipedia-en and made the following comment:

[02:08] russavia an admin around? a hardblock in conjunction with an account creation prevention -- this would mean that any IP i've edited from in the last 3 months would be prevented from editing or creating an account?

Just wanted to point that out. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is now a soft block [70]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Dusti, aside from being wrong about the block, do you know that posting IRC logs on-wiki is considered a blockable offence by some? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Peteforsyth is WAY too WP:INVOLVED to make that decision by himself. Perhaps he could justify the restoration of the talk page access, but not the other things. I think we may need to run a CU to check if Russavia has circumvented his block as a result of this ridiculous decision. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Point 1, doing so would normally be, in my book, meatpuppetry but given that they're blocked anyone acting on their behalf is basically a sock (not in the classic sense, I hope people understand what I mean). Point 2, Peterforsyth could argue that their friendly relationship with Russavia on Commons is off-en-wiki, but I would argue that given the closeness of Commons and En Wiki, Peterforsyth could in no way be considered uninvolved to be performing such admin actions. Point 3, admins should not be unilaterally converting imposed hard blocks without consultation. Blackmane (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Responding just to your first question: it all depends on how it's done. Since good blocks are imposed to prevent disruption, a reasonable request for what's really an improvement should definitely be fulfilled, and any rule that prohibits it is a rule that prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Of course, requests for things that damage articles should be denied, and unreasonable requests (e.g. attacks on someone else) are a great reason for shutting down talk page access. Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed in general, but I don't think we want to encourage people to become meatpuppets who proxy edit for people who are de facto banned. If Russavia came across something glaring and posted it to his talk page in the hopes someone could help, that would be fine. But if he is repeatedly asking for people to edit on his behalf, then I agree with removing access. I also support others in stating that the hard block should be restored. Resolute 13:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note Whatever the issues over talkpage access, the IP block and account creation blocks need to be put back, they are entirely standard settings and Pete did not address why on earth he had done that in his response to Spartaz. [71] Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think this was an appropriate use for a talk page of an indefinitely blocked editor. By indefinitely blocking someone we have decided that we do not want them contributing to the encyclopedia. Talk page access is primarily given for the purpose of discussing the circumstances surrounding the block, not for making more contributions. Whether the edits are constructive makes no difference - blocked editors are blocked from making any sort of edit, not just from making unconstructive edits. If anything I would consider use of a talk page in this way to be a form of gaming the system by showing that the block is ineffective. Nor do I see why the hardblock was turned into a softblock, as hardblocks are almost always used in situations where the blocked editor was being actively disruptive. Hut 8.5 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed; reset block settings to before Peteforsyth changed them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support talk page access, though I have no opinion on the rest. AGK shouldn't have revoked his talk page access in the first place since Russavia was simply responding to an article written about him in the Signpost. Now he has just been commenting about legitimate issues with content. Revoking talk page access under these circumstances is unduly punitive. As Russavia is merely blocked rather than banned he is allowed use of his talk page for things other than appeals regarding his block.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple comments, since it seems people want them.

• Russavia's edits to his talk page in no way relate to the stuff that he was banned for. Since I restored his privileges, he has flagged four clear copyright violations that have existed on the site for 4 to 9 years -- clearly and uncontroversially problems that should be addressed. That's it. No fanning of flames, no drama. In my view, no harm, no foul. This is a markedly different circumstance than the one Spartaz originally cited as precedent, which among other things involved the use of the {{helpme}} template. If anybody can't handle what's going on, all they have to do is unwatch Russavia -- problem solved.
• Yes, of course I am a collaborator who works with Russavia. He has been around a long time, does a lot of good work; I have learned a lot from him and enjoy his company. This is a far cry from saying I endorse everything he does, or am some kind of meatpuppet. If there is relevance, I fail to see it. My actions have been motivated by what is best for Wikipedia, not by a sense of personal loyalty.
• The hardblock-to-softblock conversion is something I did for a different reason, and something I had expected would be entirely uncontroversial. I have had more than one student who, when attempting to create their first Wikipedia account, are prevented from doing so, and after some digging the reason has turned out to be an autoblock that had absolutely nothing to do with them. To me, this seems like a significant problem in the recruitment of new users, and I would think that autoblocks would typically be used very lightly in consideration of that unintended consequence. I have never heard an allegation that Russavia has socked; doing so seems to me out of step with his approach to editing wikis; and I looked through his block log to confirm that socking has never been at issue. With all that in mind, I thought that removing the anti-socking aspects of the block would be a simple and uncontroversial change. I guess I was wrong, and this is probably not the best venue to address what now seems to me like an overly reactive general approach that has evolved here in relation to blocks.

With all that said, I'm done here -- this is not the kind of thing I log into Wikipedia to work on. I'll probably check back to see what is said, but overall I don't see this as an issue worth the ink that has been spilled on it. I think we all have better things to do. -Pete (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to be involved in discussions about this sort of thing, don't go messing around with high-profile blocks like this one as it is pretty much guaranteed that this sort of hint will attract attention on the drama boards. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Status quo ante - Quite clearly an ill-advised and possibly bad-faith maneuver on PeterForsyth's part, given their Commons connections. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not to put too fine a point on it, blocked means blocked. If a user is blocked, the inherent assumption is that they may not edit the English Wikipedia except to make a block appeal. If that assumption is incorrect, the appropriate action is not to grant them talk page access and give them a limited, hindered route to editing by proxy; it is to unblock them. And to "un-revoke" their talk page access because the edits, of themselves, are constructive is to entirely – I regret to say – miss the point. Revoke talk page access and refer Russavia to an appeals venue. (Full disclosure: Last month, I protected Russavia's talk page for a month, thereby temporarily revoking his talk page access.) AGK [•] 13:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that's an assumption which is particularly prevalent. The user talk page is used for all sorts of notifications (ANI, copyvio, SPI) which may be unrelated to their block but where some sort of response would be expected or solicited. Besides this, many blocked users, like Russavia, use their talk pages to discuss page content issues, and this is the first I've noticed anyone object to this practice. It would help if the community would actually codify its attitude towards this behaviour. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I forget the bit of WP:ALPHABETSOUP where it's at, but a blocked user's talk page is supposed to be used only for unblock requests. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I've heard that said before but never seen the policy that supports it. Can someone point to it, please? I've never been able to imagine a rationale behind such a restriction. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption. A blocked editor mentioning copyvios on his talk page is not being disruptive. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support talk page access - I do not find the edits that are at the heart of this complaint to be problematic. As this is an editor with a history of figuring out where the boundaries are and then walking 3 steps over with his pants around his ankles, shaking his backside at the world like Bart Simpson, I don't anticipate that he will stay within the bounds of such directed, content-related criticism for long. There will no doubt be a time when the cudgel needs to be wielded again, but I don't find anything the least bit wrong with the "corrections to be made" approach. Carrite (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support talk page access. I do not see any point in blocking talk page of a blocked user unless it is used for personal attacks, harassment, soapboxing of particularly offensive POV and similar disruption. Seems to be the case here as I do not see Russavia using talk page for disruptions (at least recently). Some users do not have the right temperament or skills to work with the article space directly but they are productive discussing article content on their talk page. Usually such type of work reduces tensions and helps the problem editor to learn the correct way of editing in article space. Not sure about account creations and autoblocks. Usually it is a bad idea, if Russavia has any special circumstances related to the matter, it is really should be discussed offwiki Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Status quo ante - it just looks like the ultimate gamer is starting to game again. What part of "no, we don't want you contributing, everything you do is disruptive" doesn't he understand? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Status quo ante - obviously. Why would I need to add anything to what Smallbones said? That's it, really. Begoon ^talk 05:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support talk page access, until and unless he starts to actually use his talk page disruptively. Don't care if he's soft- or hard-blocked - no evidence has been presented supporting the view that he's likely to sock. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support hard block but with talk page access. Talk page access is a useful valve to allow venting of the frustration at being blocked. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• In the absence of any policy or guideline which unamiguously says that this is an inappropriate use of the user talk page, I support talk page access. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Reinstate hard block, with talk page access - I'm now going to !vote here, and there's a reason why I feel Russavia should have talk page access. It's not because he hasn't been disruptive there - he's clearly editing by proxy. But that's the thing - it's clear. If we retract that access, he will STILL edit via proxy, but we won't be able to track it as easily. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone for your comments and thoughts. I get the sense that the hardblock should be restored but that there isn't a consensus to shut off Russavia's talkpage at this time. Can some kind soul make this happen or do we think the consensus is clear enough for me to do it myself? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably obvious from my earlier comment, but no objection here. I agree with your reading of the sentiment, though I can imagine others interpreting it in various ways -- lots of views expressed here. -Pete (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that there are no objections to this (and Pete agrees), I've just reinstated the blocks on account creation and IP addresses here; Pete, you could have done this. I've been strongly critical of Russavia in the past, and remain so, but this seems to be entirely uncontroversial per the above two posts and the clear consensus of the discussion. I'll leave it for another admin to judge the consensus around revoking talk page access again, as this seems less clear. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Peteforsyth proxy editing for Russavia

These edits were made on behalf of Russavia.[72][73][74][75][76][77] Peteforsyth has added links to Russavia's user talk page for the file deletion requests. They do not seem clear-cut, since Nyttend had already added "freedom of panorama" tags after Russavia's talk page posting.[78][79] Because the case for deletion of the images was not clear-cut, these edits seem WP:POINTY and would appear to create an awkward situation for any administrators trying to deal with the deletion requests. Mathsci (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Russavia

Notification of commons:Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia_(de-Bureaucrat) per Cecil. JKadavoor Jee 08:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious/problematic behavior of Moheen Reeyad, TilottamaTitlee, and Leelabratee

I've noticed some problems with editors Moheen Reeyad (talk · contribs), TilottamaTitlee (talk · contribs), and Leelabratee (talk · contribs).

• Moheen Reeyad copied the toolserver note Magnus Manske (talk · contribs) uses on his talk page, changing the links, despite the fact he doesn't have a Toolserver account, possibly attempting to pretend to have one.

• Update: This is gone now ([80]). Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Moheen Reeyad and TilottamaTitlee regularly edit each others' userpages [81] and trade barnstars [82].
• Moheen Reeyad and TilottamaTitlee both have userpages that look like articles. When I tagged them as userpages [83] [84], Moheen Reeyad untagged them [85] [86].
• Leelabratee, who doesn't participate in AfC other than what I mention here, has approved several AfC's by Moheen Reeyad, many of which should not have been created: Rajnitibidgon, Theatre Institute Chattagram, Kazi Ahmad Shafin, Template:William Jude Aher, Tilottama (disambiguation)

• Note that Tilottama (disambiguation) linked to User:TilottamaTitlee, but the link was piped to make it appear as an article.

• Leelabratee submitted Naree, Pak Sar Jamin Sad Bad, Hafiz Rashid Khan, Jahajee, Shironamhin Rabindranath, Ichchhe Ghuri, Bondho Janala, Rokeya Prachy, Agrabad (disambiguation) Moheener Ghoraguli discography, Bondho Janala, William Jude Aher, Shironamhin Shironamhin, Template:Moheen Reeyad, and Template:Shironamhin to AfC and accepted them himself, all of which Moheen Reeyad and/or TilottamaTitlee subsequently worked on.
• Leelabratee also accepted these AfC submissions of his own, though I don't see a connection to Moheen Reeyad or TillotamaTitlee with these ones: Chittagong Shilpakala Academy, Template:Shironamhin/doc, Shironamhin discography, Anjan Dutt filmography, Adam Surat, A Kind of Childhood, Tareque Masud filmography, Muktir Kotha, Template:Tareque Masud, Kagojer Phool, Ontarjatra, Muktir Gaan, Pohela Falgun, Anjan Dutt discography, and Cheragee Pahar Circle.
• Moheen Reeyad repeatedly adds links to his userspace from article space [87] [88] (entry originally added by 202.65.173.11 (talk) [89]) [90] (Leelebratee did this first [91]) [92] (Leelabratee added the original [93]) [94]
• Moheen Reeyad repeatedly requested a redirect from mainspace to his user page: [95] [96] [97]
• Moheen Reeyad removed content from Leelabratee's talk page [98]

I think that, at the minimum, meatpuppetry between these users exists (note that according to their userpages, TilottamaTitlee and Moheen Reeyad are dating), and AfC was definitely used to evade scrutiny of articles. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hashimukh, being actively edited. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And Leelabratee accepted it a different one by him. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, this doesn't look pretty. Just to begin with, encyclopedia articles must not be linked to userpages at all, see Wikipedia:USERPAGE#Userspace and mainspace. To create a userpage that looks like an article and then link to it as if it was one, is worse. It's either a crass attempt at self-promotion by masquerading as somebody who has a Wikipedia bio, or just some kind of fit of bad judgment. The removal of Jackmcbarn's userpage tags[99][100] makes it difficult to believe in the second alternative. I hope somebody has time to deal with it, as also the apparent misuse of AfC and other problematic behaviour outlined above — I have to go to bed now. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

• Ugh, indeed. I too have to go to bed as it's 1am, but I've redirected a few obviously NN band members to the band article and deleted a template with no links - that's as far as I've got so far. Some of the articles are obviously notable, but I'm sure not all of them are. I've sent the userpages to MfD as well. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• I went ahead and started AfDs on a couple of the articles that were definitely not notable and promotional, linking only to sales sites for the books. GregJackP Boomer! 00:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note: I brought up a previous issue with Leelabratee in June. Granted, it wasn't about potential sock/meatpuppetry, but there were serious editing concerns. Woodroar (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Since I posted the report, Leelabratee has accepted the following AfC submissions, all by Moheen Reeyad: Template:Jahajee tracks, Template:Jahajee, and Hashimukh. In addition, Moheen Reeyad created Category:Shironamhin songs on his own. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, Leelabratee has also accepted these AfC submissions of their own: Suprobhat Bangladesh, Ekobingsho, Humayun Azad bibliography, and Template:Humayun Azad (though the last two have such a move web that I'm not sure). Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As a RFC "regular" I've also noticed these odd activities - substandard drafts being accepted but didn't connect these users with each other. Unfortunately much of this activity coincided with a backlog drive which also revealed other problems. We're currently working on a few ideas for filtering out reviewers with insufficient experience and knowlege of the minimum acceptable standards for articles - which would probably also help to uncover abuses such as this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm ... As an AfC regular, and the man who dragged Arctic Kangaroo up to ANI a few weeks back, I can only repeat my increasingly regular calls for the ability to review submissions to be stripped and given out only by consensus at WP:RPE, which would solve all this for the long term. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't have stopped this, because for some of the articles, Leelabratee just moved them to mainspace and removed the AfC template manually. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Untangling this

• I've only got a few hours before I'm away for a few days, I'm afraid, but I'm currently leaving warnings on the three user's talkpages to stop their activity on creating new pages and AFC submissions until this is sorted out. I'll then try to have a look at some more of the articles. Black Kite (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've tagged a few more articles and deleted some that clearly fail speedy deletion criteria - and I've also opened an SPI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moheen Reeyad because some of the stylistic and spelling similarities between the three users' creations is far too close to be a coincidence. Good luck to whoever takes this up. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• On that note, could an admin keep an eye on them and warn/block if they carry on creating articles/using AFC? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going through their submissions. The trouble is, they aren't entirely obvious spam / promotional so they can't be speedied via WP:CSD#G11, and Theatre Institute Chittagong might be borderline notable - though I think that's more by luck than judgement. The numerous articles relating to Shironamhin might be notable, but the current articles give no indication why or cite any reliable sources - but again I think this is sufficient to avoid CSD. I've reduced a couple to redirects. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• My apology for my behavior. But, I want to contribute here. In sometimes I was confused as like my previous work. I committed, in future I should be careful. Moheen Reeyad (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Checkuser confirms that the three accounts are the same individual. Indefblocks for abuse of multiple accounts. Confusion doesn't go far in accounting for such abuse. I've blocked the three accounts; could somebody else add the appropriate tags to the pages, please? I'm having trouble finding them. (The tags, not the pages. :-)) Bishonen | talk 09:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC).

You want to use Template:SockBlock, probably with Moheen Reeyad as the master - I can add the tags but a) I'm not an admin and b) it's probably better if the admin doing the blocking also does the tagging. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

All now blocked and tagged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I agree with tagging MR as the sockmaster. I will now ask for help with something else that I don't know how to do (is there no end to the incompetence of this admin?). I would suppose from the circumstances that there may be some real names here — at least one. Is it possible to do the __NOINDEX__ thing for this particular ANI thread, or to hide it in some other way? It's really desirable that Google doesn't find it, IMO. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC).

• ANI and its archives are already noindexed, so no worries there. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Based on TilottamaTitlee's unblock request as well as earlier evidence, I'm inclined to think that this wasn't sockpuppetry, but rather meatpuppetry, although that may just be semantics at this point. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm impressed by your capacity for assuming good faith, but as you say it makes little difference. Thank you very much for bringing the problem to attention, Jackmcbarn. Perhaps somebody could close this now. Bishonen | talk 03:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

Have all of the articles been reviewed to see if they're worthy to keep? I only see a few that have been edited since I posted this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, from looking this over, I could see it as a family situation, with multiple people using different accounts from the same computer. That said, the fact that apparently they're - knowingly or not - gaming the system in that way means there's no practical difference from outright socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Maxximiliann

Section on Maxximiliann

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Maxximiliann (talk · contribs) is continually attempting to alter articles about historical topics relating to the Neo-Babylonian period to suit an alternative chronology which is a theological opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses. When facts are presented at Talk, he does not respond with any sources to support his view, and instead attempts to dismiss the evidence with childish retorts (e.g. [101]).

If not blocked altogether, the editor should be topic-banned from editing articles relating to Jehovah's Witnesses or the Neo-Babylonian period.

Dougweller (talk · contribs) has already warned the editor about edit-warring.

See:

• Talk:Babylonian captivity#JW chronology
• Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)#Erroneous Topic-Wide Chronology
• Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC)#Erroneous Topic-wide Chronology
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Editor changes biblical dates, etc
• User talk:Maxximiliann

--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Herewith I file a Counterclaim against Jeffro77 (talk · contribs).

The changes I've attempted to implement are solidly based on archaeological evidence (Cyrus Cylinder), historical evidence Jeffro77 (talk · contribs) himself has presented (See: Fringe Views? 04:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)), the research presented by other Wikipedia editors (See: 530s BC, 539 BC, 6th century BC, Babylonian captivity & Cyrus the Great among others.) and grade school arithmetic, to wit:

Since King Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E.. Cyrus' first regal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E. or "the seventh month (Tishri)" as Ezra 3:1 states. Since this date for Israel's repatriation after its seven decade exile in Babylon ( Chronicles 36:20,21; Jeremiah 25:12; Zechariah 1:12; Daniel 9:2; Zechariah 7:5 and Jeremiah 29:10 among others) is based on the pivotal year of 539 B.C.E, and is, therefore, authoritative, this makes:

1. Ab 607 BCE the legitimate year for the final siege of Jerusalem
2. 617 BCE the year for the second siege of Jerusalem and
3. 618 BCE the year for the first siege of Jerusalem

These are just simple, straightforward conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence. Really, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

However, since Jeffro has made it clear he intends to ignore the evidence and coerce his point of view on all Wikipedia pages pertaining and related to these historical events, it is with sincere sadness that I respectfully request he be topic banned from editing all articles discussing this period in ancient Jewish history. —Maxximiliann talk 01:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor's claim that This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E. is a fabrication. Most sources give 538 for that event. The "preponderance of the evidence" does not support these theological opinions of Jehovah's Witnesses. There is a great deal of evidence in support of the secularly accepted Neo-Babylonian period, and this is not countered by theological superstitions. Further, even if the scriptural passages are considered in context, they don't support the '70 years' as a period of exile anyway, but of nations being subject to Babylon, and a later release from exile.

The supposed "simple, straightforward conclusions" are based on a faulty premise and contradict all secular sources (and not merely 'my point of view') about the Neo-Babylonian period.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I would like to hear User:Dougweller first before any further discussion as a more reliable and neutral editor. Otherwise, based solely on above it could be WP:BOOMERANG. The very first link offered by Jeffro77 shows him/her reformatting the Talk page and creating subsection JW chronology over references like the NIV Student Bible which suggests that Jeffro77 is back to WP:Battleground behaviour with too much time combatting JWs. As far as the actual issue I justed posted a German academic source at the bottom of Jeffro77's Talk:Babylonian captivity#JW chronology section which makes it clear that the "JW Chronology" comes from a historically questionable verse in Book of Daniel - regret I have no English source to hand, but the German academic doesn't ascribe Daniel 1,1 to JW authorship. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The German source you provided explicitly states that any 607-based chronology is wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In relation to the other complaint, I gave the section a name (it previously had no name) because the other editor had tacked it onto a stale discussion from several years ago; I have no objection to renaming that section heading. The chronology these days is held almost exclusively by JWs. However, there are other minor Bible Student groups with common origins to JWs that also hold to these views. More accurately, the interpretation of the '70 years' in question is a teaching borrowed and adapted from Millerism, from which JWs and various other Adventist groups developed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro you're not getting it: this is ANI, not Sunday School, the issue is not my German academic's opinion of the reliability of Daniel 1,1 - no one here cares about what is "right" or "wrong" (moreover I don't see "wrong"/"falsch" anywhere in the ref I provided). The issue is WP:Battleground behaviour which your reply above "'70 years' in question is a teaching borrowed and adapted from Millerism, from which JWs and various other Adventist groups developed" (both factually wrong and confirms the simplistic combative frame of thinking here) just confirms. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your source states, "Diese Datierung widerspricht nicht nur allen historisch zuverlässigen Quellen, sondern auch den Darstellungen in den übrigen biblischen Büchern" (Literal translation: "This dating contradicts not only all historical reliable sources, but also representations in the other biblical books")--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I also notice that although In ictu oculi claims to be neutral in this matter, he made a jibe about 'Sunday School' when I briefly responded here to a matter he raised about a German source, yet he made no such objection to the POV comments made above by Maxximiliann.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Argumentum ignoratio elenchi. Since when is truth established by consensus? Try again.—Maxximiliann talk 02:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia WP:TRUTH. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also clarify that the concern expressed by In ictu oculi (talk · contribs) is based on only a subset of Maxximiliann's assertions. There are various changes sought by Maxximiliann in various articles that contradict reliable sources, and not just the more broad interpretations about only Daniel 1:1 raised by Iio. Considered in full, the position taken by Maxximiliann is peculiar to JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"The editor's claim that This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E. is a fabrication. Most sources give 538 for that event" Have I got this right? Are people really arguing over one year, could even be just a few months,when this ancient event of somewhat dubious historicity supposedly took place?Smeat75 (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

One year can matter a lot when you are a Jehovah's Witness trying to keep the house of cards that is your entire worldview from falling apart. Wikipedia should of course not see it as its mission to help keeping up that house of cards, but should simply provide the year most commonly used in reliable, non-sectarian sources - i.e. 538.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That difference of one year is only one of several changes the editor wants to make. He also wants to shift the fall of Jerusalem from 587 to 607, and he wants to move the earlier siege from 597 to 617. He wants to do this throughout Wikipedia. I recommend that Smeat75 (talk · contribs) read the actual discussions cited at the beginning of this section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As with the recent incident involving the Haymarket affair article here on Wikipedia, the overriding imperative needs to be the truth as sustained by evidence, not the upholding of they tyranny of the majority by fallacious argumentum ad populum. —Maxximiliann talk 02:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have missed some of our important policies which clearly shows that consensus and reliable secondary sources decide what goes in our articles - not anyone's private and unsupported interpretations of primary sources. Wikipedia is basically ruled by the the consensus of qualified opinions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A subjective interpretation of scripture does not trump all of the evidence on which the secular history of the Neo-Babylonian period is based.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support short topic holidays for both as [modified] per both's proposals - Maxximiliann from Bible chronology, Jeffro77 from Jehovah's Witnesses. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi has not disclosed that he has previously disagreed with me about theological issues and is not a neutral observer in this matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In this I'm neutral, I see you both behaving in a way that would benefit from a holiday. Jeffro77 I couldn't care less about "theological issues" and do not recall having seen you post anything related to "theology" - what I have seen (that Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion comes to mind) is single-minded pattern of WP:SPA edits, and have previously warned you about your focus on one religious group and conducting what looks more like "JW-hunting" suitable to a forum or blog than en.wp. In addition to your WP:Battleground behaviour on Talk pages and making it an issue of which church editors belong to, additionally in this case you need to provide a diff for where Maxximiliann self-identified as a "JW" - if you can't that would be an additional reason for holiday from "JWs" and contributing something else to the project. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You are definitely not neutral. (In ictu oculi's personal bias was demonstrated in this edit, where he lied about me in support of another editor's lie about me. Both editors ignored the actual order of events, which was evident from the diff supplied in my response[102][103].) But aside from that, I don't care about to which religion any particular editor belongs. Anyone is welcome to believe whatever they like. They are not welcome to push those beliefs onto Wikipedia articles about historical subjects that are extremely well attested by secular sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Lie is a big word. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. In ictu oculi said: "However if you actually look at the link Jeffro posted in evidence [104] all it shows is AuthorityTam notifying the page of the ANI, and Jeffro being caught calling AT a "liar," and then AT posting Jeffro's own words to show that he hadn't lied and Jeffro seems to have forgotten what he said at ANI." In that case however, 'AT' had actually posted my "own words" (where I provisionally agreed with a recommendation by another editor) from 3 days later than the original accusation made by 'AT' (who claimed I was 'moving to have that user blocked'). 'AT' in fact had lied about the order of events, and then In ictu oculi also lied by saying that 'AT' had not lied, which he did in order to make it appear that I had lied.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As to In ictu oculi's claim that this is merely a matter of me on some 'JW-hunt', see also concerns raised by Dougweller about Maximmiliann's edits.[105]--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::I ran into Maxximiliann when he started changing dates and the name of God in biblical articles. I ended up giving him two 3RR warnings, one for Book of Ezekiel and the other for Nebuchadnezzar II. I just noticed when I logged on a few minutes that he gave me similar 3RR warnings although I only edited Exekiel once and Nebuchadnezzar II twice. From a quick look at my edit summaries, I reverted him for changing dates and the name of God with no explanation, changes that in some cases then contradicted other articles. I also posted asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. Note that I've also notified Til about this discussion as he was also involved in it there and with some of the articles. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Doug, thanks, you would then agree with topic holiday for Maximillian? Be interested to hear what Til E says too. As regards Jeffro's involvement, do you see any diff for where Maxximiliann self-identified as a "JW" - much as none of us like JWs, given the recent Scientology "outing" on ANI etc, we shouldn't be attributing religion to other editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"much as none of us like JWs"

If you are prejudiced, In ictu oculi, you should only speak for yourself. Imagine if there was an "e" between the J and W and maybe then you can see the blatant religious intolerance. You might disagree with the opinions of members of a particular religious denomination but you don't speak for Wikipedia. Newjerseyliz (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Newjerseyliz, I fully agree, but the point is that I'm just being honest, declaring my weakness; I don't like anyone who knocks on my door when I'm watching TV, but two times now I have been the one standing up for two different editors accused by Jeffro77 of being JWs. I agree 100% with you that it's a small step from JW to any other religious group - imagine if there was an "e" between the J and W in Jeffro77's posts; the question User:Newjerseyliz is do you support Jeffro's attribution of religious affiliation to a User and characterizing the edits as "J W" ? Should en.wp be a place for religious hounding? What do you think? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Quit the irrelevant posturing. I didn't 'accuse' editors of being JWs. The fact that an editor may be a JW is not the point at all, as I've already clearly stated here several times. I stated (correctly) that an editor is allowing his own bias to heavily influence his dogmatic insistence of broad changes throughout Wikipedia. Not only has he quoted JW literature (without citing his source), but he is also pushing for a rewrite of history that is only important to JWs, the editor's personal bias is very clear. As I've already stated—repeatedly—whether or not he is officially a member of that group is entirely irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether Maximmiliann is formally (or even informally) a member of Jehovah's Witnesses has no real bearing on the fact that he is using Wikipedia to promote a minority view of history that is peculiar to that religion.--Jeffro7 7 (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::@In ictu oculi Yes, I'd agree with a topic holiday for Maximillian. I have seen no statement by him that he is a JW and I agree we shouldn't be attributing religion to other editors. However, I'm not sure this also means that if we see a pov being pushed that we can attribute to a particular religion that we can't point that out as Jeffro has done at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC) (although he's also called these view's Maxximiliann's views). Eg., we can say that a Creationist viewpoint is being put forward by an editor, surely? I'll also note that Maximillian moved from edit-warring to overtagging, eg [106] (by the way, do I spot some OR there from earlier editors as well as statements that need attributing so as not to be pov?)Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Doug, thanks again. Then I don't see anyone opposing a topic holiday for Maxxiimillian.

As for Jeffro77, the "I smell a JW!" approach is a bit different from someone noting that an argument (not person) tends to denying evolution, round earth or greenhouse gases. We generally don't need editors saying "I smell a Catholic!" "I smell a Pentecostal!" in the middle of esoteric Talk page discussions and these are borderline incursions into breach of WP:NPA "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.". And Jeffro77 is persisting here at ANI with identifying another user's religion, despite his own acknowledgement that the chronology is not exclusive to that group:

The Methodist Review - Volume 37 - Page 420 1855 "Jehoiachin fell about the year B. C. 606. At this date commences the seventy years' captivity. Judah was therefore carried to what we have called Babylon proper; for, as is apparent by the dates already given, Nineveh was now included in ..."

The only problem would be that a topic holiday for Jeffro77 might be tantamount to a full ban, since he/she seems to make no edits outside JWs. Perhaps then rather than a like-for-like holiday, a Warning not to attempt identifying other user's religion and then personalizing Talk on that basis might be in order? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You're seriously citing a periodical from 1855 to support your claim that the editor is promoting beliefs of some group other than Jehovah's Witnesses? Not only was that before the more recent discovery of a great deal of archaeological evidence from the Neo-Babylonian period, but the year for the fall of Jerusalem also has no special significance in Methodist belief. I already previously indicated that various minor Adventist groups hold to similar chronologies based on a view that developed from Millerism (and evidently other groups held similar views in the 19th century as well). The fact that such groups were more prevalent in the 19th century also has no bearing. I already explicitly stated that it doesn't matter whatsoever whether the editor is or is not a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, even though the edits are entirely consistent with the beliefs of that group (and not merely similar to the beliefs of a group from the 19th century). If the editor is a member of some other minor religion, or of no religion, the fact remains that his desire to distort the history of the Neo-Babylonian period is entirely inappropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It also strikes me as odd that In ictu oculi insists on charging me with 'borderline personal attacks', when it was he who said earlier today on this page that "none of us like JWs".[107] He clearly has his own reasons for wanting some kind of remonstration against me, which he's done during the last year almost every time I've particated in an ANI. My best guess is that he has maintained a grudge after a dispute with a "pro-JW editor" "spilled over" into an article he watches (where he labelled me a "anti-JW/ex-JW editor", though I don't identify as either).[108] Perhaps he just doesn't like atheists editing articles about religion. Who knows? Whatever the case, I haven't done anything improper here by preventing a biased editor (whether he be a JW, a Bible Student, or a Methodist from 1855) from trying to get false information put into all articles relating to the Neo-Babylonian period.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro, yes that's about right, your anti-JW activities spilled over into a mainstream Christianity article I had watchlisted, and I remembered it. Spot on. My view that en.wp is not a place for this kind of activity is not a "grudge," it is a view that en.wp is not a place for this kind of activity. I would say the same of an editor whose Talk page contributions are centred on anti-Catholic anti-Muslim anti-Mormon or anti-Bahai edits too.

And no I'm citing a Methodist periodical from 1855 to show that (whatever my own view on taking a verse from Daniel as historically reliable) the view isn't limited to the group you are going after.

I do not give an expletive deleted what group Maxximillian belongs to - and neither should you. If you want to play religious heresy-hunter, then please go do it on a religious forum. Your approach doesn't help dealing with edits like Maxximillian's and en.wp doesn't need a sectarian approach to keep fundamentalist chronologies out of history articles, there are plenty of editors willing to stand up for that anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your claims about others holding a strong belief about 607 are tortuous at best, and derive no support at all from the fact that groups in the 19th century held similar views (but not strongly) before the actual chronology was more clearly established. In fact, groups then believed it was 606, and even Jehovah's Witnesses didn't adopt 607 until the 1940s. I do not care whether editors are JWs, and I've engaged with various unbiased JWs (i.e. they are able to edit without relying on personal biases) on Wikipedia over the years; you've never heard about those because they weren't causing problems. I have only ever objected to editors injecting bias into articles (which I have done in the case of both 'anti-' and 'pro-JW' editors) or when being lied about by other editors. I've sometimes even been accused of being 'pro-JW' by other editors with a negative bias toward the religion. If following up the bias of other editors happens to occasionally affect your happy little world, well that's just tough. The fact that I have occasionally complained about biased editors doesn't make me the bad guy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It may be that Maximmiliann's views about both biblical chronology and importance of the name Jehovah just happen to co-incide with those peculiar to JWs, though that is extremely unlikely, and entirely unimportant. The views he is pushing (therefore his views) are also the views uniquely held by JWs. (Some extremely small Bible Student movement groups—which have common origins to JWs—hold to a similar chronology.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I was invited to give my comments here. This is a good demonstration of the fact we must admit that there are in existence conflicting views of history between differing schools of thought (the more so for BC times.) The JW school of thought and their view of history is but one example. So much of the reconstruction of events that long ago relies on assumptions, conjectures and interpretations made by historians who are 'mainstream' in one country, 'fringe' in the next country. The JW school of thought has enough of a following that it should be mentioned in the appropriate context on the relevant articles, in the relevant subsections, with attributation to them. I have no problem with a fellow editor subscribing to JW or any other belief system - as long as one doesn't try to make the entire project conform to one's own belief-system to the exclusion of all others. JWs follow methods for arriving at dates that are uniquely their own, not shared externally, and Maximilliann surely realizes this. Different schools of thought attribute different amounts of face value to different pieces of evidence, which is why one will hold a given shred of evidence at no value and ignore it altogether, and another may give that same evidence maximal face value while ignoring some other evidence. This is even among the critical historians who try to examine all primary sources whether Hebrew, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hittite, etc. etc. for their respective potential intended uses as propaganda in BC times. So accomodating the JW viewpoint in a dedicated subsection seems reasonable enough, but certainly not presenting it as the only correct view. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion is quite different to Maximmiliann's 'request' for the dates to be "corrected" in all articles relating to the Neo-Babylonian period: "Given the whole host of articles pertaining to this period in ancient Jewish history that need to be corrected to these dates, I kindly solicit your help to make these changes effective as soon as possible."[109]

I have no objection to articles about relevant events having a brief subsection indicating notable alternative view(s). Such subsections would need a clear indication that they are not mainstream, and should not become preachy treatises. Such a subsection may be appropriate on articles such as Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC), though I do not see that it would be appropriate or necessary to modify every article for which JWs posit a different year (the 20 years they add to the Neo-Babylonian period affects the timing of all earlier events, in addition to other variations in their chronology before, after and during the Neo-Babylonian period), nor at every article that happens to mention the year for events they consider notable. I do not believe such sections would be appropriate at list articles in the form "Year BC", as it would dominate the content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Maxxiimillian wrote above simple, straightforward conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence. Really, I don't see what all the fuss is about whenever I see that from an editor on the project for all of 4 days, about material from 2,500 years ago, I would say topic ban immediately. --Malerooster (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

His newness to the project generally works in his favor, not against him, per WP:BITE. But his responses I have seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Editor changes biblical dates, etc consist largely of rhetorical retorts like "And how exactly does that change the fact that your entire argument is just naked casuistry of the worst kind?" I would give him a chance to acclimatize to our more tolerant culture, and explain that he can help properly elucidate this viewpoint in the appropriate places as Jeffro outlined, but if he doesn't shape up soon and continues to insist his view is the only correct one, he can and should be topic banned. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You've made some very salient points which I have certainly taken note of. And, for the record, I would be more than happy with a subsection explaining the controversy surrounding the use of 587 BCE as opposed to 607 BCE in relevant articles just as the opposing opinions of Albright, Thiele and others are also represented. In my humble opinion, I think this would be very much in harmony with WP:NPOV.—Maxximiliann talk 15:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There really isn't much "controversy surrounding the use of 587 BCE as opposed to 607 BCE". 587 has broad acceptance. Dogmatic adherence to 607 is controversial. The view certainly isn't as notable as the views of Albright and Thiele, but as already stated, it should not be a problem for articles about relevant events to have a brief subsection explaining the JWs' alternative date. Such subsections must be based on reliable sources (which may include JW literature for expressing the JW belief, though secondary sources would be preferred), and not merely on subjective interpretations of scriptures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Regrettably, although you might be happy with a separate subsection, I believe WP:CONSENSUS overrides the opinions of any one editor. Also, there is a real problem of any article of this type, where there seem to be religious opinions on a topic which might not have much if any support in the independent academic world, that an article could quickly be overburdened by material on the alternative view(s). Largely because of that, I believe that we have made it a point to follow the lead of, basically, the leading reference sources of all kinds. Jeffro is an experienced editor around here, with some familiarity with policies and guidelines, if also, maybe, a bit too anti-JW, and I think between Maxximiliann and himself they might be able to determine whether there is sufficient basis to establish notability of a separate article on the alternative dates given by the JWs to biblical events, and/or whether they would meet WP:WEIGHT guidelines in the main articles, or whether there might be (maybe) reason for thinking that some sort of alternative views of the Siege of Jerusalem article including this material and other might be best. But I would very much urge Maxximiliann to familiarize himself with the relevant policies and guidelines first. Otherwise, I would tend to support Til's statements in general myself. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow. What religious opinions have I expressed? —Maxximiliann talk 19:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just discovered that at Talk:Book of Ezekiel he has written "I propose that, especially in articles written in English, "Jehovah" be used as God's proper name." Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

And how precisely is suggesting that English names be used in articles written in English a religious statement? —Maxximiliann talk 02:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's fairly clearly a rather clear statement of not only a religious opinion, regarding "Jehovah" being God's proper name, but also one which fairly clearly and I think exclusively is held by the JWs. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Maxximiliann's question, What religious opinions have I expressed? He quoted a JW publication at Talk:Book of Ezekiel (without providing his source), and it's been fairly evident all along that he is expressing the views of Jehovah's Witnesses. As I've already stated, the fact that an editor is either a member or supporter of the religion is unimportant, but it is not appropriate to deny a conflict of interest.

You are mistaken. That "Jehovah" is the English translation of the Hebraic Tetragrammaton is well attested to by many, many scholars. —Maxximiliann talk 02:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not object to Til Eulenspiegel's suggestion about a brief subsection at existing articles about events that are significant in JW belief. I do not believe there is sufficient notability (i.e. discussion in reliable secondary sources) for a separate article on the matter. The JW belief about 607 BCE is currently expressed in various articles about Jehovah's Witnesses: Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses, Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine, and Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

With all those articles already covering it, one would have to conclude that it has received due mention here somewhere. I'd have to check on articles on the Siege itself to see if the JW belief gets much attention in them. I don't know one way or another, but I tend to think that really independent academic sources on the subject probably don't give the religious views of what is apparently one fairly significant, but still rather small as percentage of the population, group's variant ideas about dating much if any attention at all. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I note the segue from "in articles written in English, "Jehovah" be used as God's proper name" to the argument that "That "Jehovah" is the English translation of the Hebraic Tetragrammaton is well attested to by many, many scholars." That's not an argument for using Jehovah instead of any other name in our articles, something that can't be decided here or on an article talk page. Since I know for a fact that Yahweh is used by many scholars writing in English, M's argument fails but does indicate the type of argument he uses - which simply isn't helpful. Again off-topic here, I'm concerned about using non-mainstream dating even in a subsection unless it is significantly discussed in reliable mainstream sources - otherwise where do we draw the line, and how to we maintain WP:UNDUE in articles? Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Maxximiliann is now resorting to personal attacks.[110].--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, calling people bigots isn't really going to help anyone, is it? Anyone think that we shouldn't block here? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, just blocked 24 hours for personal attacks. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

At his User Talk page, Maxximiliann has responded to the block by asking, "How is it that I incurred such a penalty when In ictu oculi at the outset identified Jeffro as a bigot, yet, received no sanction?" This raises the fact that not only is Maxximiliann still continuing the same personal attack, but also that In ictu oculi has made false accusations about me at this ANI as well.

I correctly indicated that the editor is pushing a JW POV in articles. In ictu oculi insisted that other groups hold to the same position. To 'support' this he provided two sources: 1) A German source that says a particular interpretation of Daniel 1:1 might seem to support 607/606 but it contradicts all historical sources and all other biblical material; 2) A Methodist periodical from 1855—before a great deal of more recent archaeological evidence—that mentioned 606. Other editors have also stated that Maximilliann is in fact editing from a JW perspective. Basically all I'm guilty of is knowing more about the subject than In ictu oculi. Please instruct In Ictu oculi to leave me alone.--Jeffro77 (talk) 9:29 am, Today (UTC+10)

"Basically all I'm guilty of is knowing more about the subject than In ictu oculi" - true in one point, in that you know more about Jehovah Ws than I want or need to, just as I hope you recognise that en.wp Religion editors know far more than you about Christianity outside Jehovahs Witnesses. However I stand by the observation, based entirely on your own appearances, that you are in effect an SPA whose main activity on en.wp is detecting, baiting and combatting one particular Christian group. And it surprises me that there's apparently either indifference or even tolerance and approval at ANI for this activity, and that not a single editor feels it is worthy of a Warning. To extend what NewJerseyLiz noted any editor who made the section edit you did identifying another editor's views as new section "Jew views" rather than new section "JW views" would rightly be nuked off en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. You claimed that other groups believe the same chronology. You provided two sources that do not support your claim. You were wrong, and that's all. It's notable that In ictu oculi is either unaware of or chooses not to mention the many times I've indicated other editors' bias against JWs. For example, see parts of Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 49, Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 50, Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 51 where Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) (now blocked) was vigorously trying to assert that JWs cannot be listed as 'Christian'. (I also note that another editor (Lisa (talk · contribs)) has previously suspected similarity in approach by Alastair Haines and In ictu oculi[111], though I don't assert that they're the same person.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

NewJerseyLiz explicitly responded to the inappropriateness of In ictu oculi's own comment that "none of us like JWs". Yet In ictu oculi imagines that NewJerseyLiz's statement implies something about my edits, merely because I correctly identified a quite obvious POV. Dougweller and John Carter have also stated that the POVs expressed by Maxximiliann are those of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The claim by In ictu oculi that Jeffro's main activity is "detecting, baiting and combatting one particular Christian group" further betrays his own ignorance, bias and combative attitude. Jeffro has been praised by many editors for his insistence on Wikipedia policy and his tireless efforts to counter the efforts of zealots who try to both censor criticism of the JWs (contained in RS material) and turn JW-related articles into JW PR propaganda. Reading this thread, there is a stark contrast between the behavior of Jeffro, who fights to keep articles balanced and unbiased, and Maxximillian, who is striving to transform encyclopedic material to fit the JW world view. BlackCab (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I supported a block for Maxximillian. The issue now is Jeffro77 and BlackCab's use of en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, this should be interesting. BlackCab (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - since his block, Maxximillian has continued to label me a "bigot" at his User Talk page.[112][113][114][115] He is basing this opinion on the false representation of me by In ictu oculi (Iio) that Iio's own statement that "none of us like JWs" is somehow comparable to my identification of a JW teaching as a JW teaching. Iio claims that changing "JW" to "Jew" demonstrates his point (a misrepresentation of a statement made by NewJerseyLiz (talk · contribs)). Whilst the change in semantics does demonstrate Iio's bias regarding groups whom he alleges that 'we all don't like', it would not be 'bigotted' or 'discriminatory' to identify a Jewish teaching as a Jewish teaching. Indeed, if an editor insisted that some unique Jewish tradition be used as the basis for replacing some otherwise well-established fact across all of Wikipedia (though I'm not aware that there has been any attempt to do so), it would be entirely appropriate to identify it as a Jewish view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't expect my comment to In ictu oculi to have such "legs". It was really just a corrective statement directed to him, to be more careful with language, and not a condemnation of him or any other party. Every single person has their own biases but at least in the Wikipedia universe, we try to set aside biases in the interest of obtaining accurate representations, regardless of our personal allegiances. I apologize to Iio if my words came across as reproving or harsh. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 21:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Jeffro introduced the Jehovah's Witnesses, a persecuted minority, mind you, as a red herring in a debate on ancient Jewish history to distract from the fact that (1) Cyrus the Great decreed the repatriation of the exiled Jews in Babylon in the year 539 BCE, (2) the Diaspora lasted 70 years and (3) 538/537 BCE + 70 ≠ 587 BCE. How does this obvious antipathy for them not clearly evince his hatred and utter intolerance for Jehovah's Witnesses? —Maxximiliann talk 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me interrupting the thread here, but I would like to point out that the reference Maxx quotes above says "Traditionally the Babylonian Exile...lasted 70 years." I have just been reading a lot about the "Exile" and re-doing the WP article on it, and all sorts of "traditional" beliefs about it are now disputed or disproved by archaeology. All the Jews were not taken into Babylonian captivity, only a minority, the decrees of Cyrus in the book of Ezra may not be genuine, there was probably not a single event when the Jews returned, more a gradual process. Therefore it seems to me that endless squabbling about the dates of events that did not take place, or may not have taken place, is a fairly futile exercise.Smeat75 (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Regarding the decree in Ezra, it's unsurprising that Jewish texts recorded Cyrus' decree as the will of their god, whereas the Cyrus Cylinder records it as the will of Marduk (Babylonian). Cyrus allowed Jews to return in his first year as king, but many Jews remained in Babylon. It's also notable that Maxximiliann dogmatically insists on 537 for the initial return, though most sources say 538; this is clearly in favour of JW views about 607. I've tried to tell Maxximiliann several times that a subjective interepretation of scripture doesn't trump all the archaeological evidence about the period.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it is blatantly obvious that the view you're pushing is that of JWs, and you've also pasted material from JW literature at another Talk page. On to your numbered points:

1. The reign of Darius the Great (which you've since corrected to Cyrus) didn't begin until 522 BCE (even in JW chronology). You're confusing him with 'Darius the Mede' (as named in the Bible, but elsewhere called Gobryas) who was the General who captured Babylon in 539 BCE for Cyrus. Further, it was Cyrus who made the decree for the Jews to return, not Darius.
2. Your Google Books link reveals that the words Babylon, exile, 70 years, Jerusalem, and encyclopedia appear together on the same page in one encyclopedia, which is evidence of nothing. Babylonian records (BM 21946, VAT 4956, thousands of contemporary business records, etc) confirm not only the accepted history of the Neo-Babylonian period, but also the Bible's own statement that the '70 years' was a period of Babylonian dominance rather than a period of Jewish exile—in fact, exiles were taken on numerous occasions, and most of them were taken about 11 years prior to the fall of Jerusalem. You are welcome to provide any secular source that supports 607 for the fall of Jerusalem. Claiming that the exile didn't begin until all the Jews were exiled to Babylon is like saying World War I didn't begin until every country in the world was involved (though not all countries were). Varous sources also indicate that Judea was not 'completely depopulated', but that parts of Judea remained populated throughout the entire period (e.g. The Babylonian Gap, Ephraim Stern, Biblical Archaeology Review, 26:6, November/December 2000, page 51: "I do not mean to imply that the country was uninhabited during the period between the Babylonian destruction and the Persian period." Stern also states that "the northern part of Judah" was "spared this fate.")
3. Because it was Babylon's dominance, and not the exile that lasted for 70 years, your arithmetic is not relevant. Also, since most sources indicate 538 (rather than 537) for the return of the Jews, it would seem natural that you would therefore insist on 608 (or at least "608/607"), yet you are insisting that the correct year 'must be' 607 (a JW teaching).

It is not "hatred and utter intolerance" to confirm that no secular sources support the view you want presented throughout Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The only reason you introduced the Jehovah's Witnesses into this discussion was to exploit the widespread hatred, prejudice and bigotry many feel towards them, including that of Wikipedia editors and admins. How does this not evince your own personal hatred and utter intolerance for Jehovah's Witnesses? —Maxximiliann _{Thank! ~ Comments ~ Questions?} 01:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have provided clear evidence that the chronology you are pushing is not supported by any secular sources. Your accusation is irrelevant ad hominem, and itself constitutes a continued personal attack.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

As stated previously, you're welcome to present any sources supporting your views about 607 BCE.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

And I have. Unless you're insinuating the Cyrus Cylinder is an artifact of the Jehovah's Witnesses, not ancient Persian, or that all the secular scholarship that states the Jewish Diaspora lasted 70 years are really publications edited by the Jehovah's Witnesses. —Maxximiliann _{Thank! ~ Comments ~ Questions?} 01:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The Cyrus Cylinder provides support for events in 539 that are not disputed. It says nothing about 537. Most sources give 538 as the year for the return.

"All the secular sholarship" does not claim that the exile began at the destruction of Jersualem. Most of the exiles were taken in 597 BCE, and that is the year from which the Bible enumerates the exile (Ezekiel 40:1 explicitly indicates that the exile was several years prior to the fall of Jerusalem). Many scholars give the exile as a round period starting from the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (at which time a tribute was paid, which included slaves). None say the exile began in 607. The Bible's own statement that all the nations would serve Babylon 70 years (Jeremiah 25:11) is entirely consistent with the fact that Babylon conquered the Assyrians in 609 BCE and remained the dominant power until 539.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Your exegesis continues to be painfully rudimentary especially given Ezra 1:1; Jeremiah 29:10; 2 Chronicles 36:21; Jeremiah 30:3; Daniel 9:2; Zechariah 1:12 and Jeremiah 27:22 and the scholarly consensus that establishes the length of the Diaspora at 70 years. —Maxximiliann _{Thank! ~ Comments ~ Questions?} 02:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop. Your Google Books link doesn't say anything about anything. I have already indicated at another Talk page that you are taking those specific scriptures out of context (you've added a couple of others that I didn't specifically address before, but they add no weight to the chronology you're pushing). However, this page is not for in depth discussion of those. Interested editors can review my responses at the Talk pages indicated at the beginning of this discussion. Specific information about the context of the scriptures misused by Maxximiliann is indicated here. (Not to mention the fact that your interpretation of scriptures does not trump all the evidence for the established Neo-Babylonian period.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment First, I haven't had the time or the wherewithal to read through all of the comments here or go back to Talk Pages and see where this all started. But it seems like the crux is a different historiography of Early Christianity. Many churches and sects highlight particular aspects of history that they find notable or that illustrate some point that resonates with their theology. It seems like this is basically an issue of WP:WEIGHT. General articles about Early Christianity should reflect the mainstream consensus of acknowledged biblical scholars (such as members of the SBL) who combine expertise in textual and historical analyses.

If a particular church or sect has a different understanding than mainstream scholarship holds (which is likely as they have theological allegiances that academics are trained to set aside), these differences can be written into that church or sect's own Wikipedia article.

While this approach might result in a middle-of-the-road perspective for general articles on Christianity, I think, ideally, a reader should be able to read any of these pages and not be able to discern the religious (or nonreligious) views of the editors who contributed to it.

I should disclose my own background is in Religious Studies from a secular university and I remember one graduate student who was TA'ing a class in Early Christianity who was accused by one student of promoting fundamentalist Christianity. Considering she was a conservative Jew, she thought that this was a compliment, that her presentation had been so fair, balanced and free of bias. I think this is a worthwhile aim for Wikipedia. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 21:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I kindly suggest you do take the time to investigate the relevant issues since, as I've continually highlighted, this is a matter regarding ancient Jewish chronological history and has absolutely nothing to do with the historiography of Early Christianity. —Maxximiliann talk 21:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Maxximiliann has been making POV edits based on their own readings of primary sources, and their talk-page comments are even worse in their use of flawed arguments and primary sources. And they have just said above that they plan to continue. Although for the record, I don't agree with NJL's assertion that we should be working to appear biased in favour of any religious group at any one time, but rather to appear biased in favour of historical facts as accepted by the scholarly community. For the record, I found this thread because it was mentioned immediately above a thread I started last night on WT:BIBLE. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Argumentum assertio. The Cyrus Cylinder is an archaeological artifact and the fact that the Jewish Diaspora lasted lasted 70 years is well established by secular scholarship. Try again. —Maxximiliann _{Thank! ~ Comments ~ Questions?} 01:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) I'm not saying you're wrong about the length of the exile. I am saying you can't cite the Cyrus Cylinder as your source for anything on Wikipedia. Also, you seem to consistently use the non-standard phrase "argumentum assertio", a phrase which other Wikipedians should not reasonably be expected to understand since, for all intents and purposes, it appears to have been coined in the last few months on various internet forums by the non-notable apologist Joseph O Polanco.[116][117][118] (Note that with the exception of your own comment on Wikipedia, all of the other examples in the last search appear not to be in English.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess that is what happens when you read the argumentative comments and not the substance of the dispute. I was way off by a few centuries. While I had the context of the disagreement incorrect, I think my points about setting aside ones own bias is still valid. I'm trying to focus on core Wikipedia principles and not in the fight over details. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 01:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I agree with you entirely. But setting aside one's own bias is not the same as using an encyclopedia to make theological assertions that appear to defend others' religious views. Wikipedia articles on Christianity and all other religions should be written from a neutral point of view, not a sympathetic point of view or a Christian fundamentalist point of view. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Maxximiliann's claim about secular sources here is misdirection. As stated above, the Cyrus Cylinder provides support for events in 539 that are not disputed, but says nothing about 537 or 607. His Google Books link only indicates that one encyclopedia once used the words Babylon, exile, 70 years, Jerusalem, and encyclopedia on the same page. His claims about what secular sources say about the exile are also misleading, as none count it from the fall of Jerusalem, and even the Bible confirms that the exile began years before the fall.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Can user Maxximiliann please be indefinitely blocked already and this thread shut down. Enough is enough, but I expect more drahma and time sink in the future until he finally gets shut down. Oh well. --Malerooster (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support call for topic block now, - enough WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT
• issue warning to Jeffro77 for this diff. Or alternativley issue a barnstar if everybody here agrees that this kind of section heading is appropriate and according to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I correctly identified a JW teaching as a JW teaching. Your own bias in the matter has been thoroughly indicated in this discussion already. You should politely excuse yourself from any continued discussion, and refrain from making future false accusations about me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) I haven't checked what exactly the facts M is claiming are, but the 70 years figure, as far as I remember, is not exclusively a JW teaching. IIO having a bias does not disqualify him from participating (examine my edit history and you might be able to determine my "bias" as well). I don't think an indef block is appropriate yet. M is new and doesn't understand how we work on Wikipedia. They need mentoring to show them that we don't treat talk pages like message boards, but rather to make rational arguments based on reliable, third-party sources, and we don't synthesize primary sources. I think a topic ban on ancient Hebrew/Israelite history, broadly construed, until they can prove they have learned how to collaborate constructively, would be more appropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

'70 years' on its own is not uniquely a JW teaching. 70 years of exile starting from the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 is uniquely a JW teaching.

Iio's "bias" to which I refer is a grudge against me, as previously indicated in this thread; I was not referring to his ideology.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Maxximilian, I've reviewed this entire thread, and to me, the consensus is very clear: your edits on this topic area are disruptive to the building of the encyclopedia. So, I'm going to offer you a choice before I close this thread: would you prefer a topic ban from all articles relating religion, broadly construed, or would you prefer an indefinite site block? If you provide no response or a response which is not a direct answer to this question, I will go with the former. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Amazing! The exposition of truth a “disruptive activity.” Guess nothing's been learned from the last time you guys inadvertently perverted history.

Thing is, math doesn’t lie. 538/537 BCE + 70 ≠ 587 BCE. It can’t.

If my insistence on this reality is cause for punitive sanctions then, as an act of formal protest, I opt for indefinite site ban. Why in the world would I have anything to do with any movement that places argumentum ad populum fantasy above truth? —Maxximiliann _{Thank! ~ Comments ~ Questions?} 04:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional section on behavior of Jeffro77

• I request that after Maxximilian is blocked the thread be kept open for 24 hours to allow editors to comment on whether this kind of section heading is appropriate according to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines without the bigger and unanimously agreed problem of Maxximilian distracting from the lesser but still problematic issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller has already indicated in this discussion that it is appropriate to identify a particular POV as what it is. Dougweller and John Carter also specifically identified Maxximiliann's edits as JW POV. You are the only one who keeps ranting about my correct identification of M's POV, after you incorrectly claimed that other groups hold M's POV, and I've already demonstrated in this dicussion that you are not a neutral observer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't like unilateral refactoring of talk pages. And honestly (it may be my lack of experience of Jehovah's Witnesses) but "JW chronology" bears a superficial resemblance to "Jew chronology". But that's just my opinion. At most it merits a light slap on the wrist. If IIO is right, and Jeffro intends on engaging Jehovah's Witnesses articles in a problematic (non-NPOV) manner, this will come to light later and can be dealt with then. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Maxximiliann started a new discussion inside a thread at the top of the Talk page from several years ago. It was uncontroversial to move his comments to a new section at the bottom of the Talk page per the guideline for Talk page layout. Other editors have also indicated that it is appropriate to indicate a particular POV as what it is.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you give any indication that M wasn't the one who gave it the title "JW chronology"? I'm sorry if you did, but it looks to me like you took a comment that had been made (rather clumsily) by another user, and put it in a completely different context than that other user intended. Note that I am sure you are correct in asserting that M's view is the JW chronology, but taking another user's comment and putting a different heading on it even if you are right is still the wrong way to go about it. Take this from someone who spent 4 months last year being careful while dealing with an obvious COI user who everyone agreed was wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It was evident from refactoring the page that I added the title, as M's comments originally had no new title. However, it was already explicitly stated in the old section in question that it was also about a JW POV. I indicated early in this ANI (after In ictu oculi's somewhat surprising complaint) that at no point did I have any objection to changing that section heading. I'm also not aware that M specifically objected to that section heading.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "evident from refactoring the page"? Do you mean that if someone went and checked the edit history they would know it had been you who added the title? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Hijiri88 I'm more concerned about the section title than the refactor. But to clarify I can't actually comment on "Jehovah's Witnesses articles" because I don't look at them, my only previous exposure to this is when it spilled over into a mainstream article: Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion which concluded pleasantly enough with a broad input, but there was some JW/anti-JW Battleground and WP:Weight issues going on earlier. If User:Dougweller and User:John Carter do confirm that they do approve that specimen diff, then I'm cool. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The old thread also explicitly made reference to 607 as something that "only JWs teach"[119]. Additionally, the opening statement of the old thread was a copy-and-paste from the JW publication, All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial (page 282). So Maxximillian's POV was identified as a JW POV from the old thread anyway.

In ictu oculi states that his 'exposure' began when discussion "spilled over" into a "mainstream" article (which was itself originally written as a WP:COATRACK for the primarily JW POV of the 'torture stake vs. cross'). After lengthy discussion (March/April 2012), it was agreed to refactor the article. It was also promised to add other details that were deemed possibly significant, such as number of nails, etc, but that has not happened since. This is an encyclopedia, and all articles are mainstream. It isn't my fault that editors occasionally disrupt pages that are either directly or more loosely related to their POV. Nor do I have any reason to 'justify' my involvement on the JW WikiProject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

To be completely fair, I don't see the difference between someone in 2011 replying to a 2005 post, and someone in 2013 commenting in a thread that had apparently been live-but-moving-very-VERY-slowly since 2005. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a huge difference, but moving the new material to the bottom could be seen as a way of making sure new readers saw it, and is something I might have done. When you do that you have to add a section heading. I'm not that familiar with JW beliefs, and you could argue that it should have been more neutral, but if it is clear that's what the thread is about then I don't see a serious problem. If it's not, then it should have been more neutral. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, while I don't exactly hold it against J77 given what he was putting up with from M, it is pretty clear that he was already involved in a dispute with M.[120] And so he might have tried to be a bit more careful with his wording of the section title. Also, referring to posting in an old thread that others had been commenting infrequently over the last eight years (including on J77's side) as "hi-jacking" is not really fair. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The 'hi-jacking' was my own action. If you look at the history, you will see that I initially moved the entire section,[121] because I'd initially thought that M had put a brand new section at the top of the Talk page (as he has done at various other Talk pages), and this was indicated in the edit summary of my initial edit. However, when I looked closer and realised he had appended to an old discussion, I restored the section I'd inadvertently hi-jacked, and I gave M's new comments a new heading.[122]--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

First, I want it noted that I agreed that some of Max's edits were apparently pushing JW POV, but having not reviewed his other edits I can't be sure that they also have uniformly done the same thing. Regarding the section heading, I kind of agree with Doug (if that is what he said) that moving it into a separate section wasn't unreasonable, but, maybe, there might have been a slight bit of prejudice based on the previous discussion, which isn't necessarily a good thing, but not in my eyes really something that would deserve much attention or call for review. I'm not sure if the most recent versions of the Timetables of History type books include this in their listings, although I find it kind of hard to believe that they wouldn't, but I would assume that whatever years they might give it would probably reflect the recent scholarly consensus. John Carter (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Herbxue

User: Herbxue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user Herbxue has been engaged in an edit war on the Acupuncture article. The user was warned previously about 3rr here. A few months ago, violated 3rr warned here. Most recently, violated 3rr ([123], [124], [125]) and warned again here. He continued the edit war ([126] [127] [128]), engaged in personal attacks on the talk page, and showed no remorse/understanding of the edit warring. He gives personal attacks in edit summaries and edit wars asking for an admin to take action.

In summery, the user is an WP:SPA with a history of bias/disruptive editing in acupuncture-related articles. Recently, he's escalated to personal attacks and edit warring, including 3RR violations. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Im glad you posted this because its time for an admin to look into this issue. This mostly has to do with the questionable scientific basis of acupuncture, which is obviously a very controversial issue. But to be fair, I dont think Herbxue has any intent to engage in edit wars and I do feel that he is putting in a lot of effort to engage in discussions on the talk page and, until recently, was not that active in editing at all. At least not before I made that controversial edit regarding the effects of acupuncture. In any case, I hope any admin looking into this matter would be neutral and impartial, without any prejudices against this topic and its editors, or else the dispute won't end. -A1candidate (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for referring to the talk page discussions, A1Candidate. On all the recent controversial issues, I have either defended existing text, suggested compromises in wording on Mallexikon's edits to satisfy Dominus, suggested compromised wording on the issue of "theory" to satisfy Dominus, and more recently suggested mutually agreeable wording on the placebo issue. All this was met with immediate unexplained reverts by Dominus, who clearly has a strong POV, stating that acupuncture is practiced by "quacks". Dominus and Tippy have repeatedly restored wording that is controversial and not supported by the sources. When repeatedly asked to justify their edit using the source, Tippy responds by accusing ME of edit-warring. It is amazing that Tippy has the nerve to accuse me of edit warring when I have been the one trying to engage in the actual content issue while Tippy lectures me with WP policy that he himself is violating.

Please see my talk page and the acupuncture talk page under the subjects "medical procedure?", "theories?" and especially "its effects are due to placebo" to get a feel for how things have progressed the way they did. You will see a clear pattern of me trying to reach consensus and being reasonable, while Dominus and Tippy show a pattern of disruptive and disrespectful editing.Herbxue (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with the sentiments of both A1candidate and Herbexue. There has been a habit of drive-by editing/reverting by Tippy and Dominus at the acupuncture article, with no apparent effort shown to AGF or to even read the sources or verify the text that they are editing. Herbexue has made repeated requests at their talk pages and at the acupuncture talk page to address the article content, but the focus has been left on Herbexue himself rather than on the content or edits.Puhlaa (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note: this page is covered by standard discretionary sanctions under WP:ARB/PS. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Taking a quick glance at this since no one else is commenting: while I am skeptical of acupuncture and am inclined to think the page needs to be edited to be less promotional, it looks there's a good chance of a boomerang here. I have to get on my high horse a little bit. You can't just write something on Wikipedia and cite as a source something that directly contradicts it. My view is that ranks among the highest crimes one can commit on Wikipedia, especially if it is deliberate (but even if it is just negligent, as in the case of the Jagged affair). To bring this to ANI at this point seems remarkably brazen, as if there's an assumption that neutral parties can't read or comprehend sources. The article lead says right now: "General scientific consensus maintains that the effects of acupuncture are due to placebo, and is therefore solely dependent on a patient's expectation of treatment outcomes". Three scientific reviews are cited. As pointed out calmly on the talkpage, none of the sources support this statement. The only one that comes close is the Ernst paper, which only says: "In conclusion, acupuncture remains steeped in controversy. Some findings are encouraging but others suggest that its clinical effects mainly depend on a placebo response". The others two say (1) "A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found, which seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias" or (3 - Cochrane review) "For chronic low-back pain, acupuncture is more effective for pain relief and functional improvement than no treatment or sham treatment immediately after treatment and in the short-term only". Note that edit-warring goes both ways, but if someone is deliberately misrepresenting academic sources in Wikipedia, that seems much more problematic, and the party which should be looked at closely is the one working to include misrepresentation. Now, maybe one of these reviews, particularly the last one, really needs to be dropped. The argument can be made and hashed out, perhaps with the help of people at RS/N or something. It looks like Dominus is at least making an attempt to explain why some high-quality sources should be discounted (altho concluding consensus, when every source talks rather about controversy and uncertainty, seems untenable at this point), but I don't see the same at all from Tippy, whose comment when accused of lying was simply "no, u". I can't promise to be engaged in this conversation as I'll be traveling most of tomorrow. My hope is that future participants here resist the urge to slip into an alternate reality where the brazen source misrepresentation is not happening, simply because of the subject at hand and many people's preconceived opinions. Sometimes problems are just so obvious and incontrovertible that they have to be acknowledged. II | (t - c) 04:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be pleased address the content and sourcing issues you've raised. If you are able to spare the time, please bring them to the talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The above is possibly the most breath-taking missing-the-point comment I have seen at Wikipedia. TippyGoomba raised a report at ANI only to receive a detailed statement explaining that using a source to assert a fact when the source does not assert that fact is one of the highest crimes that can be committed at Wikipedia, and that Tippy is apparently supporting the statement of a fact when the three sources do not verify the statement. I saw the Jagged affair mentioned above, and agree that misuse of sources is far worse than vandalism and personal attacks and hoax articles. Tippy needs to assess the position and respond at ANI: Is it the case that some attempts to oppose fringe views have been excessive? Is Tippy going to remove the unverified assertion? Is Tippy denying what ImperfectlyInformed wrote above? The community must reject misuse of sources even when the misuse is "in a good cause". Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the sources do verify the assertion. I don't think that has any relation to the user conduct issue I've raised above. Even if Herbxue were correct on this issue, that doesn't change the fact he's a disruptive WP:SPA, with a history of edit-warring. I don't think there should be two parallel content conversations taking place here and on the talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The argument at Talk:Acupuncture#"Its effects are due to placebo" seems to be that a medical trial looks for evidence that a proposed treatment is more effective than a placebo, and therefore pretty well any source can be used to verify "the effects of acupuncture are due to placebo" because that default position applies until evidence to the contrary is available. The fact that the three sources do not support that statement is (apparently) not relevant because the reader should understand the default position of medical science. While there is a lot of merit in those statements, the article simply must be reworded (for example, to assert that the only known benefit is from placebo) as it is not satisfactory for a source to be used where verification relies on the editor "believing" the source verifies a statement which does not appear in the source. The question of whether there is a problem with another editor's behavior is very much secondary to whether Wikipedia's voice should be used to assert something that is not in the any of the three sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Were the reverse true, we would not discuss user conduct on the talk page of the Acupuncture article. Similarly, I don't think this is the appropriate venue to discuss changes to the article. If an admin wants me to rehash the argument here, I'd be happy to do so. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Bumping this. I hope an admin has some time to take a look. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

TJRC

TJRC block needed.

Barrage of blatantly false accusations; Comments being deleted (from Copyright status of work by the U.S. government talk page and from within tags in the article).

(revived discussion)

Please see this DRN, which received no input, even after a relisting : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=567171893#Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government

Re. links and diffs to involved pages, editors, proposed solutions : see the DRN, please… --Elvey (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, TJRC deleted your Talk page comments exactly once, apparently because he believed that you were editing his comments. I can see why: the formatting, quite frankly, is a mess. Indented quotations may be standard in scholarly works, but indenting on Talk pages means another editor is writing, so when you mix and match indented sections and single sentences per line you become impossible to follow. In addition to that, half of your discussion is on the Talk page and half is in edit summaries. Use the Talk page to discuss. Also, there's no need for edit summaries like this, accusations and demands, or "bumping" comments. You're absolutely right that TJRC shouldn't have made the revert on the Talk page. I feel that he's probably been overzealous in tag removal, too, but he's trying to get a clear justification for the tag but not getting one from you. Please just AGF and answer his question without unnecessary indenting and copying attacks from further up the page. Woodroar (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for (if I'm reading you correctly) confirming that TJRC did delete my talk page comments, shouldn't have, and explaining that his accusation that he was reverting a violation of WP:TPO by me was mistaken. I hope TJRC will recognize/acknowledge it too. I couldn't make sense of the false accusation at the time, but see HOW he went wrong now. If you can suggest a better way to include those quotations in the talk page, I'm all ears; if it's a mess, then perhaps we can agree on something better. It seems pretty readable to me; I certainly wouldn't call it a mess; what minimal markup will improve it? IIRC, the quote template makes a worse mess.

I'm not sure if you managed to miss the content of the mainspace edit of the diff I provided, but in addition to the deletion you linked to - of THREE questions of mine, I wrote that TJRC " DELETED THE ANSWER " - and in fact he deleted my answer over and over and over and over and over - the answer he deleted 5+ times is: "Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government; they are subnational entities." Because I had answered the question 5+ times, it sure felt like gross violations of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and had me wondering about WP:CIR. What makes me certain that TJRC DID in fact SEE and READ the answer is TJRC's later edit summary, ""Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government" == "does not apply to .. District of Columbia or Puerto Rico" which proves he read it because it quotes from it. I do strive to always AGF, however AGF doesn't mean one must put up with WP:IDHT over and over and over and over and over.

That's why I suggest pointing out to TJRC that it's not constructive to demand an answer to a question when the question has been answered and TJRC has himself DELETED THE ANSWER.

I'll try to find wisdom in your criticism, and try to fathom why you assert I haven't answered his question as to you why I placed the tags when I have, "Multiple times. Multiple ways."! I'll even answer it again, for a 6th? 10th? time! --Elvey (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

First, I have to say, it would have been nice to have been notified of this discussion. I know Elvey had a complaint at the end of July (notified by a bot here, but I was pretty much off-Wikipedia for about a week, and when I went to AN/I, it was already gone).

Woodroar is correct; I had reverted Elvey's edits of my comments only once, and I had intended by my edit summary to make it clear why. I do disagree though, that I shouldn't have made the revert on the Talk page. WP:TPO says it pretty clearly: "If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found." I object to the interruptions, and, exactly as WP:TPO says, the interruptions should be reverted; and I reverted them.

As a matter of disclosure, after Elvey deleted my non-interruption comments yesterday ([129]) and re-instated his interruptions, I did undo that edit, as well, also based on TPO.

Elvey's links to what he thinks are deletions of talk page comments are actually removals of the tags; they're not even edits to the talk page all.

I believe now that Elvey believes that his comment in the tag is self-evident and not in need of further explanation. So when I've asked him what he thinks is confusing, he thinks he's already answered. However, I don't see why he thinks the statement is wrong or unclear, so I'd like to find that out and address it. I think it's clear, but if Elvey doesn't, at least one person finds it confusing and it's worth fixing.

I would also like to distinguish between the two templates Elvey applied here. His first (and second) claimed that the section was inaccurate, because "Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government"; but that's pretty much a paraphrase of what the section actually says: the prohibition against copyright of works of the U.S. government does not apply to District of Columbia or Puerto Rico -- because Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government. So the claims of inaccuracy were just plain wrong. After a couple taggings of that, he's now revised that to "confusing" (with the edit summary "Same difference"; however, I see a big difference between a claim that a passage is inaccurate and a claim that a passage is confusing).

I do think though, that Elvey has some fundamental misunderstandings of US copyright law, and the very different roles that the United States government and the individual state governments play in it. Those misunderstandings, coupled with his confidence, makes this a pretty challenging issue to resolve. Add in his general incivility, and tendency to throw accusations, and this is a pretty frustrating experience for all involved. TJRC (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

TJRC, I think you need take on some simple tasks, or a break if you're getting frustrated! Your multiple false allegations that I violated WP:TPO with edits that you reverted are addressed by Woodroar, but seem to have gone over your head. They're upsetting and disruptive. FACT CHECK his claim that he "reverted Elvey's edits of my comments" and you'll see that the diffs show no such thing.

I'm sick and tired of TJRC's false allegations. Some people aren't able to grasp the subtleties of how Wikipedia works or lack the maturity required to edit effectively. They may still be able to do some easy jobs, but they'll probably run into trouble if they try biting off too much. TJRC fits this category.

Finally, TJRC's accusation that he wasn't of notified of this discussion is demonstrably false! I most certainly DID NOTIFY HIM! And since I've revivied this discussion, I'll notify him again.

TJRC needs to be blocked. He has a very very poor grip on reality. A user who deletes another's comments 5+ times and denies it when diffs are provided, who makes so many blatantly false accusations has got to go! I've told him over half a dozen times that subnational entities are to be discussed in the article with subnational entities in the title, but he doesn't hear that… We have a history; he throws around false accusations like they're going out of style. --Elvey (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: Elvey has been following me around lately because he's angry with me for disagreeing with him on a legal article. It's kinda creepy, but I'll put that aside. At the outset, I see hardly any diffs in support of what appears to be a claim of refactoring. Elvey mentions a revived discussion, but I'm sure what he's referring to. After that, he took Woodroar's criticism and transformed it into a confirmation of this report. I could also do without the exclamation points, the inflammatory rhetoric, the shouting (caps), and all the rest of the drama. I deeply sympathize with TJRC. My limited interaction with Elvey indicates that (1) he has no grasp of legal principles and (2) he has great trouble connecting sources with article assertions. As a consequence, he makes rather bizarre claims about content, as well as outlandish claims about others' conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

BBB mentions anger and following in a completely one-sided review. Perhaps it's him who is angry and following, because our most recent interaction was that I chastised him on his talk page for inexplicably biting a helpful newbie. (See how much better the article is now, perhaps thanks to the 'unbiting' of the newbie!) IIRC, encouraging new contributors has been determined to be top priority 'round here.

I don't recall referring to or using the word refactoring. I have provided many diffs showing my comments being deleted (from Copyright status of work by the U.S. government talk page and from within tags in the article). Hardly any? Hardly.

I would urge TJRC and others to reread what's been said to understand why Woodroar said, "You're absolutely right that TJRC shouldn't have made the revert on the Talk page."--Elvey (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by TJRC

I will admit that I am now running out of patience with Elvey.

First, on the comment editing. I don't have a lot more to add beyond what I wrote above. WP:TPO says that when an editor objects to someone putting interruptions in his comments, he can revert them. I did. Elvey refuses to abide by that and continues to reinsert them. I want that stopped. It is important to me that Elvey's misunderstandings of the subject matter, and his hostile tone, not be attributed to me, which is the primary reason why I wish to rely on WP:TPO.

I will also note that I did not manage to get all of his interruptions out, and have held back on removing them further because he's already pissed off enough, and I have no desire to exacerbate the situation.

I rather politely explained the basis for this on his talk page:

Editing inside another editor's comments

Hi, Elvey. I suspect what might be getting you upset in Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government is less the actual content than my objection to you inserting your comments ("interruptions" in Wikiparlance) in the middle of mine.

I don't like that practice, because it very quickly makes it hard to track who said what, particularly as the conversation gets longer and more iterative (and this is certainly one of those cases).

WP:TPO discusses this. Although that type of editing is not prohibited, "if an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found." Since I do object to that, I reverted your interruptions. I'm happy to continue to engage, but please continue to make your replies independently rather than inserting your text amid my existing comments. Thank [sic]!

Elvey deleted this comment, with the edit summary "False allegations from TJRC - AGAIN - this time of editing inside his comments".

Furthermore, Elvey's reinstatement of his interruptions was not only contrary to TPO, but in the process he is removing the little actual progress made to addressing the underlying issue. Take a look at the talk page in this state. There is a section '"Innaccurate"/"confusing" tags' that is trying to address his issue in good faith. Despite the incivility of his response there, at least some headway is being made. Elvey's next edit was to delete that section, for the sake of reinstating his interruptions.

Elevey continues to be wrong in claiming that his diffs show me editing his comments, except for the three I now document; the two discussed above, and again today, all pursuant to WP:TPO. His diffs are edits of the article, not the talk page.

The notification issue is a sideshow, but just to be clear, Elvey did not notify me of this AN/I, or his reinstatement of it today. As I said I got a notification by a bot (not by Elvey) of a different AN/I in mid/late July, but that occurred during a rare period where I actually had a life and it was archived before I could respond. Elvey then added a comment to that notification, but it did not not mention any new AN/I or include any link, or anything else to suggest that it was in reference to anything other than the AN/I archived a couple weeks earlier.

To the extent that Elvey has any valid issue about the potentially confusing passage, I also would like to address any valid issue he has, but I'm now frankly reaching the end of my patience. TJRC (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

TJRC, can you provide diffs where Elvey is editing inside or moving your comments? It seems like this claim is a source of much of the reverts—not the only reason, of course—but I just can't see it, even after spending far too much time a few days back and again today. In the first diff where you bring up WP:TPO, Elvey strikes out and amends his own comment (nothing unusual there), moves his reply from 2 to 3 indents so that appears as it should (a good thing), and expands some of his comments (again, nothing unusual). In short: he's editing his own comments, not yours, and in ways that general improve discussion. I think it would help everyone involved to move forward if this could be cleared up. Woodroar (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The original inline reply appears to be here. --Carnildo (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I see it now. TJRC added a block of text which Elvey later edited inside. Woodroar (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, I haven't read the entire thread but just bits and pieces. I have a simple question though. Is this an ongoing problem? I keep checking out the diffs and keep ending up with stuff from early June. I don't understand why we are discussing stuff from earlier June unless it's an ongoing problem. Whatever mistakes may or may not have been made, it seems clear there's no reason to block someone for something from June which isn't ongoing. If the dispute itself remains unresolved, then it will need to be resolved somehow and it's unfortunate if the DRN discussion didn't achieve a resolution but there are other steps which can be tried (none of which are ANI) and more importantly, any attempt at resolution should concentrate on the locus of the dispute, not whatever mistakes may or may not have been made in deleting comments over 2 months ago. If you feel you already gave an answer and it was deleted, rather then spending all your time arguing over whether or not the deletion was appropriate and the answer was already given, either rephrase the answer and give it again or show the diff to the person who you feel didn't read it so they can read your earlier answer. In other words, concentrate on resolving the dispute rather then assigning blame. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Are the two recent false accusations of not notifying of ANIs (diffs above) an ongoing problem? Is the recent false accusation that I "re-instated [my] interruptions, [in violation of] TPO." not indication of an ongoing problem? Does a slew of recent false accusations, recent evidence of IDHT warrant admin action? You seem to have glossed over those issues.

TJRC has repeatedly deleted my comments from the page. I've restored them, as he's not undoing a TPO violation by deleting my comments. LOOK AT THAT DIFF. IT'S NOT REMOVING ANY SORT OF INTERRUPTION! TJRC refused to fix the mess he created, so I have now done so, by diff restoring the comments he and I and others have made since then, without deleting my comments. --Elvey (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's still a live controversy. As Elvey notes, albeit in his wikidramatic and divorced-from-reality way, he continues to insert his comments into mine, and will not respect my wishers per TPO.

I would like to point out that I am not, at this time, requesting that Elvey be blocked. That's his request with respect to me. Elvey has had gaps in editing before, and I have no reason to believe that a block-enforced time away from Wikipedia would improve his behavior any more than his other absences have. Such a block would be punitive, and being human, I can't say I wouldn't relish that, but my objective side has to admit that that wouldn't really serve the purpose that blocking is intended to serve, to prevent the disruption of Wikipedia. I have no reason to believe that Elvey would not continue his disruptive behavior upon lifting of the block.

What I would like out of this discussion is two things: First, I do not want Elvey's comments appearing in mine and over my signature. I do not want his misunderstandings about copyright law to be attributed to me by a reader who is not careful to notice the interruptions. I do not want his invective and incivility attributed to me. I do not seek to delete his comments. I just want them out of mine. I would welcome an edit by an admin or other uninvolved editor to do that (for example, move them out of my comment and position them indented after it, with appropriate signatures), and then to close out that section in the talk page to prevent further edits to it by either Elvey or myself (and for both Elvey and me to respect that closure).

Second, I would like Elvey to be counseled on how to behave as an editor. The comment issue aside, the underlying issue giving rise to it is that he has tagged the article as confusing, but will not enter into a civil discussion of why he believes it is confusing, and will not work in a good-faith and civil manner to resolve the issue he believes he has identified. I would like to see a commitment from Elvey that he will behave according to that counsel.

I'm not sure that last bit is going to work, but I am still willing to give it one more try. My sense, though, is that Elvey's comprehension abilities are low. He does not appear to understand TPO. His tagging in the article shows he does not know the difference between a claim that something is inaccurate and a claim that it is confusing. His comments above show that he does not know the difference between removing a tag in an article and editing a comment on a talk page. His claim to have notified me about this AN/I shows that he does not know the difference between adding a comment to a bot's discussion of a different AN/I, with no indication of any kind that he has opened (and then re-opened) a different AN/I notifies a reader of those new AN/Is. In the discussion above, it ended with him being counseled to knock it off and to engage in good-faith discussion, and his take-away was, not to knock it off an engage in good-faith discussions, but, as Bbr23 points out "he took Woodroar's criticism and transformed it into a confirmation of this report." That's five different instances of his miscomprehensions, and that's just in this discussion alone; let's not even go into his substantive edits in articles.

Furthermore, if Elvey is unable to civilly and reasonably discuss the tag he has placed on the article, I want to be able to remove the tag. There is no reason that the article should be held hostage to someone unable to engage in reasonable discourse. I should not have to choose between engaging in an invective-laden bunch of rants to try to ferret out what confuses him, and cleaning up the article.

I said above that I'm not at this time seeking a block on Elvey. I do reserve the right to change my mind on that; if Elvey dos not agree to straighten up his act and behave, and then follow through on that agreement, I probably will be requesting either a block or a topic ban on legal-related articles. TJRC (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly we both have made significant contributions to the project. Certainly, both of us have made mistakes. I fixed the huge mess on the talk page caused by his attempt to address the TPO issue, early yesterday, August 16th but he seems to have ignored this. Why, TJRC? It feels like IDHT, as usual - it's as if he sees wikipedia is a game he's trying to 'win'. TJRC, please engage. Please, take a look at the page now, and the recent edits that got it there. Please consider taking back the false accusations you've made, and/or at least taking a serious look to see whether the diffs and explications of what I assert are your false accusations are valid and responding. To some extent you've done that - e.g. regarding the two notifications of the AN/I discussions, though with poor results. With respect to your accusation of TPO, it seems you still failed to review the diffs, like the initial accusation. Yes, I did use ALL CAPS, in particular because it was so overdue that TJRC really "LOOK AT THAT DIFF. IT'S NOT REMOVING ANY SORT OF INTERRUPTION!" It is more overdue than ever. Please let us know if/when you've taken another look at that diff, TJRC, and what Woodroar said about it, OK? Then I'll apologize for using CAPS in a last-ditch effort to get you to do so.

I'd really like to see some admin action taken here:

I request admin input - as to who is "divorced-from-reality" with respect to each of the claims that I didn't notify him of discussion at AN/I, in particular! (Refer to diffs above.)

I request admin input - as to who is "divorced-from-reality" with respect to TPO - looking closely in particular at the initial accusation EDIT in its entirety, which he still vociferously defends, and my edits to Talk:Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government yesterday, August 16th ! (Which took a lot of work - 7 edits - don't miss the edit summaries, but here's the overall diff. Given diff, his calls for an admin to prevent further edits to that section demonstrate an amazing unwillingness or inability to cooperate, as that is a pretty foolproof two-click solution to his (rather paranoid) "I do not want" concerns. I think my comments make it clear that I understand the issue of interspersing responses into another's posts. And that TJRC kept editing my comments (in particular reverting my edits, over and over) in a way that bore no relation to that issue, like a bull in a china shop -- he did NOT remove interspersed responses, though clearly he still thinks that's what he was doing with that edit, which he redid over and over and over.

I don't know if a solution is for TJRC to be counseled on how to behave as an editor; I think an editing restriction, such as WP:0RR holds more promise. I would like to see a commitment from him that he will behave according such a restriction. He seems to be blind when it comes to applying "[[WP:" shorthand to his own edits, but on acid (seeing violations that are not there) when it comes to applying policy to others' edits, but I'm at a loss as to what restriction short of a block can address that. Personally, I'd be happy to accept any mentoring - I'd be happy to have someone to bounce edits or comments off before I hit 'Save page'. The false accusations aside, the underlying issue giving rise to the conflict it is quite simple- it's about what goes in the article with respect to CA, FL, DC, and PR, and why. I feel that he is avoiding a civil discussion, and not working in a good-faith and civil manner to resolve the issues.

TJRC has repeatedly deleted my answer to his question from the article page over and over and over and over and over. I would like him to acknowledge that he has done so. I would like him to acknowledge that that there was nothing at TPO to justify this deletion of my comments, which he repeated several times. I've restored, as he's not undoing a TPO violation by deleting my comments. If you look at that diff, you'll see - It's not removing any sort of interruption! Again, TJRC refused to fix the mess he created, so I have now done so, by diff restoring the comments he and I and others have made since then, without deleting my comments. --Elvey (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've got nothing to add based on Elvey's latest comment. It would be repetitive.

With respect to the TPO issue, Elvey has made a few edits that may be helpful. First, a series of edits to remove his comments from the middle of mine, consistent with TPO. That version can be seen here, He then follows up reinserting his interruptions here, but with the edit summary "TJRC - if you must insist on this no- interruption business, this is the edit to undo". Based on that edit summary, I am construing this as an invitation to undo to put it in the no-interruptions state, and am doing so now. I reserve the right to confirm that the text of my comment remains what I entered and to tweak my comment to ensure that it is. Elvey, please either indicate either that this is acceptable, or if it is not, undo my edit. In either case, please do it without additional drama.

With respect to the continued editing problem, that still needs to be resolved. I need for Elvey to commit to civil discussion on the talk page. His recent edit to the article itself does not bode well. He simply struck all the well-cited accurate information that confuses him, going back to his preferred text. His similar edit back in June has been reverted by another attorney-editor, Prosfilaes (talk · contribs) (who, if I recall correctly, is also an IP attorney), here. TJRC (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Holy editwar, Batman!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would someone with more patience than me take a look at the exercise in WP:LAME currently ongoing at List of exclamations by Robin‎, before someone does something stupid and gets themselves blocked over what's arguably the most trivial article on the entire project? As the one who originally declined the prod on it, I'd consider myself involved so don't want to start handing out warnings myself. – iridescent 2 10:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Holy chocolate fireguard Admins to the rescue! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I've restored the deleted content, and I note that I'm the third user to do so. It was deleted after the AFD started, and as per the AFD notice on the article, "...the article must not be blanked ... until the discussion is closed". In my opinion deleting the entire list from a "List of..." article can be equated to blanking, therefore re-inserting the content is appropriate. Organics^LRO 10:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've warned the user who was blanking the content. Let's assume that they get it now and won't continue to revert - especially since their next revert will break WP:3RR. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 15:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the revert after that would break 3RR, seeing as only the last two are within the last 24 hours. But agreed that this is holy lamearoni, Batman. Also, nobody notified User:Koavf of this conversation, so I have now done so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Argh. Well, to be fair, I use both hands while typing, so I can't exactly pull one away for counting. :) Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 15:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

His response has a ring of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT about it, though he's now discussing and not reverting, so I wouldn't support a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly? Why was this even posted here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I would guess it's because we wanted to stop you getting blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Cute My guess is that it wasn't an altruistic attempt to keep me from being blocked but precisely the opposite. Either way, it's a waste of time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If I'd wanted you blocked, I'd have blocked you; you're not a new user, and know perfectly well that when an attempted WP:PROD is rejected and an attempted WP:AFD is overwhelmingly against you, the appropriate response is not to blank the article three times in a row. If you really believe a thread that doesn't even mention you is somehow worse for you than the alternative of an unsightly {{uw-delete4im}} on your talkpage, it's your prerogative, but I can't imagine many others would agree. – iridescent 10:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're confused by the sequence of events, because if this thread had not been started, I'm pretty sure that there's a good chance you would have continued blanking the content and then would have been blocked. I'd would say that this is a pretty good result -- assuming you understand what you were doing wrong. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Redhanker and political agenda

Many of Redhanker's edits appear to be pushing a specific agenda and not adhering to NPOV. For example:

Zanzibar acid attack -

• "Police found no direct evidence of involvement of Uamsho, a militant Islamist group which some have speculated could have ties to Al Qaeda." This is a speculative and uncited claim.
• "Nevertheless, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Islamist preacher Sheikh Issa Ponda Issa who is a supporter of the radical group." Uncited
• "Two Catholic priests had been shot and killed there in previous months." Uncited and unrelated to the article. I surmise this inclusion violates NPOV.
• "Friends of the girls speculated that they were targeted because they are Jewish." I'm not sure about this but I suspect this violates NPOV.
• "Many press reports omitted any reference to the religion of the victims, or likely religion of the attackers in a city that is largely Muslim." Uncited and grossly irrelevant to the main article. This is definitely pushing a certain point of view.

Paul Sheldon Foote

• This entire article seems to just be on how the person is anti-Israel and pro-Iran.
• All the citations are from unreliable blog sources.
• This article grossly violates NPOV by placing all the weight of the article on his political position and absolutely nothing on anything else.

Mashregh News

• This is a relatively unnotable organization. I cannot find any significant coverage of this company in reliable sources. Yet, this company has an article for the line "The ADL criticized the site for spreading disinformation such as the false Holo­caust claim that Nazis "man­u­fac­tured soap from their Jew­ish vic­tims" to prove that Holo­caust is a his­tor­i­cal falsity."

Category:Pro-Iranism

• This is a category created by Redhanker. It was deleted per this discussion [[130]]

Pro-Iranian sentiments

• This was an article created by Redhanker. It was deleted under CSD:A3.

All in all, what I've listed and far more that can be found in his edit history points to a pattern of pushing a certain political position on Wikipedia and not adhering to NPOV. Transcendence (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This hostile ANI appears to be a response to my observation that Transscendence appears to engaging in a pattern of deleting articles about notably violent attacks with wide national and international media coverage, most of which end up being kept because of extensive media coverage and notablity. The edits above are nearlyh all based on content in the mainstream press or official government sponsored news sources.

One particular editor User:Transcendence has been very deleting articles which have no apparent connection other than most are of very violent mass attacks which have not been connected to terrorist motives

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Timothy Brenton
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jennifer Daugherty
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Andre Marshall
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murders of Byrd and Melanie Billings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Las Vegas courthouse shooting
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cupertino quarry shooting
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frankstown Township shooting
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Azana Spa shootings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tacoma Mall shooting
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage High School shooting
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Sunil Tripathi‎

Removed

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Portland nightclub shooting

Redhanker (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

POV-pushing does seem to be a problem. For instance, Redhanker using List of Iranian news agencies to list lots of links which weren't Iranian, or which weren't news agencies, but mostly "sourced" by citing a news article on some rather controversial topic around Iran... [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] bobrayner (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FPC

I'm afraid that there's a rather strong post-Wikimania slump at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. If anyone would be interested, some more participation would be helpful. You should probably read through Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria first. Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Shoun Sarwade and recent edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Shoun Sarwade is a new user who has recently been making edits to multiple pages, including Iron Man, Prince of Persia, Prabhu Deva and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and multiple disambiguation pages. On the first, the user added their name to the 'creators' section of the comic book character, along with a statement that the article was written by the user: 1. For the second, the user again placed their name is a creation credit for the franchise: 2 In the next two articles, the user first put in credits and a link to a personal website, and in the second has put in a large message saying that the article was the user's own work: 3 4. Here is the user's full edit history for further examples of such behavior. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked him as a vandalism-only account, although it's possible there's some degree of immature incompetence. He created a ridiculous article about himself that was speedy deleted. Per the article, he's about 14 years old, but some of the stuff that was in the article strains credulity, so it's possible that the age is made up. In any event, he's causing disruption and has not made a single useful edit in the brief time he's been here. I would have preferred that he'd been formally warned, but I don't see the point in going through the process.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible vandal 66.208.111.99

I don't understand the motivation behind the edits coming from this IP -- whether they are vandalous or not -- but it seems that someone should have a look. Vzaak (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• The {{WPAVIATION}} template doesn't use the auto= argument, so the IP went around and removed such in most of the edits. I don't really see a problem, unless I'm missing something? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• That, and you didn't notify the editor... I did it for you. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

One person suspected a sock puppet bot and another thought it was a case of disruptive editing.

The edits don't just span aviation; they are all over the place. Many are Wikiproject Biography, which does have an auto= argument. I still have no idea what the motivation behind these edits are.

Sorry for being remiss about the notification. Vzaak (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

IP use by User:Loubnan

Earlier today a Sockpuppet investigation into Loubnan (talk · contribs) was closed resulting in Abou-alGhadab (talk · contribs) being blocked as a sock puppet. The case, however, was somewhat convoluted due to possible links to other previously blocked accounts. I suspect that both Fabol-lebnen (talk · contribs) and Georgesleb (talk · contribs) were also controlled by the same person. Another editor brought up a possible link to Lelosejean (talk · contribs), who has some 38 known sockpuppets. While it would be nice figure out exactly which accounts are linked, and who the actual sockmaster is, my more pressing concern is with this user's use of unregistered accounts. One of the things that lead me to suspect a link between Loubnan, Abou-alGhadab, and Fabol-lebnen was that all three used IP addresses in Beirut, all in the same range to inappropriately remove deletion tags from article which they had created. See IP's in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Loubnan and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fabol-lebnen. A quick look at the page histories of article's edited by these three users, reveals even more IP's in the same range editing almost exclusively articles on Lebanese football. Given this person's willingness to disrupt the encyclopaedia, I'm wondering whether a range block of his/her IP accounts is in order, and if not, what other options there are to prevent future disruptions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The IPs suggest three different basic ranges:

• 178.135.0.0/16
• 89.17.0.0/16
• 94.187.0.0/16

Blocking depends on the net evaluation of the worthwhile edits versus bad edits (socks, vandals, etc) within those ranges. Are there any good edits coming from those ranges? If not then softblocking is plausible. If so then the ranges can be adjusted more tightly. A checkuser could also determine whether hardblocking would be effective for shutting down his named accounts or if that would cause too much collateral damage.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I would add 77.42.0.0/16 to that list. There are three in that range between the two sock categories and quick check of the range contribution reveals seven more suspect addresses. That being said, blocking the four ranges in their entirety is clearly in appropriate. At least half the edits appear to be unrelated to Loubnan. Unfortunately, I do not have the technical knowledge of how IP addresses work to make the range more restrictive. If it helps, I can compile a list of those IP's that have edited disruptively or that I suspect of being sockpuppets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

After a bit of looking into the IP's, I think I've figured out the sequence or registered sockpuppets.

1. Georgesleb2 (talk · contribs) - Blocked for removing BLPPROD tags and block evasion using IP's
2. Georgesleb (talk · contribs) - Obvious sockpuppetry went unnoticed. Stopped editing of his own accord. Currently not blocked.
3. Loubnan (talk · contribs) - Sockpuppetry went unnoticed. Blocked for the same reasons as the first two accounts
4. UltrasLebene (talk · contribs) - Blocked as a sockpuppet of Loubnan
5. Fabol-lebnen (talk · contribs) - Sockpuppetry went unnoticed again, but blocked anyways for the same reason
6. Abou-alGhadab (talk · contribs) - Blocked as a sockpuppet of Loubnan

Part of the reason why I brought this up it because in the SPI into the first account King of Hearts (talk · contribs) claims to have implemented a rangeblock using Special:Abusefilter/201 (though it doesn't show up in the block logs of any of the suspected IP's), which begs the question is something similar appropriate here? Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your #4 above is misspelled and should read UltrasLebnene (talk · contribs) as being blocked. You may get someone to write an abuse filter...I suggest letting King of Hearts know of this thread and ask for his input.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I would really like someone more experienced to take a look at this.

User:Coolkathyannstuff/sandbox.

I've deleted the sandbox and left a note on the user's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This always makes me curious. Yeah, I know too much work to do to waste the time. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 21:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23. What should be done with pages like that in the future by the way? I'm not sure AnI was the best venue... Tazerdadog (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It's one of those cases were no policy specifically covers it. AN/I is sort of the all around fallback place to bring an issue you don't know how to deal with, but that you feel needs prompt attention. Alternatively, it could have been raised on the talk page of an active admin, (of via some other form of contact) but that can be hit or miss, and if you don't know them already, its not a particularly good solution either. Could tag it as a CSD and let it be handled that way, but it didn't really fit any CSD category, and while Bbb23 listed it as G10, I'd really say it was more of an IAR deletion, either way, it needed to go, and I doubt there will be any objections. In the end, I'd say bringing it to AN/I is as good a solution as any. Monty₈₄₅ 01:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Monty, your insight into what I did is exactly right. I knew it had to go, but I couldn't come up with a clear, policy-based rationale. Faced with a choice between IAR and G10, I decided to stretch G10, mainly because I dislike IAR.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you all. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello I have recreated the sandbox at the moment it is blank. Blakeleonard (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point of that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:CIR concern regarding User:AspieNo1

User has lots of edits to Damon Matthew Wise that I am unable to parse, as well as a similarly difficult-to-understand message on my talk page once I nominated it at AfD. Not sure what noticeboard is appropriate here, or if action is necessary at all; perhaps not, but I thought more eyes would be useful regardless. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 00:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that this user has been running amok on Asperger syndrome all weekend, adding sometimes incomprehensible text, linkspam, and circular links despite being told not to. They've not shown any willingness or inclination to respond to talk page messages—they just go back and re-do whatever they did and ignore the message. --Laser brain (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A topic restriction may be useful as this editor appears to be too close to the subject matter at hand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• The style is very strange, and the message on James' page appears to indicate this is some form of group, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Feel like an attempt to mislead as to events is shear vandalism - just started by AspieNo1... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have been attempting to guide this editor into the ways of Wikipedia, but with little success. The one major area to look at here is the user's name and the topic(s) chosen. A little research into the user will show that they are on the Asperger's spectrum, and have some difficulty in functioning in expected ways in our world (0.9 probability). It is likely that the user is Damon Matthew Wise himself, or, quite possibly one of his offspring, and that the user is doing a mighty fine job within the limitations of the complicated condition that afflicts them

That said, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It does not make concessions for people whose perception of the world differs from the more usual way the majority of us appear to see it.

So what is to be done?

Clearly the behaviour is not antisocial, it is simply not helpful in the articles edited by this user. The DMW article is incoherent, incompetent and below acceptable standards, and the user seems incapable so far of understanding how to improve. And Wikipedia makes no allowances for those with impaired or different intellectual faculties. It seems to me that we need to find a mentor experienced in Asperger's folk who can break through and guide this editor with care.

We also need to consider their work with more than usual care. That which is rescuable should be rescued. With DMW I find it hard to rescue more than a stub, perhaps referenced with http://www.bettertogether.ie/2011/content/damon-matthew-wise which seems relatively authoritative, albeit not WP:RS. That article is at AfD at present and is being shredded, comments-wise, by folk who have no need to understand the mind of the creating editor. I'd like to see a WP:IAR action to close that against consensus as a keep after a surgical operation on DMW to remove the... well, whatever it is that gets in the way of our understanding it.

Out of this incident should come the germination of the idea that Wikipedia is inclusive and can and will work with Asperger's folk, and has a team of volunteers who will and can go the extra dozen miles to help and guide them into working in our ways. Fiddle Faddle 08:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• WP:ASPERGERS is highly relevant here. Fiddle Faddle 10:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• If you're volunteering to work with this editor, by all means let's close this and move forward. Lesson 1 needs to be that if he does something and other folks object to it, he shouldn't keep doing it without working to understand why it wasn't appropriate. That and the ability to communicate with other editors are probably the minimum threshold for contributing here. Thus far, this editor hasn't shown either ability. --Laser brain (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am not competent. I am, however, trying to find someone who is. See my talk page. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967 - GMO

Canoe1967 and a number of other editors have consistently accused or insinuated that wikipedia editors who disagree with them are shills for Monsanto (e.g [[137]], more recent efforts are more subtle). "This seems further evidence that the editors who, for whatever reason, seem to want to make sure large companies look as good as possible, vastly outnumber the indies left on wiki", by Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs). emphasis mine. [138]. "Note that I didn't enter this realm of articles because of a pre-existing concern about GMOs. I was drawn to them pretty much only because (about this time a year ago) I was disturbed by what seemed like a pattern of corporate manipulation at the Monsanto page.", by Groupuscule (talk · contribs). [139]. See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Thanks_for_your_comments_at_Wikimania for more context.

Here are two previous related ANI threads: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive807#Request_to_enforce_NOR

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive806#Accusations_at_Talk:March_Against_Monsanto_that_need_to_be_resolved. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Following on this campaign of harassment, in an article about a march, March against Monsanto, Canoe1967 is continuing to use the talk page as a place to dump unreliable links, despite being asked not to, about Monsanto hiring PR accounts on the internet etc [140]. The obvious insinuation is that those who disagree with his edits are Monsanto employees or whatever. The section he has created to make claims about PR agents has no obvious connection to the article or its content. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of my OP in that thread. Mainstream media did not cover the event well. Smaller, as you claim, 'less reliable sources' reported this. The removal of these smaller reports is the same as the main reports did. How can we expect mainstream media to report that they censored themselves? They probably didn't do it at Monsanto's request but the other sources claim it is rather odd not to cover a 2 million person march as much a 300 person march. If it is sourced then there is no harm in inclusion. Protests are designed to get media attention. If that media attention is reported as odd then those reports warrant inclusion with credit to who is making the claims.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This "campaign of harassment"? Dramatic. Even outsiders are noting obvious pro-GM activity at Wikipedia. But to IRWolfie, this recognition is just crazy. petrarchan47tc 05:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that if you expect to find something, odds are, you will. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Those "outsiders" are an Anti-GMO group and are also involved in genetics bashing more generally [141]. I'd like to draw the admins attention to a comment posted at that link where someone mentions a private anti-GMO emailing list: I’m on an email list where I’ve heard several people complain about the extreme bias of the Wikipedia page, “The Seralini affair”. They have been trying to edit it to add balance and accuracy but their edits are reverted soon after. Editors like Petrar are using commentary from these Anti-GMO websites to continue their conspiratorial campaigns (as Petrar's talk page says: "This user disapproves of mindless PR firm sockpuppets spreading paid POV around Wikipedia."). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm interacting with this user on Talk:Colony_collapse_disorder#Update. I didn't realise there was WP:COATRACK going on. The user has a huge misunderstanding about what constitutes a reliable source. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by coatrack. Which article is the coatrack? I also wonder why Time Magazine was removed from the article. If we can assume this isn't an RS then should we just blacklist it? I think the editor that removed it has a "huge misunderstanding about what constitutes a reliable source." You asked me on the talk page as to which source I was going to use and what edit I was going to make. I have never edited that article but that question seems like I need your permission first. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Can I assume that if I do add a sourced edit to the article then it will just be reverted regardless? I have mentioned the Professor and a doctor with over 100 peer reviewed papers being added to the article. I should let you choose which source and what edit to make to make sure we get it right. I promise I would remove it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This group of editors also deliberately misunderstand basic reliable sourcing. It has been explained to them that newspapers aren't generally reliable for cutting edge or controversial science, but they continue to propose newspapers as sources for everything, and make statements like the above "If we can assume this isn't an RS then should we just blacklist it". They refuse to get that reliability is context dependent. @TippyGoomba Not for lack of trying, see [142] for example, which was two days ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL, refusing most sources as being unreliable is also a form of POV-pushing, IRWolfie. And I have seen you do just that on many, many articles relating to food safety and organic food. The Banner talk 10:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The Banner added claims, several months ago, into an article claiming regular food causes cancer and contains poison, here is the diff[143], and discussion Talk:Organic_food/Archive_3#We_are_going_nowhere_now... as well as cherry picking papers which the papers that cited it lambasted Talk:Organic_food/Archive_3#WP:MEDRS. That's the context, but it has no relevance to what is being discussed here, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It will be clear for all the people who follow your link that you are talking clear nonsense and a personal attack to discredit me. Why should we use medical sources for issues that are not medical? Why are you so afraid of agricultural sources? The Banner talk 18:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Monsanto has this legal control over all its GMO studies then any peer reviewed study should be brought into question. This my RS is better than your RS isn't the way to go about it. Should we include a line as a qualifier after every GMO peer reviewed study? 'Other studies need to be legally approved by Monsanto.' 'Studies to counter these claims are illegal without Monsanto approval.' I should email a local supply company and see if I can get a copy of the contract just to verify to myself that Scientific American isn't using fringe sources for false claims.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If you search for the word "contract" in the GM Food Controversies article, you will find that there is a link to the Monsanto contract already in the article and a discussion of it. It is in the intellectual property section. (Note - the link to the actual contract in the article was broken - found another one after a few minutes of searching and replaced it) And there is already a section about scientific publishing and the difficulties that indpendent scientists have had getting access to the GM seed. Please, please do your homework before making these great statements. Other, good faith editors have been working on this for a long time! This is a repeat of the Starlink thing, where you didn't read the article before adding repetitive content about the Taco Bell Recall and you haven't responded to a single thing we have said about it and where it is currently located. But you are quick to denounce and ignore the working editors as bad faith POV pushers and you keep doing that, even here. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• When Canoe made a post at Talk:March Against Monsanto that seemed to me to imply that some editors were "shills", I left a message that you can see on their user talk page, and they came to the article talk page and clarified that they had not intended it to cast aspersions on editors, but rather, they were trying to express concern that readers might think that our content was being manipulated. That's probably not the best explanation, but I was willing to let it go at that. Canoe then posted, in talk, a series of suggested sources that other editors considered to be low-quality; that is what IRWolfie is referring to here. I don't think that posting possible sources on a talk page is something that requires an ANI complaint, and I think that this complaint probably does not require administrator action, in itself. That said, it's painfully clear that this drama over whether or not editors are working on behalf of business interests, or whether other editors are using aspersions to that effect, without real evidence, in order to try to gain advantage in POV disputes, is just going on and on and on. I've said it before, and it hasn't sunk in yet: if you have a valid concern, please take it to WP:COIN, and if you don't, then don't say it. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to indicate that the discussion Canoe started was really about purported shills/COI, Here is what he dropped in the middle of it: [144]. "Monsanto COI edit 1. I will keep looking. --Canoe1967" He dropped a link to a Monsanto IP that edited the Roundup article 8 years ago in the middle of his thread, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not start the discussion for that purpose nor use those terms. Putting thoughts to my posts and words in my mouth is very bad faith bordering on lies and attacks. If you can't provide decent input then either don't bother or expect to have it ignored. I posted the COI edit to counter claims that Monsanto never edits GMO articles. There are probably more but I think I have made my point.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

My own issues

I don't participate in these boards much, and have not brought an action here before. I don't much like drama. I don't like to fight with anybody nor do I like getting people in trouble - I like to work things out.

However, two editors in particular, User:Canoe1967 and User:Petrarchan47, have been engaging in a campaign of personally attacking me and a group of other editors, both directly and in a canvassing manner, on the Talk pages of other editors, accusing me and others of bad faith, shill, COI, POV-pushing editing (which I will refer to from now on as "paid editing" for lack of a better term). I have asked each of them to stop, nicely, several times, and finally warned them that I would start an ANI if they continued. Neither has stopped. As User:IRWolfie- has already opened a discussion, I am joining his/her thread. I have not done this before, but the behavior of these editors is making Wikipedia an inhospitable place for me and in an ugly weed is growing that I think should be pulled up.

I request that an administrator at least sternly warn each of them, and maximally block each of them for some amount of time.

I recognize that declared and undeclared paid editing is something that Wikipedia should be concerned with, for sure, but I also very strongly believe that the behavior of these two editors, who have turned simple differences in perspective into a witch hunt, where they continually make accusations in inappropriate places with no evidence, is a kind of McCarthyism (where "paid editor" replaces "communist") that thwarts Wikipedia's goal of having a vibrant community of editors who work together with civility to create a great encyclopedia. I believe they are acting in good faith -- I believe each of them honestly believes that I and others are acting in bad faith, and I believe that each of them honestly wants to make Wikipedia better, but their methods and behaviors are destructive and this behavior needs to stop. As they will not stop themselves, I am asking that they be stopped.

The other editors editors being attacked are individuals who have each found him- or herself interested in the suite of genetic engineering articles for a long time, and include me, User:IRWolfie-, User:Arc de Ciel, User:Aircorn and to a lesser extent User:Bobrayner A few months ago User:BlackHades became more active on those pages, and much more recently, mostly via the March Against Monsanto article, User:Tryptofish, User:SpectraValor, and User:Thargor Orlando have gotten involved. The older group of editors I have come to be very familiar with -- all are science-oriented or scientists, as far as I can tell, and all seek to follow all the pillars in editing especially with regard to NPOV and reliable sourcing. We do not coordinate in any way, that I am aware of.

User:Canoe1967 Canoe first showed up in the GMO suite in an ANI about March Against Monsanto. Canoe's first edit there is here - in that edit he/she wrote: "I came across it offwiki because of a phone call. They knew I edited Wikipedia and wondered why Monsanto seemed to be controlling our content.". Canoe's next edit on Wikipedia, a few minutes later, was in the MaM article, where he/she deleted content with the pejorative and attacking edit note "Monsanto may control the media but not Wikipedia. This section is due without the tag in that case." And his/her edit notes and comments continued in that spirit. Another comment Canoe made in the MaM ANI was "I could care less about the article. What I do care about is the possible outside POV pressure on it which is why ArbCom should be consulted." - here. His/her last, and telling comment in the ANI about MaM is here. THe last comment made by Canoe in the MaM ANI is Copy/pasted for your convenience, because this one is key: ""Addendum. It was more than just that. I have been banned from editing March Against Monsanto for a week. I had never heard of the GMO controversy until the phone call I received. Since then I created Taco Bell GMO recall which I tried to include in Genetically modified food controversies at first. My addition was notable and sourced but one reason for the reversion was 'article too big already'. I then created it as a stand alone. Since then it was re-directed to yet a fourth article, Taco Bell, which I reverted. I expect the next step will be an Afd attempt. I still don't care about the GMO POVs that some editors claim exist but I do care about how it effects Wikipedia. Put these articles on your watchlists to see if any further antics arise.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)"

Three key things: 1) Canoe notes that he/she was canvassed external to Wikipedia, and 2) Canoe notes that he/she was blocked for edit warring; 3) Canoe makes it clear here that he/she knows little about the issues involved but is determined to fight perceived COI editing. And this is pretty much what has unfolded on the two GM-related articles where I have encountered this editor - very uncivil conversations where it is hard to arrive at consensus on content because Canoe won't deal with facts about the content, but instead personally attacks and keeps shifting ground to get the article to be just as he/she wants it to be.

I asked Canoe about the phone call on his/her Talk page - the query and its response are here. Seems like the initial phone call was not canvassing, but it certainly seemed to set Canoe off on a conspiracy theory that Monsanto is controlling GM-related content and everybody working them, or opposing his/her changes, has COI or POV-pushing issues. The discussion I linked to at the start of this paragraph was very, very difficult for me, as Canoe would not stay on topic, respond to what I actually wrote, and continually threatened to "contact the media about" the putative COI editing, go to Arbcom,telling me "I have told you more than once that you should take a break from editing GMO articles but you seem to just continue with BS which will probably lead to drama boards if you don't clue in." and on and on. I made a minor change on his/her Taco Bell Recall article and Canoe went off on me, wildly - please see the topmost discussion on Talk, here. Simultaneously Canoe, myself, and others were having a dispute in the Talk pages of the GM controversies article about where content about the Starlink/Taco Bell content should go - again Canoe's behavior there was oriented toward personal attacks about COI and POV-pushing, and Canoe had no interest in dialog, establishing the facts, or compromising, but has continually insisted that the content go where he/she wanted it to go. That discussion is here. If it is more helpful to Administrators I will go back through those discussions and pull out more specific things that Canoe wrote, but you don't have to look far.

Here is the 3RR ANI resulting in a warning for March against Monsanto editing - Aug 3. (note - he/she was previously 48 hour blocked for edit warring on another article, here)

Here is another attack on me, not mentioning me by name or notifying me: this dif.

There are more, but this is too long already.

With respect to User:Petrarchan47, this goes back to editing I did on the BP article and his/her frustration in general with the terrible situation that developed in that article. If editors are not familiar with this article, some brief background. There is an employee of BP named Arturo who works on that article, in excellent compliance with Wikipedia's policies - posts suggestions on Talk, never edits, discusses politely. Two camps of editors arose on that page - one that wanted the article to remain tightly focused on BP and its business; another that wanted to include expanded content on environmental, legal and political issues (oil spills including Deep Water Horizon and all the issues around that; safety violations, trading scandals, greenwashing, etc). Things got very ugly there and for a long time a group of corporate-oriented editors had the article in a fairly ugly stranglehold leading to a lot of anger and frustration. This really broke out when an article was published claiming (wrongly) that BP was re-writing its wikipedia article. In any case, I helped break that open (see here and a group of editors, including User: Gandydancer who had been working virtually alone for a long time, User:Petrarchan47 who had been involved in the past and came back after the article published, and others, started adding lots of content. When I felt they went too far and resisted, I became an enemy to them and User:Petrarchan47 became so negative toward me, personally, that I just left the page. Ever since, User:Petrarchan47 has been accusing me of being a shill.

The BP article was very hard, very charged, and I think is the root of a lot of this McCarthyism that User:Petrarchan47 is engaging in.

In a discussion on the BP Talk page, Petrarchan actually proposed that forming "an organized team somewhat like CREWE, even if more loosely organized and with few members, is actually a good idea. If Wiki editors are now seriously being asked to do what we are doing at this page, we need to take a moment and reflect on what that really means. We are up against a PR department of one of the most powerful, wealthy companies in the world. And they are not about to stop caring A LOT about what this page says. They have loyal editors here who seem much more organized and less emotional than those of us interesting in removing spin. If that doesn't change, nothing will change with regard to the POV in the article" - which comment you can see here.

I believe that this is what Petrachan has been doing recently -- namely, convinced that a cabal is controlling the GM articles, he/she has been canvassing to try to "loosely organize" a group to "fight back", as Petrarchan, User:Gandydancer, User:Coretheapple, and User:Binksternet, and User talk:Buster7 did in working on the BP article (which you can see if you review their user Talk pages - they constantly encouraged one another and discussed what was going on in the BP article in their Talk pages. User:Binksternet was peripherally involved in that. And in the battleground that the BP article had become, and how hard it was, I understood that. I also found it disturbing with regard to canvassing and organizing out of sight of the article's Talk page, but I was already walking away from the BP article so I said and did nothing. I am, however, deeply engaged in the GM suite of articles and committed to their excellence, and I am calling Petrarchan out for canvassing and personal attacks for this behavior now. I don't even know if it is intentional (as in conscious) as much as we are all creatures of habit. But the behavior is no good. (note - edited to respond to Binksternet's objection below. Deleted Binkster from the list and noted peripheral involvement in italics. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

I note that his/her userpage now has a label stating: "This user disapproves of mindless PR firm sockpuppets spreading paid POV around Wikipedia." and a quote, "The question is whether privileged élites should dominate mass-communication, and should use this power as they tell us they must, namely, to impose necessary illusions, manipulate and deceive the stupid majority, and remove them from the public arena. - Noam Chomsky". These are clearly important issues for Petrarchan. However as I mentioned, this user is convinced I am a COI editor and that I am a POV-pusher, and while we avoid working on articles where the other is working, he/she continues to write negative things about me in Talk pages, and canvasses other users to get them to join his/her anti-paid editing campaign. We unfortunately encountered one another again on the March Against Monsanto article.

This comment by Petrarchan here really makes clear where Petrarchan has ended up, really convinced that I and others are paid editors and that Wikipedia is completely in our corrupt grasp. Simple differences in perspective have become blown up into a battle between good and evil.

Anyway to the point.

There as an ugly discussion of edits I made in the BP article on the Talk page of an administrator, User:SlimVirgin, made without notifying me, which you can see in the deleted entry here - SlimVirgin deleted it after I called it to her attention here.

It continued anyway, here (I am the "a certain editor who materialized recently and held himself out as a 'mediator'", who is negatively characterized) and here (where Petrarchan says I "deserved the 'shill' remark") - again without notifying me.

Also this groundless complaint against me by Petrarchan to Slimvirgin, which was replied to by SV here.

And again Petrarchan brought a conflict with me to SlimVirgin without notifying me - this one about GMOs here - in that instance Petrarchan wanted to introduce health-related content based on a flimsy article, which I had reverted, and when Petrarchan brought that to MEDRS as per SlimVirgin's advice, the source was dismissed as failing MEDRS here which Petrarchan has brought up bitterly several times as another example of me being a shill - see here for one.

Petrarchan probably included me here.

That is all the past stuff. The more recent stuff is more disturbing to me, as I mentioned above, because now Petrarchan appears to be trying to round up another coalition to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS again, now on pages I am committed to.

Canvassing behavior against me and the rest of the "evil GMO cabal" is here and here (that one with Canoe) and with User:Viriditas here and many other places on V's Talk page, with User:Groupuscule here, more of it going on here with user:Groupuscule joining in the canvassing/attacking and conspiracy theorizing, and with User:Jusdafax, here and here.

Anyway, I freaking hated doing this. Horrible, unproductive waste of my time. But again, this McCarthyism - this constant making of accusations and personal attacks on Talk pages has got to stop. Thanks for your patience. I know I am out of patience. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel I have adequately responded to these claims before but since you request responses again then I will do so. We go with what sources say on Wikipedia and not edits by those 'already familiar with the subject'. You edited the recall article with copyvio material from the source, falsely stated that Kraft did the recall, and then claimed that your minor typo fixes didn't require you to read the source, which you hadn't. I had read COI differently than others and accepted that is does need to be re-worded to avoid its vagueness. One does not need to be a paid editor to be a COI editor. Too much POV for one side of an article related to ideals or field of work is enough to be POV and COI, IMHO. You keep mentioning that I am not discussing in good faith and I keep asking you the same questions. If the sources say it is X then we go with X. The recall was a health issue as reported by the sources. None of the sources claim it was an environmental issue yet it remains in the environmental section. It was recently added to the allergen section as well, even though the sources didn't mention that it was controversial because of the rare possibility of reaction. It was controversial the way it was handled before, after, and during the recall. Seemingly ignored reports before it happened, misleading statements made after it happened, as well as other concerns mentioned in the sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a very good summary of the issues. although I wouldn't say I've been interested in the GM articles for a long time, I doubt I edited them before 4 months ago IRWolfie- (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• The post here is probably TL;DR for ANI (maybe even for RfArb), but let me try to boil it down to what my own take is on it. Jytdog names a lot of editors, but some of them seem to me to be innocent bystanders, so let's please focus on Petrarchan and Canoe. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I keep seeing TL;DR mentioned everywhere and have yet to find a page on it. I still haven't got a clue what it means but since it is directed at me it is time to ask. Please explain RfArb as well to save me time searching for it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think that Petrarchan's conduct centers on WP:RGW, while Canoe's is a mixture of WP:RGW and (sorry) WP:COMPETENCE.--Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Both essays an not policy nor guideline but worthy of response anyway. One does not need competence nor an ideal to RGW to simply paraphrase articles with material from sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• And as I said above the section break, editors who, like Petrarchan and Canoe, are worried about paid editing (something I regard as a potentially legitimate concern, although I'm just not seeing evidence of it at March Against Monsanto) should either bring their evidence to WP:COIN, or stop casting aspersions on other editors. Continuing down the WP:RGW road leads to disruptive behavior.--Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever accused an editor for editing at the request of an employer. I have stated above that the COI policy is worded vaguely and I had interpreted it as any editor that uses a POV from their ideals or field to edited articles. A discussion at COIN may help clarify this but until the guideline is clarified then others may believe as I did.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• And it has mostly been asymmetrical: a lot of aspersion-casting against editors like Jytdog, but little or no reciprocation, beyond simply angry replies.--Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel I have replied in anger. It may be simple frustration that I don't get response. Such as why when the sources say it is a health issue then it keeps getting relegated to the environmental section when none of the sources claim it was environmental.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've pointed this out to Petrarchan: [145], to no effect.
• I've pointed this out to Canoe: [146], [147], to mixed effect: [148]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel this is a difference of opinion on the vague COI policy. If our articles seem like they are POV to the reader then they may see it as COI editors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Jytdog asks for something between warnings and blocks. At this time, blocks would be over-the-top. And ultimately, everyone is going to have to come under scrutiny.
• But it would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator would go to User talk:Petrarchan47 and User talk:Canoe1967, and warn each of them to take any concerns to WP:COIN, but not to cast aspersions on article talk pages.--Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If someone wishes to discuss it at COIN then I would as well. We may be able to clarify the wording of the COI policy at least.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• For now, an "official" warning is plenty, but escalating blocks may become necessary if the warnings are ignored. Let's hope a warning is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that all editors involved be limited to the talk pages of the articles. Once consensus is reached on edits then we can put in an edit request for changes. This has been at ANI and other boards with little solution in sight that I can see. It may yet end up at ArbCom. Other fresh and neutral editors should be allowed to edit the articles though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO, I've moved Canoe's comments to here reverted by Canoe. TL;DR means "too long, didn't read", see: Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read; it was directed at Jytdog. WP:RfArb is where one can ask the Arbitration Committee to accept a case. Jytdog believes that, even if you did not explicitly say something like I think Jytdog is a paid shill, your comments often come across as implying that editors who disagree with you are doing something like that. The issue here is the "casting of aspersions", not, for example, paraphrasing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that you replied in anger. I said that other editors replied to you in anger. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

About WP:COMPETENCE, Canoe seems determined to insert comments within my bullet point comments above, and I'm not going to keep edit warring over it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel they warrant a response from me in the order you wrote them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, here are my original comments, un-refactored:

• The post here is probably TL;DR for ANI (maybe even for RfArb), but let me try to boil it down to what my own take is on it. Jytdog names a lot of editors, but some of them seem to me to be innocent bystanders, so let's please focus on Petrarchan and Canoe.
• I think that Petrarchan's conduct centers on WP:RGW, while Canoe's is a mixture of WP:RGW and (sorry) WP:COMPETENCE.
• And as I said above the section break, editors who, like Petrarchan and Canoe, are worried about paid editing (something I regard as a potentially legitimate concern, although I'm just not seeing evidence of it at March Against Monsanto) should either bring their evidence to WP:COIN, or stop casting aspersions on other editors. Continuing down the WP:RGW road leads to disruptive behavior.
• And it has mostly been asymmetrical: a lot of aspersion-casting against editors like Jytdog, but little or no reciprocation, beyond simply angry replies.
• I've pointed this out to Petrarchan: [149], to no effect.
• I've pointed this out to Canoe: [150], [151], to mixed effect: [152].
• Jytdog asks for something between warnings and blocks. At this time, blocks would be over-the-top. And ultimately, everyone is going to have to come under scrutiny.
• But it would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator would go to User talk:Petrarchan47 and User talk:Canoe1967, and warn each of them to take any concerns to WP:COIN, but not to cast aspersions on article talk pages.
• For now, an "official" warning is plenty, but escalating blocks may become necessary if the warnings are ignored. Let's hope a warning is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for boiling this down, Tryptofish. Your summary reflects my intentions, sort of. The main policies I am concerned with are WP:No_Personal_Attacks and Wikipedia:Civility and with respect to User:Petrarchan47, the guideline against canvassing. Petrarchan and Canoe justify their behavior with concerns about paid editing but fail to take any official action about that, and instead just attack and attack on Talk pages. If these editors "focused on content and not contributors" while working on these articles there would be no problem. Also. sorry to all about the length. I have not done this before and wanted to present as much content and detail as seemed reasonable. I guess it was too much. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

There does appear to be rampant paranoia in the GMO related articles by some editors that believe there is some sort of conspiracy that the articles are being controlled by paid shills for Monsanto. Absolutely no evidence for such a thing but they seem to have firmly convinced themselves that this must be the reason why the positions that they constantly push for, are continuously getting rejected by the overwhelming majority of other editors. Rather than accept the extremely rational explanations of wikipedia policies regarding WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, given countless times by other editors, they refuse to accept these are the actual reasons, and believe there is a massive conspiracy that all the other editors are in on and are controlled by Monsanto and constantly accuse the other editors as such. This conduct is problematic and a warning here toward these editors would be helpful. BlackHades (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read all the comments by other editors. I have never used the term 'shill' directed to another editor nor accused them of working for Monsanto. I think I did mention that if that is there field of interest then that may cause an inherent POV to articles. If our readers detect this as biased edits then it reflects badly on all of us for not maintaining NPOV. As to sources I already mentioned on the talk page that some sources are years old and about 30% of the March article sources don't even mention the march. They seem to be added to coatrack the article from both sides. It may end up being NPOV but full of fluff that has nothing to do with the subject. The subject is the march not the GMO controversy. There is a background section but last I looked that had its own GMO controversy sub-section. Not needed IMHO because it is just dragging the same material from the other article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and to be as clear as I can be: there will be multiple conduct and content issues as this goes along, but for now, there is a single conduct issue: the repeated casting of aspersions that editors are editing on behalf of Monsanto, without evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you keep missing my point. Inherent POV edits will cause a biased article if not kept neutral. If our readers detect this then it will reflect badly on all of us. I tell everyone I meet to never trust our articles. I tell them how to find the sources that back up the material, read those, see who wrote them, and then make their own judgment on how the articles portray facts, truths, weight, and POV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Jytdog is off the rails here. There's no way that I am part of a "cabal" working on the BP article. Rather, I am a veteran Wikipedia editor with many and varied interests. Whatever kernel of truth might be extracted from Jytdog's concerns must be separated from the preposterous and unsupportable "cabal" accusation. What a load of malarkey. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this was ill-phrased and dumb to name editors who played some roll in an old content dispute in an ANI thread about a different topic. However, let's not lose sight of the real issues raised here. a13ean (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A13ean I am sorry that I neglected to mention you as one of the consistent editors. My apologies - I knew I was forgetting somebody. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, sorry to drag you into this. A13ean and Binkster - The BP stuff was not the focus of my remarks - I was trying to provide context as to where I think Petrarchan might be coming from. I concur that Binkster was not in the center of the group working on BP .... but what I wrote is based on stuff like this and this and this. Again, I apologize and I agree that you were not hot and heavy in the BP article nor in the loosely organized support group that worked to change the BP article. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the text above. My apologies for being inaccurate. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I like Petrarchan47's spirited participation on Wikipedia, and I agree with him that it is difficult to try and identify who might be paid by a corporation and who is simply volunteering. Perhaps indeffed User:Rangoon11 was a paid editor who was disruptive at the BP article; I guessed as much but the truth will likely never be known. I also agree with Petrarchan47 that a corporation paying editors creates an uneven playing field for NPOV representation of the subject. However, the bigger picture is that NPOV can be addressed without slinging around accusations of paid editing, but only if there are enough neutral editors to counteract the paid editors, whoever they may be. Petrarchan47's wish to have more neutral editors for such work should be seen in that light—the defense of NPOV. People discussing the issues here should not lose track of the ultimate goal of having an encyclopedia which hosts neutral information. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching for some middle ground, Binskster. But Petrarchan's and Canoe's methods are not appropriate and the good intentions do not excuse the behaviors. That is the point of this ANI. Good intentions run amok. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how adding sourced material relevant to the articles to keep them neutral can be 'Good intentions run amok.' These articles have been claimed to be POV as well as coatracks of other articles. I have edited them very little as my edits are reverted within minutes. The endless talk page discussions seem to go no where as the one I tried at DRN. The volunteer closed it as stalled. The article content is still stalled but at least it is closer to NPOV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Disgusting personal attack and racial remarks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In an RfC User:GabeMc made unfounded [[153]] accusations against me after I supported a contrary movement against his attacks in the RfC. After reviewing the posted diffs I commented on his exaggerations of the complaint against a fellow editor. In an effort to have my observation stricken from the RfC (see edit history comment) he wrote

FTR, this IP is the Rogers Cable troll from last year's Beatles mediation who is on record calling people "fa**", "je**" and "nig****". She was also blocked for a year for harassment. For more detail, please see here: User:99.251.125.65. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

These words are extremely offensive stating that I am a sockpuppet troll of another editor making racial comments to rabble rouse support. This is in order to have my comment revealing some of his edit history removed from the RfC records. Even if any of these vulgar attack comments were true GabeMc's accusations and attacks are WP:Pointy and uncivil violating the WP:CIVIL policy and unfounded.

As far as the RfC is concerned I have never had contact with any of these editors before. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I am also not a "she". Perhaps a further attempt at irritation? GabeMc obviously has the wrong person. I share an ISP with 3,9000,000 other people. Who would make a dramatic guess that stupid? 99.251.120.60 (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be the same person who clashed with GabeMc with 99.251.125.65, would you? That IP is currently blocked. I'd like to assume good faith, but the IPs are pretty close together and seem to share the same hatred of GabeMc. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Read my comments above. Why is it as soon as an IP editor states something factual or non-factual an offended editor screams "sockpuppet" as a cheap tactic to avoid issues and introduce nonsense? You wouldn't happen to be another account of GabeMc, would you? I'd like to assume good faith but both of you use the same tactic. You both use the same comments in your edit histories. If every report everywhere is due to hating some other editor then we have a lot of hate, especially here. I don't know GabeMc and that was stated in my report. I also have no interest in music articles. Look at my edits. Why is it when somebody attempts to help out by presenting observations they are evil if they use an IP? IPs lay their locations out to the public. Pseudo-named editors don't. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• If they're not the same person, I'll eat my hat. Same MO, same ISP, same "I'm a different person from the umpteen other IPs I've used" attempt at defense. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense and moronic conclusions. If I am the same person, what else would I say? If I am NOT the same person what else would I say? If this the best logic you have that I defend myself using typed words the same as somebody else did, Wikipedia is in real trouble. Please see my response to Mark above. Same MO, same conclusion. Does this make you another account of GabeMc? Start eating. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't we also link this IP to 99.251.120.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who is also on the same ISP, also currently blocked, and also performed the same disruptive comments when I raised comment about his behavior last week? Why has nothing been done?—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

And looking at this comment from last year shows a strikingly similar editing behavior that I've noticed in this report and every other comment he has made under this current IP. It is clear that whoever was operating 99.251.125.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in 2012 is operating 99.251.120.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 99.251.120.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in 2013, along with other problematic edits as 99.251.112.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 99.251.114.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you still haven't accepted my observations of your disruptive behavior here and still angry about it. You previously attempted the sockpuppet distraction and are still posting AN timewasting nonsense links to unrelated edits hoping an admin will take your word without research. Most admins dig a little deeper than that 99.251.120.60 (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's clear that you're the same operator of these other 4 IPs that have caused problems in the past and have been blocked several times. Geographic proximity and some editing behavior prove this. And need I remind you that I was not the one who originally raised the issue of the sockpuppetry. Your accusations do not deflect the fact that you have operated these other IPs in the past and caused disruption.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that a WP:BOOMERANG coming? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I came upon this thread from outside...my only comment is this: when one seems to go out of one's way to a) edit exactly like another IP, b) have the same "attitude" as another IP, and c) edit the same subjects as another IP, it's quite obvious that you will be taken to be that same IP. The odds of two people on a shared Rogers range acting the same way is ridiculously improbable. If you're NOT that IP, then it's time to change articles and attitude PDQ and back away slowly ES&L 12:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe I will make an additional comment: read WP:WIAPA ... nothing Gabe has said meets the definition. As such, titling the "incident" as a "disgusting personal attack" is inflammatory rhetoric. ES&L 12:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Where do you see me editing the same articles? Do you see Beatles or other ancient music articles in my edit history? Your comments appear to be prejudice (perhaps IP editors?) and not based on any real observations. When GabeMc online spews that I used the "nigger" word and whatever the other words were supposed t be, it's racial. Don't attempt to excuse GabeMc's behavior here. That is racial. That is personal. That is an attack. That is uncivil. That shouldn't be allowed or tolerated. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Just in case you were quoting something you haven't read yourself here is the first point in your indicated WP:WIAPA

Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

99.251.120.60 (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, so show me exactly where Gabe called you something that was racial, sexist, homophobic ... etc. Show me. ES&L 14:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That's right. All I can see from this edit is that he claims that another IP that he associates with you said those words. No where in those edits directed towards you does he call you any of the slurs.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Why hasn't the IP just been blocked yet for wasting the community's time with ridiculous accusations and attempting to distort policy to fit these accusations? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Lemme reiterate the comments I made at the RfC/U: "There a number of red flags about you. They center around the fact that you're an IP in the first place, that you haven't made a lot of edits, but you have found your way to Wikipedia-space and commented primarily to assail Gabe. Generally speaking, this is highly unusual for an IP to find his way to Wikipedia-space so quickly; most IPs with the number of edits you do work almost exclusively in mainspace; many (but not all) IPs who go quickly to Wikipedia-space, particularly to make comments about a particular editor, have been exposed as sockpuppets." This don't prove you are a sockpuppet, but in combination with the fact that you share an IP range with a vandal, it highly suggests it pbp 14:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• WP:DUCKAndrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protecting Danzig

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello sysops I need your help

Apparently some IP from the 114.70.44 range is vandalising the Danzig article I went here to get Danzig semiprotected Yours sincerely Blakeleonard (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If an article needs protecting, make a request at WP:RPP. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done If some one was trying to change it from Gdansk to Danzig, that would be a different matter. Please read the top of the article's talk page. Shirt58 (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

shirt58 The IP is trying to change my refs for the 1466 to 1793 period to gdansk but per the Gdansk/Danzig vote

for that period Danzig must be used ps now it's Willy drives a Car it sounds like a Duck of willy on wheels Yours sincerely Blakeleonard (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked Blakeleonard (talk · contribs) as a trolling-only account. The claim that he had been changing stuff to "Danzig" only for that time period where it is sanctioned by the Gdanzig vote is a blatant lie. Previously, on Talk:Gdansk, he was saying that he simply disagrees with the guideline and wants it overturned (but still wants us to use semiprotection in order to help him achieve this.) This is the same user who just a few days ago added an AfD tag to human on the grounds that its editors had a COI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion of organised violence

I know it is a vague suggestion and I do believe that the person to whom it is addressed has more sense, but should this comment not be revdel'd? - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A threat with violence is a tacit admission that one has lost the actual argument. Kleuske (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible Problematic IP Range

Since WP:AIV does not get properly archived, I'm posting this here. A vandal appears to have access to several IP addresses in the range starting with "2602:304:AF53:3E99". I first ran into 2602:304:AF53:3E99:2C4B:F6A:56CB:384B, who semi-cleverly managed to mess up the Guru Meditation article. I described what (s)he did here. Basically, saving an old revision and claiming the article was fixed/improved. In June and July, the same vandal tactic was used from other IP addresses starting with "2602:304:AF53:3E99", including 2602:304:AF53:3E99:3452:FAAE:480E:958B, 2602:304:AF53:3E99:31EC:6415:6846:32AD, 2602:304:AF53:3E99:8DE7:A919:12DE:D0A9, 2602:304:AF53:3E99:C19A:A376:C9AD:25C, 2602:304:AF53:3E99:C1CD:C4F5:41CA:D57E, 2602:304:AF53:3E99:7C61:46EB:E03F:5D2D and 2602:304:AF53:3E99:B137:43AA:F356:85F0. Of course, this is just what I've been able to find as an IP editor with very basic privileges. Vandals like this do sometimes get away with what they do. Only today (18 August) I noticed that vandal's change to the Guru Meditation article on 13 July. That's more than a month after the incident and six different editors had been improving on the revision of 18 May 2008(!) that the vandal had put back. Another entry for my collection of problems caused by What New Editors Get Away With on Wikipedia. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

With IPv6, the range in question, Special:Contribs/2602:304:AF53:3E99::/64, is probably one user, and it was previously blocked by User:Reaper Eternal for a week on 13 July for vandalism. I'd suggest a reblock of the range.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Jasper, I'm normally hesitant to perform rangeblocks, especially with ipv6, but you know what you're doing, so I've blocked the range for two weeks. Does the block cover all of the IPs that were linked here, or do I need to block some of them individually? And did I really just block 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses, or do I misunderstand something? Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the rangeblock is comprehensive for this vandal. You did indeed block that many addresses, but 1 - by design, very few IPv6 addresses will actually be used from a given block, and 2 - there's probably zero collateral because this is an AT&T home IPv6 range for a single home.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: I just noticed that the range is already covered by a wider (/48) block by Elockid, but this range seems to have been problematic in particular, and this newer /64 block expires after the /48 block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Eighteen quintillion addresses for one home...wow. We're going to need a ton of new Internet-capable devices to exhaust ipv6 addresses if we can allocate that many to one home! Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Eliyogini removing information referenced by reliable sources at Ingrid Vila Biaggi

User:Eliyogini is removing information posted at Ingrid Vila Biaggi that is referenced by WP:RELIABLESOURCES. I have reverted him twice but he just keeps doing it. Could someone help please? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Warned edit warrior. Toddst1 (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Violation of ban in less than an hour

With this edit at 01:14, which seems to have been made less than an hour after this notification on their talk page at 00:29, User:Strangesad, the subject of the lengthy discussion currently at the top of this page, has violated the ban imposed earlier. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I hadn't noticed the message until after I posted my comment. However....

Admin violating (or not knowing) rules regarding topic bans

Update I've started a separate thread on the propriety of the ban. Please comment there rather than below.

• The rule: "the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute"
• In addition, the action seems to ignore improprieties in those wanting to ban: 1) Canvassing by FutureTrillionaire, in particular, canvassing an editor (Jeppiz) who had tried to ban me 3 times previously, 2) A vote by an editor who was clearly an SPA with 90% of its edits devoted to undermining and banning me (Not here Anymore).

I'd like an accounting of the alleged consensus, noting which are considered "involved." Strangesad (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's also a little peculiar to not count those voting for ArbCom as wanting something other than a ban. Following the rules about involvement, and counting those suggestions for RFCs and ArbCom as "not ban", the consensus is the opposite of what this admin "decided." Strangesad (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sure you'd like a lot of things. Fact is, the topic ban is there, and you broke it. Don't break it again or you will be blocked. The rest is a lot of wikilawyering (well, there's also some unwarranted conclusions) which you may take up on AN. Clear? Drmies (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So, Jc37 just declared a community consensus to topic ban, based on the now archived discussion at the top of the page. There is no such consensus.

First, and most importantly, the definition of consensus: "the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute". At least half the editors wanting a topic ban are involved in the underlying dispute. The short list: FutureTrillionaire (who canvassed, promised to withdraw his vote to ban to make up for canvassing, and then voted to ban anyway), Cliftonian, Quadell, Johynuniq, Not here anymore, Stfg, and Laser Brain. All of these editors have edited the articles covered by the ban in opposition to my edits, or opposed my edits prior to the ban proposal. They are not impartial, uninvolved editors. The whole point of the editors who are not involved clause is to avoid editors ganging up to get rid of editors they dislike.

In addition, the ban proposal only came about because FutureTrillionaire canvassed Jeppiz, in violation of rules. Jeppiz had three times before proposed to ban me. (Nobody else has ever proposed banning me). Sure enough, after canvassing Jeppiz and immediately getting a ban proposal, FutureTrillionaire immediately supported it.

Even aside from all this, there is some odd accounting. Were the editors who supported something other than a ban, such as an RFC or ArbCom, considered as neutral or not favoring a ban?

There is also the editor, Not here anymore, who created an account soely dedicated to opposing my view (and supported a ban).

I would like an accounting of how consensus was determined in this case. And, I'd like the topic ban removed until then. It simply does not meet the official definition of consensus found in the banning policy.Strangesad (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• You already said all of that. No, not going to happen. You may appeal a ban on AN, not here. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)