Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive808

PrivateMasterHD and 69.122.190.4

PrivateMasterHD keeps adding baseball terminology to football articles (and has added generally incorrect information and used questionable word choices in several articles) and has been unresponsive to messages left on their talk page except to blank the page. There have been documented concerns about them for past behavioral issues and while PrivateMaster has demonstrated the ability to make constructive edits, edits such as this continue.

I became aware of their activities on June 17 at Nick Folk when they made this edit that I reverted. Nearly a month later, they returned to the article to make two consecutive edits. There was a third edit made by an IP account (69.122.190.4) that I believe them to be using as the edit was a minute apart from the other edits. The IP claimed Folk was "designated for assignment" however, this does not exist in the National Football League (NFL) only in Major League Baseball (MLB). I left a note on the IP's talkpage however, I did not realize that Yankees10 had warned PrivateMaster a month earlier for a similar incident which aroused my suspicions. As it turned out, both accounts heavily edited MLB and NFL articles so I decided to do some research and found some trends.

Via PrivateMaster's account: Jason Babin ("designated for assignment"), Boomer Esiason (In this instance, the majority of the edit is fine but the disabled list does not exist in football), Kris Jenkins ("eliminated for the rest of the year"), Michael Crabtree ("disabled list"), Orlando Franklin (Trivial information under "Other"), Danny Woodhead (Incorrectly stating Woodhead "lead" the Jets to the AFC Championship when he had little playing time), Shaun Suisham ("designated for assignment"), Jonas Mouton ("eliminated for the entire season"), Billy Cundiff (There is no preseason roster however, there is in baseball), Jeremy Maclin ("eliminated from the season"), Percy Harvin ("60-day disabled list"), Rob Gronkowski ("60 day DL"), Physically Unable to Perform (addition of a link to the disabled list which is exclusive to MLB), and Joe Morgan ("eliminated from the season"). Update 8/12: "Optioned" is not terminology used in football.

A look at the edit history of the IP account reveals a similar batch of edits: Darius Slay ("disabled list"), Shawn Nelson ("designated for assignment"), Colin Baxter ("disabled list; designated for assignment"), Albert Haynesworth ("designated for assignment"), Dennis Pitta ("disabled list"). Most concerning is an edit made back in May to the Injured reserve list which stated MLB players were placed on an injured reserve list if they were lost for the year. This is not true because the MLB utilizes the disabled list (for example Johan Santana was declared out for the year after undergoing shoulder surgery prior to the start of the baseball season—he was placed on the 60 disabled list).

For what it's worth, in addition to the consecutive edits made by PrivateMaster and 69.122.190.4 at Nick Folk, this occurred again on July 27 at Andre Gurode with the IP incorrectly stating Gurode had been ""designated for assignment" while PrivateMaster added dates in the section titles which has been a trend in the edits of both accounts (see here and here).

Being that they frequently edit MLB and NFL articles, I could see, earlier on, if it was a mix-up however, we're to the point where multiple messages have been left for both accounts and yet they are still blatantly substituting the incorrect terminology. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Indef block until he decides to communicate with other editors. I don't see where he's communicating at all with any editor. Blanking and continuing the same behavior is not acceptable.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • He actually has communicated with other editors - but only about protection templates, it appears, and nothing about this behavior, so I'd support an indef based on WP:IDHT if it continues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • They blanked the ANI notice and have continued about editing. I'm beginning to sincerely doubt that they're open to discussion on this matter. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 18:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block: Very disruptive editing, no communication with other editors about the problems they notify him about, and a clear lack of competence. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the "update 8/12", the fact he immedately removed that indicates something, but I'm not sure what. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nor do I. It's still problematic that they continue to remain silent however. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• What's the issue with that particular edit? All I see is a removal of unreferenced information from a BLP. That said, the user is clearly being disruptive elsewhere, so I support the indef. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the protection templates - now that it has been established that there's a pattern of disruptive editing - it may be worth noting that he may be changing the tags to intentionally confuse the bots that auto-remove them. Also, he added a protection template outside noinclude tags on AIV [1] (which is transcluded on some admin's personal toolbox pages) after I had already corrected a similar mistake by him 3 days ago [2]. Now this is not an indication of bad faith behavior by itself, because even some admins make this mistake sometimes, but he continues to do it as if to intentionally make several unrelated pages appear in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. That one edit to Template:Image information art actually listed more than a hundred pages there, and the problem was not easy to fix because of the many transclusions those pages have, making it difficult to pinpoint the template that's causing the problem. Ginsuloft (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that, this seems to be edging into either deliberate disruption or a lack of competence; either, combined with the failure to communicate, has led to my applying an indef block until these issues are addressed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Continues the talk page blanking even after being blocked. He hid The Bushranger's comment as if to make it look like no admin has looked into his unblock request yet. Note that this is not allowed per WP:BLANKING. Ginsuloft (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding by IP 199.198.223107

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The IP 199.198.223.107 has, as of today started reverting my edits in relation to Irish articles in the same manner as he has done with HighKing. Stating a reason of, amongst other "not applicable to dates prior to GFA 1998". This is covered at WP:IMOS, which this IP seems to have a dislike for, with guidelines that have been agreed after much discussion following the ArbCom case on the "Ireland" articles. The IP was breifly involved in a thread there today. I am seeking admin assitance on this, the IP is being provocative and using a view to garner reaction. They have already wasted time on this board, the time of admins and seem to like wasting thier own time. I have asked them to stop hounding me, their only previous contact before they reverted my edits this morning was the comment above on the HighKing thread, they then set about editing three articles [3], [4], and [5], I since revert to conform with guidelines and they have reverted two after I asked them to stop hounding my edits. Murry1975 (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I made one revert inline with IMOS the other 2 reverts were against POV pushing. Tell us all M1975, how you made 3 edits in 3 minutes to 3 different pages and adequately read all 3 articles? Simply, you do not understand the implications of IMOS. When faced with an objection to an edit the onus was on you to discuss on talkpage as to why you think your edit should be made. I requested you do so and here we are, you are reporting me. Already today you applied IMOS across 10 pages in 10 minutes!!! This has been noted before and you seem to have not changed your editing style since the last observation. Shambles man, shambles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you both really going to edit war over the word "THE" ? Are you serious ? Let's close this out as WP:Lame  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

the series continued to be issued when the Free State became Ireland,

The Series B Banknotes (Irish: Nótaí bainc sraith B) of Ireland replaced the Series A Banknotes.

The Series C Banknotes (Irish: Nótaí bainc sraith C) of Ireland were the final series of notes created for the state before the advent of the euro; it replaced Series B Banknotes

And to qoute WP:IMOS, and in particular WP:IRE-IRL

"A consensus emerged with respect to referring to the island and the state in other contexts:

• Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").
• An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating to states, politics or governance) where "Ireland" should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the "island of Ireland" or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland").
• Regardless of the above guidelines, always use the official titles of state offices (e.g. "Douglas Hyde was the first President of Ireland").
• Per the Linking guideline of the Manual of Style, the names of major geographic features and locations should not be linked. If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, the name of the state should be pipelinked as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]."

Points 1,2 and 4 apply and the edits conform with these. Murry1975 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Kosh, read what the dispute is about, don't skim. As seen in this edit, they are fighting over linking to Republic of Ireland vs. Ireland; the "the" is incidental. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Tarc dont use the word fighting, its not nice, dispute is the correct term, but my main concern is that this is the second time this IP has hounded someone, the last can be read above. And you nearly read the edits right "Republic of Ireland vs. Ireland". Murry1975 (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "nearly" read the edits right, I read them precisely right. You're fighting (yes, fighting; each side always thinks they're right) over which "Ireland" to link to. I'm not concerned with the piping. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Tarc that is mightly uncivil. A dispute is a dispute. Understanding of guidelnes and application of them in different manner is a dispute. Fighting is the wrong way to go about things and the wrong attitude to have. Murry1975 (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

In the case of [[6]], Northern Ireland is referenced in the text, so can IMOS be applied here? yes it can and is exactly why I made a revert, to keep it in line with IMOS guidelines, not rules, ill remind you. As for the 2 other edits and Series B and C notes, Ireland was not officially recognised as the name of the state until the GFA in 1998. This was the rebuke in my edit summary. I think this is a pretty legitimate revert. SO then I asked to discuss on Article talkpage, which is normal practice I believe. When an edit is reverted go to talk page to discuss, so I expected M1975 to start a convo as the onus is on them to prove their edit is correct or inline with these guidelines. M1975 did not start a discussion and reverted breaking 1RR and playing aunt fanny. Note that both HK and M1975 appear/are IMOS warriors. They do not actually read the articles, but replace "Republic of Ireland" with "Ireland" quoting IMOS but not actually having read the articles. How do I know they havent read the articles, because only Johnny5(short circuit) or SUperman could read as fast as these guys. Recently M1975 applied IMOS to 10 pages in 10 minutes. Thats pretty quick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"Ireland was not officially recognised as the name of the state until the GFA in 1998", WP:OR and WP:POV, it had been the states only offical name since 1937. As for your single point of reason above "except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context", it wasnt and this type has been discussed previously on the IMOS talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not disputing the make up of IMOS I am disputing its application at an article page, so you must then go to the article talk page to discuss I'm afraid, and in this case Northern Ireland is in the same context. As for the name of the state ROI should be used if there is any ambiguity and to reference Wikipedia is not correct either. The truth is M1975, you are going page to page removing instances of ROI whether they adhere to IMOS or not. And this is the real issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Content disputes wont be encouraged here at WP:ANI. If there are issues bring them forth. Else please leave this page.  A m i t  웃   17:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for getting forked. As stated above in my opening comment this is a hounding issue, I am the second editor being hounded by this IP and they seem to want to continue at this. Murry1975 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Now who is stalking who? Its only a bit of bait and it tastes sarcastic. Nothing worse in that comment than the 2 I was referring to and their activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems pretty obviously a troll with no intention of doing anything but cause trouble. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is "term" policing and Highking/Popaice is a single purpose account, whereby they systematically remove the term "British Isles" or "Republic of Ireland". HK has straight away ran to the admin who imposed the ban, user:Cailil. What is funny is that Cailil's talkpage is riddled with complaints about highking including notable complaint by Doc. HK is banned from Policing the term "British Isles" but obviously feels the same behaviour is acceptable when dealing with the term "Republic of Ireland". M1975 is also guilty of term policing. So not stirring, but someone has to police the police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kevin Gorman personal attacks and assuming bad faith

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see the following diffs: [7] [8] Gorman has left a blatant personal attack against me that I attempted to remove as is my right under WP policy regarding blatant attacks of a personal nature, yet he reverted me on that one. Gorman has also threatened me with ArbCom sanctions and assumed bad faith here [9], despite going out of my way to attempt a reconciliation and a lighter tone to diffuse the tension between the editors involved in the dispute at Grant Cardone, yet Gorman assumes bad faith and read my comment as an attack and threatened me with ArbCom sanctions. Previously in the same thread he threatened both User:Thimbleweed and myself to permanently ban us from Scientology-related articles if we even attempted to include any sources he personally disagrees with. As I have related, even when Thimbleweed and myself have attempted to open lines of dialogue and assume good faith and diffuse the tension, Gorman reads anything I write as an attack and an opportunity to bully me with the threat of ArbCom sanctions. I have also complained to Sandstein and Alex Bakherev because Gorman has never been warned once for this behavior, while Sandstein not only warned me, but demanded that I not edit the article and work things out on the talk page. He did not warn Gorman or Bbb23 despite their edit warring and their own assumptions of bad faith and wikilawyering regarding what is acceptable source under BLP. So Thimbleweed and I have not edited the article and have maintained communication and gone out of our way to be friendly, and I tried making some jokes to make the situation less serious in tone, and yet I still get threatened and bulled; Please, this is not right. Laval (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Laval has repeatedly insinuated that other editors are paid shills for scientology while providing absolutely no evidence. He's also been trying quite hard to insert a long negative coatracky section about a relatively minor incident sourced to the blog of an alternative weekly in to Cardone's bio. See the talk page of Cardone's article. Suggesting other editors are paid shills for scientology while at the same time complaining that they are violating AGF is pretty confusing. (Tangentially: I'm in class right now, so my ability to respond will be somewhat limited for a while.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Those alleged PAs are about as mild as I've ever seen brought to ANI. Maybe Laval should stop accusing other editors of being scientology shills if that's what's going on. Kevin, can you provide some diffs? Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Todd, I don't see any evidence of personal attacks. Also, the diff that Laval says indicates that Kevin threatened him with ArbCom doesn't say that at all (doesn't even mention ArbCom).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume he's talking about the fact that I've repeatedly reminded him that Cardone, as a scientology-related article, is under arb sanctions, and asked him to conform his behavior to those sanctions. (Coincidentally, he was already warned about them by Sandstein.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

He explicitly makes an accusation about it in this diff. I think these diffs are also informative about his general behavior: [10], [11]. I feel like he's made explicit accusations elsewhere as well, but can't find them offhand (and am still in class) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Laval accused User:Setomorp of being in the pay of Scientology at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Christy_Lee_Rogers. Andrewman327 removed the offending personal information about Setomorp. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Ortega link, that alternative weekly is the triple-Pulitzer Prize winning Village Voice and its author is its former editor-in-chief. Let's not misrepresent where this is coming from. The incident may not meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, but its source certainly does. Now this shill business needs to stop, and I'm watchlisting the article and posting on the talk page to make sure everyone plays nice. Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever suggested it's not a reliable source, just that a negative incident significant enough to be mentioned in someone's relatively small biography would've been picked up by other sources as well. If it ended up getting significant coverage elsewhere, I'd totally support including it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

When you mention "the blog of an alternative weekly", that definitely indicates that you think the source is unreliable. If your sole problem is the significance of the incident and not the quality of the source, why use this phrasing? Gamaliel (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not speaking for Kevin, but one of my objections to including the material was the quality of the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't indicate that I think the source is unreliable, it indicates that I don't think the source is of a high enough quality or authoritative enough to be used as the primary (and only) source for negative information in a biography of a living person. I would consider many alternative weeklies to be reliable, but there's a difference between a story appearing on the blog of an alternative weekly vs a story appearing on the front page of the NYT or appearing in Nature. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• This content dispute has been pretty well fleshed out on the article talk page, as well as other places. Laval had no basis for bringing it here and trying to transform it into something it's not. Because of my involvement, I won't close it, but my opinion is it should be closed. Rehashing the content dispute here serves no purpose and is not appropriate for this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Laval outing

Hang on a minute, here. Laval just outed an editor on WP:COIN. I know outing happens fairly regularly there, but they also throw in accusations that both the editor and the subject of the article are Scientologists. This comes after Laval failed to get the article deleted in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christy Lee Rogers}an AfD]]. It seems petty, at the very least. ArbCom just banned an acknowledged Scientologist for allegedly outing someone. I'm not a fan of either side of this dispute, but I got sick of the hypocrisy around this issue long ago. Laval needs to learn that the rules are the same for all sides. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just revdeleted and warned Laval, but if anyone thinks blocking is merited or Scientology sanctions are needed please weigh in. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Laval has already been warned per WP:ARBSCI but has continued to pursue a battleground agenda. Calling people Scientologists and outing an editor after being warned is call for an indef block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here. It appears that Laval has alleged at WP:COIN that another editor works for a certain PR firm and (without providing evidence) that this PR firm is a Scientology-related organization. At first glance, this may well be outing and/or harassment, and may merit sanctions, but there may be circumstances – such as genuine conflict of interest situations that jeopardize Wikipedia's neutrality – that legitimize such conduct. To enable other administrators to examine this further in a more structured environment, I recommend making a WP:AE request.  Sandstein  17:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Enclos

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not sure what to do about this. A new editor, User:ARCHjunkie, has tried five times to get a new article on the glass consulting company "Enclos" created through Articles for Creation, but has been turned down each time. [12] This editor's only edits are to that proto-article, and to insert the name of the company into other articles. [13] Because of this, I left him or her a comment pointing out our WP:COI policy.

Today, another completely new editor, User:ObviouslyNotAGolfer created the article Enclos directly, using the text from AfC. The creation of the article is this editor's one and only edit. [14] Immediately after, a third editor, User:ConsiderMeMilesDavis also brand-spanking new, edited the Enclos article and added the name of the company to the same articles that ARCHjunkie had. [15].

I don't think it's a lack of AGF on my part to believe that these three editors are either the same person or, at the very least, meatpuppets working in concert, and that they are in some manner connected to this probably only barely notable company, but I don't know what to do about it. Did they break any rules by creating an article after it had been rejected numerous times at AfC? Does their obvious COI make the article subject to being deleted? If so, what's the best pathway to do that? Or am I simply overreacting?

Any advice and/or action will be welcomed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

All accounts notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I decided to mark it for speedy deletion under A7, no indication of importance. As far as I can tell, the article makes no claim of importance or notability for the company, the sources pretty much show that it exists, and that it did certain projects and bought other companies. I don't normally do a lot of deletion-related stuff, which is why I was hesitant to take this step. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

ARCHjunkie has been on the IRC help channel a few times, and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if this was sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. As it is, the article's sources are not good enough, cited to one in-industry book, a niche magazine, and enclos's website. Howicus (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nanshu's personal attacks

At Hokkaido (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Nanshu (talk · contribs) has been vehemently opposing the inclusion of what is as far as I can discern from multiple sources I've scoured across the internet to be the Ainu language name for the island and has done so for the past several years. Last year, when Nanshu came upon the page, he falsely accused me of vandalism and he posted this lengthy screed wherein he calls me "not just rude and dishonest but ignorant". I sought out several more sources to back up the claim I had added as seen here. Within the past several hours Nanshu has once again posted a lengthy essay to the talk page where among many things he says I lack common sense, continues to attack my intelligence by stating that something is too long for me to understand, and says that I am an example of the anti-intellectual threat to Wikipedia. He has also called me a hopeless cause and said I am "too bold to edit Wikipedia"??. I should not have to tolerate this behavior.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I warned the user on their talk page. The level of incivility in this case is relatively minor, I don't believe any other action is warranted at this time. If the incivility continues, report it again to escalate the consequences. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Incivility going on for 3 years now though is a bit much.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Repetitive and extensive OR-violations by Migang2g

Migang2g (talk · contribs) is inserting tons of original research over and over again. If it's removed, he reverts and if it is tagged, he removes the fact tags. The problem is not a content dispute (Migang2g may be right or wrong) but the fact that Migang2g continues even after being informed repeatedly about Wikipedia's policies about WP:RS and WP:OR. The problem in a nutshell is this:
Migang2g uses perfectly good sources, but he always uses them to say something completely different. Here are just a few examples:

• For his figure of how many Spanish speakers there are in the US, Migang2g uses one source that gives the total Hispanic population in the US, then another source that says which percentage of Hispanics speak Spanish, and then he calculates his own figure based on this. There are loads of problems there. First, some non-Hispanics also study Spanish. Jeb Bush is not Hispanic, but speaks Spanish. Second, the figure Migang2g presents is not found in any of the sources, it's his own calculation by combining data from two different sources that weren't necessarily computed at the same time.
  
• For Spanish speakers in Morocco, it gets even more bizarre. The source says between 4 and 7 millions, but Migang2g has decided that the actual number is 5.5 millions.
  
• For all European countries, Migang2g uses the Eurobarometer. First of all, the Eurobarometer only focuses on people older than 15 years, so applying it to the whole population is clearly wrong. Second, the Eurobarometer study consists of a sample in every European country, usually between 500 and 1000 people, and the gives a percentage for how many of these speaks a given language. So the Eurobarometer never gives any figure for the number of speakers in any country. Yet for more than 20 countries, Migang2g takes the percentage found in the sample, then calculates that against the number of people older than 15 years, and then presents his results as the number of Spanish speakers in the whole population.
  
• For many non-European countries, Migang2g looks at how many people there are in the country from Spanish speaking countries, and then he adds all these up. This is wrong on many levels. First and foremost, it again means that the number Migang2g presents is never found in the sources, it's just his own calculations. Second, the calculations are obviously wrong. For some countries, he only finds data for some Spanish speaking countries. Moreover, he is wrong to equate "people from Spanish speaking countries" with "Spanish speakers". In Spain alone, there are millions of people whose language is Catalan, Galician or Basque rather than Spanish.
  
• For a large number of countries, Migang2g doesn't even bother with a source. He just presents a number with no source at all. If it's removed, he reinserts it. If it's tagged, he deletes the tags.
  
• Last but not least, Migang2g presents a percentage of Spanish speakers for the whole population. There is never a source for this. Instead he takes the whole population of each country from some source. Then he divides that with his own estimates of Spanish speakers (which are always OR, as shown above) to arrive at the percentage. Even if his calculations of Spanish speakers wouldn't violate OR, and they certainly do, this percentage nonsense would be obvious OR and false as the sources Migang2g has used are never taken at the same time.
  

Now, I have tried to explain over and over to Migang2g that this is OR.[16], [17], [18]. I have pointed out twice that he cannot calculate in this way and that he cannot make up numbers that aren't found in the sources. He doesn't give a damn, he just continues anyway. Last time, when I tagged the OR claims to give him the possibility to present sources for them, I also warned him that I would bring the matter here if he continued.[19] He ignored that as well. Given that I've directed Migang2g to WP:RS and WP:OR repeatedly and he still continues to delete every fact tag and to present his own calculations (and often his own inventions) as undisputed facts, I see no other way to deal with this than to take it here. This is not a content dispute, it's about Migang2g deliberately falsifying data, misrepresenting sources and deleting fact tags despite multiple warnings.Jeppiz (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Persistent insertion of original research, misrepresentation of sources and synthesis of data coupled with persistent WP:IDHT and lack of competence, particularly for someone who has a 6 year old account should be met with a swift block. Blackmane (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think the second last sentence by Migang2g in this diff says it all: This is the reason I inserted my original research. This comes after Jeppiz tried in detail to explain why the edits were original reseach and why it is against policy. I'm not sure if this is a language-barrier issue or just a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue, but some restrictions need to be placed on Migang2g if the editor is going to continue to insist on inserting WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Singularity42 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I have also wondered if the problem is that Migang2g's English isn't good or if he just refuses to hear. That's why I've given him the benefit of doubt this far, and tried to explain over and over again why he cannot push OR of this kind. As you say, some restrictions would be needed know, because any attempt at discussing with him is fruitless. He knows and acknowledges that he has calculated all the numbers himself (apart from all those that he just made up), but he just doesn't seem to care. I've already reverted two times and tagged all the claims that aren't sourced (or "sourced" by misrepresenting the source), and I have no wish to start a long edit war, especially as Migang2g has made it perfectly clear that he will continue to behave in the same way.Jeppiz (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Hello. If Jeppiz delete every data I used, people will not be able to opine, then It's neccesary people see the data to debate it.

First I am going to talk about the sources I can not understand why are violating something, according to Jeppiz.

• In USA, Jeppiz deleted the source about the Spanish speakers as a first language. It’s a direct source from the US census Bureau. There isn’t any discussion here, but Jeppiz deleted it.

• About European Union countries I used a direct source. It’s not the combination of two sources. The eurobarometer give us the population older than 15 years old of each country (page TS2), and the percentage of the population of these countries who speak Spanish enough to be able a conversation (Page T64). For example for France, eurobarometer says that 14% of 47,756,439 can keep a Spanish conversation. It’s the same to say that 6,685,901 can keep a conversation. Check also pages T40, T46 and T74, for other data I used. Jeppiz says that this is only a survey to 1,000 people. Of course. This is the best way to know the reality and to do a good statistic data. It's imposible to ask to everybody.

• About Brazil, I used a direct source from Instituto Cervantes (page 6). This source says that there are 12 million speakers with limited knowledges. Its not my calculation. This data was in the column: "Total Spanish speakers including speakers with limited knowledge". I added the last phrase, but Jeppiz always is reverting everything.

After these 3 points, I'm going to talk about other points I can understand the discussion:

• About 43.7 million people who speak Spanish very well. The Pewhispanic's source says that 82% of the Hispanic people in USA speak Spanish very well, and the Hispanic population is 53.3 million according to US census Bureau. If I can claim both data because both data have own their sources, mathematics says that 82% of 53.3 million = 43.7 million.

Readers can see that the figure is the combination of two sources, because is specified beside the figure with the reference number. But It isn't my own calculation. I didn’t make a statistic study to calculate the population of USA or the percentage of the population who speak Spanish very well.

Finally I used 7.8 million Spanish students. The students are frecuently used to talk about the speakers of a language. Arab for example is studied in the schools. Practically don't have a first language speakers. About English speakers, this wikipededia says that there are 1,500 million speakers, because there are 750 million speakers as a foreign language. It's a source from the British Council. In the Encyclopedia Britannica you can find similar figure. Of course It's included English students. Anyway I gave sources that talks about 50 million speakers. Instituto Cervantes (page 6) says that there are 37 million speakers as first language and 15 million speak Spanish with limited knowledge. This data was in the column: "Total Spanish speakers including speakers with limited knowledge" that I recently added part of the last phrase.

• About Morocco, I used a direct source, however the source says that there are between 4 and 7 million speakers, and I used 5.5 to have a concret figure. Maybe this figure could change it for a concreter data.

• Jeppiz also deleted the Hispanic immigrants in the European Union. Why? In the study Demografía de la Lengua española (page 37) says that there are 2,397,380 immigrants from Spain or Latin America who they are Spanish speakers as a first language. I did the same but specifying immigrants in each country, and the sum is less than 2.4 million. Migang2g (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Migang2g (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the above answer by Migang2g doesn't really address the issue. I agree with him about the first point concerning Spanish speakers in the US and I've reinserted that source. However, that still leaves more than 150 unsourced claims. The rest of Migang2g's answer consists of him explaining how he calculated his data, showing that he still does not hear the point: there should be no calculations at all. For the US, he thinks it's ok to combine data from different studies and calculate his own figure. For European countries, he thinks the Eurobarometer can be used to claim a number of speakers. It cannot, as the Eurobarometer never presents any such figures, only percentages. That equating "immigrants" (and immigrants alone) with "speakers" isn't possible should be obvious, and I hardly need to point out that a source saying "between 4 and 7 millions" cannot be used to claim "5.5 millions".

Apart from these problems, Migang2g doesn't address all the "facts" that simply are made up. So in short, it seems we all agree that Migang2g is calculating (and often making up) his own population figures. As everybody except Migang2g also point out, it is problematic and worrying that Migang2g still refuses to get the point. At Wikipedia, we cannot calculate population figures ourselves, not to mention making figures up.Jeppiz (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

---

You can claim that I used two sources for the "very well" Spanish speakers in USA, but not for EU countries. I'm economist an I studied about survey and I can claim that the Eurobarometer's study is about the population of each country, older than 15 years old who speak the different languages. The study don't give us a figure, only the percentage, but the study was made thinking that is more representative and summarized to give us percentages, but they also give us their population calculation for the study, and that's the problem with the other source. Pewhispanic give us the pecentage 82% of the Hispanics who speak very well Spanish, but they don't say anything about the population data they used. But when a study talks about a percentage is a percentage of something. We need to know the quantity of population we are talking.

Migang2g (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Migang2g, what you describe above is the very conduct issue that has brought you here. You are applying your knowledge of economics and your study of the survey to interpret the results and put them in Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot accept your interpretation of the surveys, etc. Either the survey directly states it or it does not. If an interpretation is required, then you are adding your own original research. Singularity42 (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Direct question to Migang2g

What we need from you at this time is an answer to the following question: Will you refrain from adding content based on your own original research, including, but not limited to a) your own interpretation of sources beyond what they directly state, b) your synthesis of two sources to create new information, and c) your own calculations using raw data contained in the sources? If the answer to that is anything but "Yes, you will refrain", then an administrator will have to take action. Singularity42 (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)----

---

Yes, I can refrain. I could added only direct sources where "citation needed" is required, but I consider that EU data used is a direct source. I could delete the percentages calculated and the figures where I used two sources combined, but remaining the EU data used as before.

The study: Demografía de la lengua española (page 37), uses the Eurobarometer 2006 to claim that there are almost 19 million people who speak Spanish including speakers with limites knowledges. It is also used in the List of countries by English-speaking population for the EU countries excluding UK. The problem here is that It wasn't considered the population data in the Eurobarometer 2012 older than 15 as I did. They used other population data source as in the talk page was debated, but the eurobarometer was considered as a good source.

I also have to say that in the table in the English language article, percentages was calculated according to the figures founded in the sources as I did. Then they must be corrected.

Migang2g (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Eurobarometer 2012 data figures are correct

I can understand the data were removed from the summary table. Those were totally correct but I used two sources to create an original result, but eurobarometer data is a direct source and It was removed again. In this study we can find the population older than 15 of each country, and the percentage who speak spanish with different levels. It is an Eurostat extimation through a survey made every 5 years (Eurobarometer 2001, 2006, 2012). Then, the percentages are from something. The percentages are about the population older than 15 presented in the page TS2 as It is explained. It's an extimation, with a margin error as every stadistic study, but It's a study to be used or to keep into account. It isn't raw data, because the result of population who speak Spanish is equal to the percentage of the population older than 15. Mathematics says it. This is the reason Eurobarometer present us always the population data older than 15. Eurobarometer presented us percentages instead of figures, because there are many data tables and It is more summarized to present us only percentages.

This data also was used in the List of countries by English-speaking population, but in that list It was used the combination of two sources because It was used the total population from another sources, and It wasn't used the population older than 15 from Eurobarometer 2012. Migang2g (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone put a 'blocked' template on their own talk page?

User:Filmmaking has just done so - any guesses? [20] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The editing pattern is also kinda weird. He seems obsessed with removing entries and flags from several TV shows list articles. I'm unsure if they're improvements or not.-- cyclopia^speak! 13:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps in an attempt to fool anyone about to report him to be blocked that he was already blocked Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it - Andy, did you attempt to ask the editor themselves before running off to ANI? GiantSnowman 14:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No - and you are right, I probably should have done. I seemed not to have notified User:Filmmaking about this thread too - I thought I had, but obviously didn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think she likes TV shows so she edit TV show articles. Squidville1 (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a wierd vibe to all this, notice the edits by Bretonbanquet(who also has a block for vandalism) who seems to be up for defending this user at all costs and their edits are quite different too(wont call it vandalism yet until some one can see a trend or dig more).  A m i t  웃   15:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet's edits to User talk:Filmmaking appear to have been perfectly reasonable responses to some terrible edits by NewFranco. I haven't looked very deeply into Filmmaking's edits yet, so I won't put forward an opinion on that, but this may explain why NewFranco went after Filmmaking. Neither of the two has covered themselves in glory, I think. bobrayner (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Amit, would you care to explain your comments? I do not have a block for vandalism, and just what the hell are you insinuating? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

just because it is old doesn't make it vanish, and get off my user talk page.  A m i t  웃   17:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, you do - but the fact it's from 2005 makes its mention here slightly...curious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Amit, did you bother to check that out? First day of editing in 2005 where I made a couple of innocent mistakes and was blocked with no warning, nothing. I think the word you were looking for is "had" a block. It ought to be struck off, it was so blatantly unmerited. But clearly you think that makes me some kind of "problem editor". Now, what do you mean by my "edits are quite different too"? If you can't explain the accusatory comments that you make, you have absolutely no business on this page. And I'll take that apology for a massive violation of WP:AGF now, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looking at Bretonbanquet's edits in 2005 I can't see any vandalism, but hey, the blocking admin has long since retired and although the wisdom of digging up a brief block in 2005 is questionable, we're not going to make that issue any better by poking at it with the AN/I stick. Let's try a different point; a.amitkumar, could you explain why you think that Bretonbanquet is "up for defending this user at all costs and their edits are quite different too(wont call it vandalism yet until some one can see a trend or dig more)"? bobrayner (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Going back to the original question, Filmmaking's decision to label themselves as blocked must surely be related to the absurd threats of blocking they got from NewFranco. I think the best explanation is that Filmmaking is an inexperienced editor who made a mistake and got badly bitten. bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the impression I got. Filmmaking seemed to be an inexperienced, slightly bewildered editor who was receiving some rather undeserved threats from another editor, hence my input. Another thing, Amit, I have no record of being informed by you about the mudslinging aimed at me on this page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

But you are here aren't you(but yes I missed it)? I mentioned your contributions to his user pages weird because that's the only contributions you did to his user talk page. I obviously should have mentioned the warnings too which you responded to. And don't expect an apology from me. You had a block(a fact) which I mentioned though it might have been irrelevant as others mention, AGF is a policy that works both ways, which you don't show either.  A m i t  웃   18:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm here because I had Filmaking's talk page on watch and bobrayner posted on it linking to this. I don't need to explain to you why I posted on his page, and others have found my input perfectly reasonable, which it is. There are others who have only posted there once, what exactly does that have to do with anything? I'm not asking you to apologise for mentioning the 7+ year-old block which you inexplicably found relevant to this discussion, I'm asking you to explain and then apologise for your vague accusations against me. You have now accused me of not showing AGF, maybe you'd better explain that too. I've got nothing whatsoever to say about you. If you've got something to say about me, have the guts to actually say it and stop dancing around it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor reading this, I'm struggling to understand Amit's grudge. Bringing up Bretonbanquet's block log would only be relevant if the offences were both recent and numerous. A single block in 2005 fits neither of those things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is the "The Free Encyclopedia" which means anyone (including Filmmaking) can edit anytime a day. Which means the user you mentioned, she can edit anything she wants. Squidville1 (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Anyone can edit" is not quite the same thing as "Anyone can accuse other people of problematic editing and then clam up when other editors think the accusation is unfounded". Whether that's NewFranco or a.amitkumar. bobrayner (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I gotta admit that she is falsely accused of editing two article just because she edit many articles doesn't mean that she edits articles with only two topics. She is just a newcomer. NewFranco and/or AnomieBOT should apologize for what they did to her. Squidville1 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Kinda hard for a bot to apologise for anything... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for being a mere bot 7SeriesBOT (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

1-2-3 doing the botty-bot! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Users circumventing topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lucia Black and Ryulong have been collaborating in an effort of evade the three month topic ban levied at Lucia Black. There is evidence of this on Ryulong's talk page (and probably a great deal more done via PM) [21]. Ryulong has also deleted a previous conversation with Lucia Black in which she gives him instructions on what to do [22]. It seems that there is meat puppetry going on. DocIger67 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Will notify with next edit. DocIger67 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, acutally, because you have been blocked for username impersonation. And a quick look at the evidence indicates that your case is wholly without merit, as the "deleted previous conversation" is still there and the diff used indicates a warning that Ryulong believes it would violate Lucia's topic ban. Suggest this be closed forwith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should feel flattered or insulted to have been impersonated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, isn't copying supposed to be the sincerest form of flattery? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Call me cynical but this might indicate that Special:Contributions/99.251.120.60 (being discussed above for hounding Ryulong) has changed their MO. They appear to have taken a shine to both Lucia Black[23] and Ryulong. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

They tried this tack earlier; there should be reference to it in the ANI archives of a while ago, to someone claiming to have been Chris Gualteri but posing as Lucia Black's sock though pretending to be Chris's sock or something like that. A clear attempt at trolling, to exacerbate an already bad situation. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm not entirely sure this was an impersonation of Roger (Dodger67) as DocIger67 made no attempt at least in this discussion to try and pass himself off as "Roger", which until recently (because he felt generous after I pointed out that not including his real username in his signature and the fact that there really is a User:Roger, that the signature was confusing at least) was the only name in his signature. Doc Iger, while if mashed together just right (which he made no apparent attempt to do with css) doesn't seem to have ever included "Roger" in his signature. Technical 13 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You didn't see his talk page before I nuked it. DocIger67 had cut-and-pasted Dodger67's talk page, in its entirety, onto his own. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough... If that account is confirmed to be a sock of Technoquat, then my point was moot anyways... Good day. :) Technical 13 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
      • If it was Technoquat that explains it - I had a run-in with it/him/her some time ago. Case closed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:R-41 and various IP addresses

R-41 (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked back in May by User:Dennis Brown at their own request, following a run of problematic content additions and general behaviour, and on the basis of evident issues, including edits that had to be oversighted. In blocking, Dennis Brown suggested that in six months they could request an unblock but that in the meantime any IPs they continued to edit through should be blocked also. Since then the editor has returned to editing through a succession of IPs. In doing so, they have made no attempt to edit in different areas or amend their behavior, ie to make a fresh start (and even if they had of course, they would still be falling foul of the terms of the block). They are still editing in a combative fashion – for example shouting in full caps in edit summaries and telling other users, ie me, that they "hate [my] guts" and that I am a "smart-ass" – and are edit warring even when mistakes in the content they add are politely pointed out to them. They have also made several further talk page comments that have had to be oversighted. There is also the underlying issue that their continuing to edit here is clearly not helpful for them as an individual. I guess this could have gone to SPI but I'm not sure that is technically the problem and arguably it goes beyond that anyway. The following IPs are the ones they have definitely been editing from recently, with the most recent/current one at the top.

• 70.26.155.42 (talk · contribs)
• 74.12.192.213 (talk · contribs)
• 184.145.75.33 (talk · contribs)

Not sure what can be done if they insist on editing from constantly altering IP addresses, but something clearly needs to be done with them, if only for their own good. N-HH talk/edits 21:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've just blocked User:70.26.155.42 for a month for making threats on both this and N-HH's talkpage, and have rev-deleted the edits. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess we'll have to wait and see if they pop up in a few days under another IP address. They rarely deny it's them when challenged, and the editing patterns and writing style make their identity rather obvious. N-HH talk/edits 08:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Request delete and salt of Sanad Rashed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sanad Rashed is a BLP which has been deleted on two separate occasions and has been recreated by the same editor Dubaismart three times now. I am requesting a delete and salt of the article, and whatever the appropriate measures are for the editor who keeps recreating the same article. I have already tagged it for CSD G4. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Links to the previous discussion. First discussion, Second discussion. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Article deleted and salted. Warning given to user that recreation will lead to a block. Dpmuk (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paddington (UK Parliament constituency)

• Paddington (UK Parliament constituency)

User:Sam Blacketer is restoring content to the above article for no good reason, and for no benefit to the article or the UK parliamentary project. The information I want removing deals with the Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies which has been abandoned, making the information irrelevant and pointless to the article itself.

The information has been removed, without any reverting or reversal or protest, from around 100-200 other articles. I therefore find that Sam Blacketer is purposely choosing this one article to revert and re-revert for his own pleasure, or for purely disruptive purposes.

Further more, you will notice that he has removed a 3RR warning from his page that I put on there as a friendly wrist-slap, and a further removal of advise that I would being his constant edit warring to an administrators attenion (see [24]

doktorb _words^deeds 18:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A. don't link to off-site harassment pages. B. You've broken 3RR and he hasn't, so you don't really have "clean hands" here yourself. I suggest you discuss the matter on the talk page instead of continuing to edit war or you'll likely be blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not in the wrong. Over the history of the Paddington article, I have not broken 3RR, he has. I will continue to fight my corner, because I am in the right. doktorb _words^deeds 18:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you won't. You do not have to breach WP:3RR to be in a edit war, and being "in the right" does not entitle you to "fight your corner". Right now you are at 3RR, he is at 2RR. Stop the edit war now and discuss. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no discussing with that editor, as you should be able to see, he is an edit war editor, and I am not. I will not be bullied into submission here. No other UK Parliament constituency article contains the information he wants to include. No other editor agrees with him, else they would be putting it the 650+ articles. That proves - not merely implies - that I am right. So I will keep reverting because I am not in the wrong. I did not come here to be warned about banning when there's a proven sockpuppeter re-reverting everything! doktorb _words^deeds 18:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF - and WP:POINT. Also provide your proof of the other editor being a sock. And let's repeat this: being 'in the right' does not entitle you to edit-war. Your promise to "keep reverting" and claims that you are "in the right" indicate a complete refusal to listen and will result in a block if continued. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just echo what The Bushranger has said: you seem to think you have the right to continually revert but he doesn't... the fact is neither of you do. You need to start a discussion on the article's talk page instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is madness. I have looked after hundreds and hundreds of UK Parliament constituency articles. I'm damn proud of articles being looked after and tendered well. I revert vandalism. I add election results from the 1940s onwards when they are missing. I clean up pages when I can. Now this! I can't believe that *I* am being threatened when someone else is in the wrong! I want all UK Parliament constituency articles to have the same content, that's all I'm doing, it's not vindictive, it's constructive! How can you be twisting this against me - can't you see my side of things? I won't back down on this - Sam is in the wrong, not me, and I have to revert his edits, it's a matter of principle. I'm not backing down. doktorb _words^deeds 18:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you do not "have" to revert his edits, and "matters of principle" have no place on Wikipedia. I could very easily block you immediately for threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and gross refusal to listen. However, instead, I have reverted the article Paddington (UK Parliament constituency) to the state it was in before this edit-war began, and full-protected it, as the two of you have been the only editors, batting this back and forth, for the last 45 days (indeed, the last edit before this started was 1 January). You both need to discuss the contested content on the article's talk page to reach consensus for its inclusion or non-inclusion, and you need to start by dropping the contention that you are automatically right and he is automatically wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Also both of you need to avoid having this edit-war spill over to other articles like Cities of London and Westminster (UK Parliament constituency). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, what The Bushranger says is absolutely correct in terms of Wikipedia policy, but I do want to point out that we set up a very difficult dilemma in human psychology by asking editors to give their all to improve articles, to the point of their taking pride in their work and feeling not WP:OWNERSHIP of the articles, but a positive sense of stewardship regarding them, and then not giving any recognition of that feeling when situations such as this come up. It is far too easy for casual editors to put vested editors in the position of having to restrain themselves for fear of being blocked for edit-warring. Some recognition of "stewardship" ought to be taken into account by admins when sizing up these types of situations (and perhaps it has here, given that Doctorbuk has not been blocked), and more care should be taken to gently "talk down" the vested editor to get him or her to the talk page. Contrarily, those casual editors who provoke these situations (probably without meaning to) should have the situation explained to them, and be put on a shorter leash if they continue to revert. Because the relationship of the editors to the article is asymmetrical, there should be a similar asymmetry in how the editors are dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, no one should take my comment as criticism of anything that The Bushranger has done in this case. It's really a general comment and not specifically about this incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you BmK, that's exactly how I was feeling. I can spend an hour putting in past election results and all of the rest of it, knowing that I'd not get thanked. Then this happens. Feels like a lot of hard work has been for nothing. But as you say, I've not been blocked, so that's a positive sign at least. doktorb _words^deeds 21:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: - in your opening statement you accuse Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppet. I strongly suggest you either retract your accusation, or back it up with conclusive evidence. GiantSnowman 08:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The alternative account (which finally was User:Fys) was explained in 2009 when Sam Blacketer resigned from arbcom.[25] It's hard to see that it has any bearing here. Sam Blacketer is a long term contributor on politics and politicians in the UK. Mathsci (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• I* am a long term contributor on politics and politicians on Wikipedia, does that not count? doktorb _words^deeds 09:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Please see WP:OWN. In these particular circumstances, I think you should take Sam Blacketer's contributions in good faith. As a side remark, asking that articles conform to a particular mould is not something that you can insist upon. That just leads to problems similar to disputes over WP:MOS or infoboxes. The issues here are best discussed calmly on the article talk pages or on a suitable wikiproject page connected with UK politics. Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Not really"?! So Sam is good, Dok is bad, despite us doing the same thing? I've worked damn hard on the same kind of pages that he works on, so why "not really"? doktorb _words^deeds 10:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that is your misreading. You started this thread with bad faith accusations about Sam Blacketer, which have been removed by an administrator. You needlessly personalised things and escalated the dispute to this dramaboard. You have been advised to continue your discussions calmly at more relevant venues (see above). Please do so. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been taken to DRN? The existence or lack thereof of material in one or another article is covered by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is never a valid argument. You have a content dispute with another editor, take it to an appropriate venue ([[WP:3O, WP:DRN, etc) and get an outside view. Histrionics isn't going to get you far. Blackmane (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend doktorb to take this much less personally. It is clear to any neutral observer that both users are involved in a long and tedious edit war. I won't comment on the actual content dispute, but it is painfully clear from the long edit warring and the lack of discussions on the talk page that none of the users is adhering to Wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately, doktorb seems to take any comment from uninvolved editors as a personal insult, as seen by his/her replies above. That attitude is not productive, neither is claiming that you will continue to revert because you know you're right. I would strongly recommend a short break, and re-reading key Wikipedia policies and procedures such as WP:OWN, WP:EW, WP:AGF and WP:TRUTH.Jeppiz (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Wikipedia is not a battleground. And the whole point of a wiki is that everybody, in every moment, can modify what you have written. That's the very concept behind it. We all follow the same rules, no matter if we edited the article for ages or just yesterday.-- cyclopia^speak! 17:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Adam Hills

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Adam Hills article needs to be protected. On the live TV show The Last Leg he challenged people to update his Wikipedia page, and guess what? It's happening. Mostly it's nonsense/vandalism. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's OK, someone just did it. Bazonka (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Actually leaving it in a vandalised state would be pretty good "punishment" for his stupidity. If he wants an article about him to consist of mostly bullshit, then so be it. Even better if some lazy journo ends up spreading the vandalism around as "The Truth". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, tempting as it might be to "enforce the Golden Rule", it's still a WP:BLP violation and if somebody raised a stink about it they'd probably still win... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yelena Isinbayeva

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apparently just after winning the World Championship in the Pole Vault, Yelena made a statement about gay rights in Russia. In the last hour or so the article has been vandalized [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] multiple time by different, IPs or new editors. We might reduce further damage if we limit editing to experienced editors until this blows over. Trackinfo (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerns with Jessica Christy and Hgjkfl

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I tried to report this to AIV despite rock-solid evidence, but no action was taken despite a history built up of the problems (there's more frustration with AIV involving serial vandal reporting I won't go into here).

Supermariofan12 (talk · contribs) was blocked a month ago for creating a series of false articles around the false television station WKOL-TV. I thought it was resolved, but last night an edit involving a new false television station WBCG on List of The CW Television Network affiliates (note the Charlotte area already has a CW affiliate) popped up. I reverted that and was about to warn the user, Jessica Christy (talk · contribs) for their falsehood and suddenly found they edit to Hgjkfl (talk · contribs)'s userpage with regularity...with the same information about WKOL that got SMF12 blocked. Likewise Hgjkfl was also editing WKOL information with Jessica onto their userpage, while Jessica's talkpage also contains a false station infobox. There had been a mess of non-free images I removed of the WKOL "userpage" and on another WKOL farm on Hgjkfl's talk page, flaring up my suspicions of both of them being WP:DUCKs of each other with SMF12, along with the usual concerns that other editors have no business messing with each other's userpages to begin with. Nate • (chatter) 16:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hgjkfl is a complete duck for Supermariofan12 (aka Supermariofan, and who knows what else) and I had no hesitation in blocking indefinitely. Jessica Christy looks to me more like a meatpuppet than a sockpuppet, and she does have some constructive edits in her history, so I have blocked her indefinitely too, but with a custom block message which is intended to give her more encouragement to request an unblock, if she is willing to drop the unconstructive parts of her editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grossly insulting edit summary needs revdel

[32]

Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Edit summary removed. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerns with Jessica Christy and Hgjkfl

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I tried to report this to AIV despite rock-solid evidence, but no action was taken despite a history built up of the problems (there's more frustration with AIV involving serial vandal reporting I won't go into here).

Supermariofan12 (talk · contribs) was blocked a month ago for creating a series of false articles around the false television station WKOL-TV. I thought it was resolved, but last night an edit involving a new false television station WBCG on List of The CW Television Network affiliates (note the Charlotte area already has a CW affiliate) popped up. I reverted that and was about to warn the user, Jessica Christy (talk · contribs) for their falsehood and suddenly found they edit to Hgjkfl (talk · contribs)'s userpage with regularity...with the same information about WKOL that got SMF12 blocked. Likewise Hgjkfl was also editing WKOL information with Jessica onto their userpage, while Jessica's talkpage also contains a false station infobox. There had been a mess of non-free images I removed of the WKOL "userpage" and on another WKOL farm on Hgjkfl's talk page, flaring up my suspicions of both of them being WP:DUCKs of each other with SMF12, along with the usual concerns that other editors have no business messing with each other's userpages to begin with. Nate • (chatter) 16:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hgjkfl is a complete duck for Supermariofan12 (aka Supermariofan, and who knows what else) and I had no hesitation in blocking indefinitely. Jessica Christy looks to me more like a meatpuppet than a sockpuppet, and she does have some constructive edits in her history, so I have blocked her indefinitely too, but with a custom block message which is intended to give her more encouragement to request an unblock, if she is willing to drop the unconstructive parts of her editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grossly insulting edit summary needs revdel

[33]

Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Edit summary removed. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Avanhard resort article and self-promotion

• Avanhard (Vorokhta) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have noticed that someone tried to pad this article several times with various links to a foreign commercial third-party websites, such as this one, this and this. All of these commercial sites are using self-published basic info about resort (and few photos of unknown source) for a self-promotion of their own commercial services (namely selling the tours or rooms at the hotels at this particular resort). Am I correct to assume that such sources (which have the only purpose of self-promoting their own commercial service) should not be used due to WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:IS or am I wrong? I have tried to remove these but they were reverted and I was straight away accused of vandalism. I do not really want to break any WP:3RR rules (and if I already did - I apologize for that) or engage into further pointless conversations at an article's Talk page so please help me figure it out here... 173.68.110.16 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID this is exactly breaking point 5. Also some content in the page was focusing more on a resort than the town/village itself. I have removed the content but not the external links yet though.  A m i t  웃   02:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

What's the problem? Clear-cut advertising case. Just delete the links again and ask the user to discuss on the talkpage per WP:BRD. You're not the one edit-warring here, so I don't see anything worthy of ANI just yet. He's only posted on the talk page once. I'm sorry I no longer have the time to just help you with this, but I don't see any reason why I (or anyone else) would need to at this point. Also, try pointing out to him that "vandalism" is a label that should never be applied to anything but obvious bad-faith edits and so is clearly being used wrongly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It would hardly be fair to leave 173.68.110.16 to deal with this alone; naturally, they're worried about 3RR. I've warned the user on their page. Thanks for raising this, 173.68.110.16, and feel free to alert me on my page if there's more trouble. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

Negative, the user 173.68.110.16 has never tried to discuss his edits, but rather had intentions to delete the whole article without any discussion. The article itself is not a "clear case" of commercial advertising, but I agree that a lot of links may have lead to such assumption. However, I am willing to improve the article in near future. Also, please not that the article is not about a town, but rather a ski resort that is located in the town of Vorokhta (a bid difference). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You are intentionally trying to accuse me of WP:ABF, my dear friend... Why? I did start the discussion on an article's Talk page, right after I reverted all of the spam second time. I started it with an intention of preventing you from reverting my edits and preventing you from adding in more of self-promotion sources. I did NOT start WP:AfD and never intended to (if I wanted to I would've nominated this article right away). I gave you time to improve it and make it more useful for general readers. What did YOU do? You basically said "fuck you" then promptly reverted my edits again, marking them as "vandalism"... Just like you did before. And only NOW you are "willing to improve" it in a proper way... Why such dishonesty? 173.68.110.16 (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please could an Ukrainian/Russian-speaking admin take a look at the links?

Both the references and the external links, please. They're in languages I don't understand. However, having looked at the article more closely, I now consider the whole of it falls foul of WP:NOTADVERTISING, and have nominated it for deletion here. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

You can ask Ezhiki, he can understand and translate all of the links or recommend someone else to do this. And WP:AfDing it was somewhat premature, as I have explained it on its nomination page. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the AfD that IP address is sketchy as hell, and possibly related to the two brand new accounts (well, one of them registered in 2008, then just came back, five years later) which showed up at the AfD.Volunteer Marek 23:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I agree - this IP address is very "sketchy", all it does is vandalizing "foreign topic"-related articles as well as other "non-foreign topic"-related articles! Most likely a troll or a vandal. You should definitely investigate it further! Let me know what you will find, ok? 173.68.110.16 (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bishonen: [34]_(ru), [35]_(ru) and [36]_(ua) all say broadly the same sort of thing. They all describe the hotel (along the lines of: "It is situated in abc; it contains the facilities xyz; ..."). Some of them provide the option of booking rooms. However, in their descriptions they broadly avoid WP:PEACOCK terms ("this is a fantastic hotel" etc.), if that is important. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 09:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting Sanctions enforcement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jattnijj (talk · contribs), a new user, has been disruptive in the field of Indian caste material, especially on Jat people. This field is under community imposed discretionary sanctions, as can be seen at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. The user has already been blocked twice for edit warring (once on a Sikh religious article, Sarbloh Granth, and once on Jat people). The user has been warned many times (see the user's talk page), and given a formal sanctions warning by me in this edit. Despite these warnings, the user has continued to edit war on Jat people. Most recently and tellingly he has attempted to invoke "freedom of speech" (see edit summary on this and this edit on his talk page in response to a warning). Clearly this user is hellbent on making the article conform to his own personal opinions about Jat people, regardless of what sources say. Also, based upon this edit summary and the contents of this talk page edit, I believe the user is fundamentally opposed to the use of western scholarly sources, asserting that they may be biased (this is true, but that does not mean that we just remove them in preference for people's personal opinions).

At this point, since neither warnings nor prior blocks have had an effect, I think we need a topic ban. I leave it to the community's discretion as to how widely the topic ban should apply. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Give them a nice long block (two weeks or so duration or a month perhaps?). Not a fan of this new fad on India-related pages of biting newbies with topic bans (which only lead to more ANI theatrics from editwarriors and wikilawyers). To clarify Qwyrxian, this is in general, and not directed towards you as I think you've exhausted good faith in dealing with a misguided user.Pectore^talk 03:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Jattnijj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I support User:Pectore's recommendation of a block of at least two weeks. User:Jattnijj has already had 24-hour and 72-hour blocks as well as a sanctions warning. We've exhausted what can be done here by persuasion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Is wiki here to promote democratic learning or allow bullies to write bias? WP:REFBEGIN and WP:RELY.

I am a jatt of the jatt race And a sikh some we are not a caste nor hindu. The caste system is a creation we did not and do not live by, its dangerous and fictitious. Some claim that jatts are a caste or labourers or peasants is not proven. It is a pov promoted people who propagate dogma or those up to mischief.

If that is the point of wiki then I will fight you. If not then learn something of the subject matter ! Would you allow non Jewish people dominate the writing about them ? Which side do support copernicus or the church?

If you persist to allow this material without context, balance and researching what is already on the page you leave me with no choice but to escalate to the authorities in race and religious hatred. The least you could do is read my comments - I am not anti western or academic but anti bias. Jattnijj (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• The comment above was posted to another thread above this one so I moved it here (it seemed quite obviously like a response to this thread). I have tried to clean it up a bit for clarity without removing any context. On the face of it, this seems like a fairly obvious case of WP:NOBLE and WP:NOTHERE. Stalwart111 07:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for moving, still trying to get used to wiki and my phone 08:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talk • contribs)

• Im on the talk page waiting to have a reasonable debate wIth whomever to explain why this article's claims are too strong. I'd ask the editor team here to read all my comments and if they are unclear I will clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talk • contribs) 09:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Jattnijj, taking it to Talk:Jat people is A Good Thing and follows our chat here. Do you agree to let the article talk page discussion develop and not to edit war now? Respect for consensus is important here on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Jattnijj, anyone can edit any article on any subject on Wikipedia; "non-Jewish people" can, and I would venture possibly do, "dominate the writing about them" on Wikipedia. Now, sometimes this can be frustrating when you're a genuine expert on the topic and you're seeing the article being edited by Randy in Boise, but that's how Wikipedia works; nobody owns an article or topic, regardless of whether or not they're part of the group being written about (indeed, in many cases it's better if they're not). Now, one other thing you might want to be careful about are your suggestions that you will "escalate to the authorities in race and religious hatred" - this sort of thing is frowned upon here, and can lead to a block if it's determined you're trying to force a chilling effect on other editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Having just returned to Wikipedia after a year long absence, I'm struck by how much time is wasted by productive editors in reasoning with aggressive, unrepentent, and ignorant ideologues. No one in the real world would give them this kind of attention. Yes, a block of at least two weeks is in order. She or he should use that time to bone up on Wikipedia policy and etiquette. I don't believe discussing things on Talk:Jat people will be productive at this stage. After a block, hopefully chastened and wiser, they can continue the discussion, if they so choose. Being a newbie is no excuse; we were all newbies once. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support a block for two weeks. I've tried both on their talk page and at Talk:Jat_people#Opening_claim but it is clear that Jattnijj either has not read our policies etc or has little intention of abiding by them. Let's give them a chance via a block to read and/or reassess. The signs are not good to those of us who are familiar with behaviour in this area of WP, so if there is no real change when they return from the block then I would support a long-ish topic ban from caste articles because they're already proposing to get involved with others of that genre and, really, I for one am becoming increasingly tired of having to deal with this sort of stuff. We're losing good contributors because of it. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support two week block. Shows WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in comments above. GregJackP Boomer! 14:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support - and a month's block. I am sick to death of India related articles being attacked like this. People are taking great care over these articles, and people are coming on here with real WP:COMPETENCE issues and destroying them. Sorry about the rant, but with this and other Inida related articles, I'm just sick of it. Thanks SH 17:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support any block from two weeks to an indef. The number of POV-pushers editing Indian articles is already too high; this new user is clearly lacking in WP:COMPETENCE, clue, and isn't a benefit to the encyclopedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm 'aggressive, unrepentent, and ignorant ideologues'

Please explain.

Thanks

Jattnijj (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it has been explained to you quite clearly on the talk pages and your user talk page how you meet those criteria. You definitely need to review and absorb Wikipedia's rules quickly, or more punitive measures are justified.Pectore^talk 03:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Serial vandalism on Indonesian football clubs

Hello. On 4 August, an Indonesia-based anon editor started adding false information to Persekam Metro FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an Indonesian football club, e.g. the playing staff included Karleigh Osborne, who plays for English club Millwall and did so last week, and the coaching staff included Jim Magilton, recently appointed to a post with the Irish FA. This continued with increasing fantasy from IPs in the range 114.79.16.xxx to 114.79.19.xxx, and one registered account, Arfian anthok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who stopped contributing after getting a message in their own language. (FWIW, I'll notify them.) The page was semi-protected for a week, but once the protection expired, the fantasy additions started up again, and this time it was protected for a month and the most recent IP 114.79.19.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 24 hours.

This morning, very similar edits have been made to a different football club page, Persires Rengat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), including Magilton as coach, Osborne as player, and a member of the Maktoum family as chairman. On the basis it's probably not feasible either to protect or to watchlist every Indonesian football club page, is there any possibility of a range block, or would it knock out half the country? Or does anyone have any other constructive suggestions? thanks, Struway2 (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Block of Samuelled for copyvio

I've just blocked Samuelled (talk · contribs) for repeated insertions of content that violates copyright at INS Sindhurakshak (S63). As there's a possibility that some might consider me WP:INVOLVED after nominating his content fork of that article, INS Sindhurakshak disaster, at AfD yesterday (where it was speedy-deleted for the same copyright-violating content (word for word, even) being included), I've brought it here; I believe that even if WP:INVOLVED would apply this falls under the 'any reasonable administrator' exemption due to his apparent complete lack of understanding of copyright and Wikipedia's copyright policy, but if there is disagreement will not object to a trout and an unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your edits to the article, the spinout, and the AFD I would say that it speaks well of your judgment to be concerned about WP:INVOLVED. If this were just an edit warring block I might say it would have been better to have let someone else handle it; it would depend on any other involvement in the topic area or with Samuelled and with avoiding the appearance of impropriety. For blatant and repeated copyvio, though, this block is perfectly reasonable. I can re-block if we really need to, but WP:NOTBURO. If they continue to disregard our copyright requirements, an indefinite block would be in order until some indication is made of intending to follow policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to reblock - honestly, I likely would have done the same in Bushranger's place. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Me, too. I've given him a bit of the {{uw-copyright-new}} explanation, which hopefully will help avoid issues going forward. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MRG - that's a lot better than I could have ever explained it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I, obviously, think the block was warranted, as I warned the editor earlier. Seeing his denials that the content he added was unacceptable reinforces that and, further, raises questions about how he'll proceed after the block. That being said, yeah, you could have left the block to someone else, as your objections to the INS Sindhurakshak disaster article were not purely based on the copyright violations. -- tariqabjotu 20:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If it had been anything else, I would have absolutely waited, but as he was repeatedly re-adding the problematic content, I judged that it was best to attempt to prevent further copyvio and accept a seafood dinner if need be. Thanks everyone, and hopefully he'll be more understanding of policy when the block expires. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm being abused by an admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can i please get some help against User:Inayity and User:Malik Shabazz. Inayityi will not allow me to add an image of Rima Fakih in the infobox at Islam in the United States. in 2010, she became the first ever muslim american in U.S. history to hold Miss USA title. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] [43]. Inayityi is making up excuses at the talk page in order to not allow me to add fakih's image. And Malik Shabazz is in the background keeping a close eye on me and repeating threats of blocking me.[44] i feel that they're either working as a team against me or they're both the same person. judging by their behaviour, style of writing, point of views, area of editing, and feelings towards the Nation of Islam, they're likely the same person.--22 Male Cali (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not being abused. You keep trying to add an image in without any reliable source to back it up.

When challenged, you've offered original research. That research makes sense to me and actually looks like it's correct, but Wikipedia does not allow original research anywhere, especially not for living people. They've asked you to find a reliable source , otherwise, the woman you want to include as a muslim cannot be included.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "You keep trying to add an image in without any reliable source to back it up."? i listed 6 top news sites (ny daily news, today show, the guardian, abc news, daily mail (uk), huffingtonpost [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] [51].) and you think these are not reliable sources? plus, where am i suppose to cite the sources in the imagebox, next to her name?--22 Male Cali (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Beyond this, ANI is not about solving content disputes. We're not a dispute resolution board. You are talking on the talk page about the inclusion of Rima Fakih, which is the right thing to do, and it will be settled by consensus there. I note that Inayity is not the only person who has objected to her inclusion - another user has asked you to defend your choice on the talk page. "Dispute resolution" has some tips for resolving issues of this kind. Your job at this point is to convince others cordially and within policy that you are right, as KoshVorlon notes, using sources to support your opinions.

In terms of your concerns about admin abuse, I don't see any sign that Malik Shabazz is abusing you. He has cautioned you to respect the biographies of living persons policy and avoid edit warring. You seem to me on the verge of running into problems with the former, referring to people as "fake" Muslims, and your attitude towards the article in general seems problematic with the latter. He seems to be rather patiently dealing with your insistence that he is the same person as Inayity. Just tone down your comments, work within consensus, and you should be fine. I would recommend you read Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet, though. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, you are wrong dear. he didn't cautioned me, he threatened to block me when i didn't even edit war. the other day, he told me not to call followers of Nation of Islam (N.O.I) fake (counterfeit) muslims and i didn't do it again. i felt that he may be a follower of N.O.I. it seems that he's still not satisfied so he's now threatening to block me for edit warring when in fact i didn't engage in any edit-war. he didn't warn Inayity, the extreme pov pusher and the one who is constantly reverting everyone. that's when i noticed that something is wrong, that he may be using that name to get his work done and Malik Shabazz to block the other editors.--22 Male Cali (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that a edit-war does not have to get even close to 3RR to be an edit-war. And remember that wrongful accusations of sockpuppetry can be considered a personal attack (also even if you don't consider addressing someone as "dear" to be sexist it's certainly condescending). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• There's no basis for claims of administrative abuse. The socking accusations are frivolous. All we are left with is why didn't Mark warn Inayity, which is not a basis for any kind of administrative intervention. I'm now closing this before 22 Male Cali digs himself further into a hole.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Macktheknifeau

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have had a run-in with Macktheknifeau (talk · contribs) at the Eddy Bosnar article; this has gone beyond a mere editing dispute and now needs further attention. A quick history:

• He added unreferenced + POV material to a BLP
• I removed the POV
• He re-added it, supported by a very unreliable website
• I removed the non-RS
• He re-added it exactly as it was
• I removed it again
• He re-added it with some better wbsites
• I made the wording more neutral, removed 1 of the 3 sources as potentially unreliable, and moved it from the lede into a new section to avoid UNDUE weight
• He reverted me
• I reverted him
• He reverted me

I'm going to admit my editing here has been less-than-brilliant, but this editor has added the same material 6 times to an article, and completely ignored my attempts to reach a compromise make it suitable for an encylopedia. The content as it stands violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE; more troubling is this editor's behavior and attitude, as he has done nothing but accuse me of "administrative abuse of privileges", bullying, and vandalism etc. I am bringing this here for a review of both of our conduct. Note - I am away for a long weekend in 2 hours or so, so if you're gonna trout me please do it quickly. GiantSnowman 08:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I would note that Snowman breached 3RR before I did (in fact, I refuse to accept the premise that I did breach 3RR at all, because I was improving the page by adding sources), because he continually tore down my constructive changes to the page, simply reverting them with no discussion, until he started to make threats using his administrative privileges. I have reported GiantSnowman for breaking 3RR here. Here. I strongly protest at this admin using his administrative privileges to intimate and bully me into toeing the line on what he wants the article to be like, and I find the idea of an admin having his behaviour 'reviewed' by yet more admins to be inherently biased against me.Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The article does not violate NPOV, because it was a verifiable fact about the person that I sourced multiple reliable sources for, and it is not 'undue' because the significance of the fact is that this person has an ability which is the best in the world. It is equivalent to going to the Usain Bolt page and removing all information about his athletic achievements, and that would obviously be wrong, like it is here. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not revert you 3 times in 24 hours, though I have edited the article more than that. Note WP:3RRNO which states that it is not a violation of 3RR if the material is contentious or poorly sourced about a BLP, as this was. On the other hand, you have blindly reverted me way more many times that than, adding the exact same material to the article. Where have I threatened you? Where have I abused my "administrative privileges"? How is the phrase "In addition to his solid defensive duties, he is known for phenomenally powerful left footed free kicks" anything other than POV? It is not supported by any of the sources that you added. The info about the freekick is sourced, but it is also UNDUE - as I previously asked you, what official body or organization has verified that as a world record? Even your own edits state that it is only "believed to be" the fastest in the world. GiantSnowman 08:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I request that this conversation be locked and discussion be limited to Snowman's breach of 3RR here. You began to quote wiki-lawyering at me, reverted edits and then blatantly abused your powers to report me for so called 'breaches' of 3RR, when you were the one who breached that rule in the first place, because you kept removing legitimate and valid edits because you didn't agree with them. Notability doesn't require 'official' sources, only reliable ones, and being 'belived' to be the fastest in the world is perfectly notable when backed up by reliable sources, especially when the topic at hand is a fact, but not a regulated specially administrated event. You simply don't like my edits, have taken a turn against me, and want to use your admin powers to stop anyone going against your opinion. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have closed the AN3 report, giving this discussion priority over the whole suite of issues. Macktheknifeau has accused GiantSnowman here and at the article of abusing their admin privileges, but this accusation appears to be without merit; likewise the accusation of vandalism is unwarranted. That leaves us with the edit warring (we could lock the article but my guess is that there is no need at this juncture), with the addition of low quality sources and promotional language to a BLP, and with the accusations of bad faith. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• The statement "In addition to his solid defensive duties, he is known for phenomenally powerful left footed free kicks" is very, very heavily biased. Every time GiantSnowman removed a poorly sourced piece of information from a BLP, he didn't add to his "3RR" count, because such content should never be present in a BLP. Macktheknifeau's statement "in fact, I refuse to accept the premise that I did breach 3RR at all, because I was improving the page by adding sources" is deeply troubling; blindly edit-warring is wrong, even if you believe your position to be correct. The allegations of administrative abuse are totally unfounded; I cannot see where GiantSnowman has used his tools here. Macktheknifeau should be blocked for 48 hours, due to violating 3RR and editing in a heavily biased manner, as well as issuing personal attacks and such. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Mack's edits were inappropriate for many reasons. As 2/0 says, his accusations that GS abused his administrative privileges or committed vandalism are baseless. However, I would not claim a BLP exemption for this sort of thing. I generally regard the BLP exemption as adding negative material to an article, not promotional material. To claim the exemption here would be hypertechnical, and the policy warns against relying on the exemption. Mack needs to get a grip, on encyclopedic editing, on policy, and on silly attacks of abuse. GS should have stepped back earlier; judging from his comments, I think he knows that.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 said it well. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 15:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23's analysis as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Big surprise, admins protecting their own. This is why regular people don't waste their time on this site. The moment you disagree with an admin they bring out their big ego banhammers and wikilawyering so no-one can disagree with them. I wonder how much I can bet on Snowman getting blocked for his anti-social behaviour and threats by his fellow admins. Fat chance. Let me guess, because he "knows what he did" that somehow makes up for the fact he was reporting me falsely, he breached 3RR while incorrectly accusing me of it, even though I was the one making legitimate edits to improve the article. If Snowman had just left the article alone like any rational person would have, instead of deciding he needed to start a vendetta against me, there wouldn't be a problem. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Buckshot06

Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) is some what bashing the Afghan National Army (ANA) with his POVs. He refuses to discuss Talk:Afghan National Army#Merge proposal to NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan and blindly reverts all my edits [52] simply because he doesn't like any improvement made to that article. For example, he claims that there are upto 350,000 active ANA soldiers. That is just preposterous! But wait, there's more. Buckshot06 claims that Afghanistan was created as a state in 1880 by Abdur Rahman Khan when in fact that guy was the 24th king of Afghanistan. The CIA World Factbook states "Ahmad Shah DURRANI unified the Pashtun tribes and founded Afghanistan in 1747." [53] This is backed by 100s of other sources. Buckshot06 is determined to keep inserting in the ANA article this unimportant quote: "Thus, former mujahideen who had been fighting for two decades, many wearing plastic sandals and carrying rickety Soviet-era AK-47s, were requested to continue their role as "proxies", while US troops in helmets, kevlar armour and insulated clothing, carrying the best weapons and cold-weather equipment the richest nation in history could provide, looked on." This is nonsense in an encyclopedia because I have never seen a single ANA soldier wear plastic sandals. These actions of Buckshot06 are clearly attempts to degrade ANA and the United States who is spending around $7 billion dollars a year on the ANA. Admins should not be making controversial edits like that or making ridiculous POV-infested statements in an encyclopedia. He is basically trying to tell readers that the ANA is the most low class army in the world but in reality it is the best army Afghanistan has ever seen in its 300 year old history. At least this is what most news reports tend to say and we need to follow up on that. Buckshot06 is only focusing on all the negative reports and that's the problem here. In the meantime, during the training period (2002-2013), there were some negative issues but most of that belong in the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan. That article specifically deals with that.--Fareed30 (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the content as I'm no expert on this area. However, that is what this appears to be: a content dispute. It seems that both Buckshot06 and Fareed30 have strong opinions about this matter, but after a look (admittedly a quick one) I can see no evidence of one being more responsible than the other. Fareed30, it appears that you have deleted sources used by Buckshot06, sources that satisfy WP:RS, and that you have been reverted him at least as much as he has been reverting you. Once again, I won't take sides in a content dispute about a subject I don't know well, but if you want ANI to comment on this, you have to display that Buckshot06 is guilty of violating policies. I've found no such diff.Jeppiz (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

He is POV-pushing, reverting without a discussion, adding irrelvant information, putting past events in present form, to make readers believe that ANA army is still low class or in bad shape as it was in the past. As for me, some irrelevant and outdated sources may be removed. Who says they can't? We are suppose to choose between sources, pick the better ones. News reports sometimes make obvious mistakes and in that case it doesn't matter if it is WP:RS or not. For ANA we must use current reliable sources from experts. Buckshot06 relies on information from 2008 and from particular individuals, those that satisfies his POV. I use latest news reports on ANA regardless if they're US based, European, Australian or Afghan.--Fareed30 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please provide clear diffs of edits of his that you find problematic, and explain why they are problematic. For ANI to look at this, you have to be much more specific about what he has done that is wrong, and you have to prove it. General talk about POV-pushing with no diffs to show it won't get far.Jeppiz (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Here are the diffs, he stated "Abdur Rahman was the creator of the modern Afghan state." That is problematic because it was Ahmad Shah Durrani who created Afghanistan in 1747, and is recognized as the Father of the Nation. Buckshot06 is making alot more changes in the same way. He falsified the total number here from 200,000 to 350,000. The source clearly states "200,000" [54] so why is he falsifying the numbers? He deleted "As of July 2013, the total number of the Special Forces reached 12,000". Why do that? What's going on? He is a very strange admin, I have not seen other admins make such edits or revert people who make constructive edits. He is basically an edit-warrior and POV-pusher with admin previlages--Fareed30 (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth I can also state that I was there for a few months and the ANA wear a similar uniform as the US military, boots and all. So I would agree at least that statement probably should come out. There are hundreds or thousands of pictures showing the ANA wearing military outfits. Wiht that said there may need to be a temporary interaction ban between these 2 and this topic. Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

AN/I is no place for a content dispute, but the article is supposed to cover the history of the army as well as a snapshot of the current day, isn't it? There were well-documented problems in recent years; the article should reflect that.

Accusing somebody of falsifying numbers is a Bad Thing if those numbers are actually supported by sources. The article already cites other sources which say 350,000, so Buckshot's "Expert assessments vary from 250,000-350,000" doesn't seem so bad (though it could be improved)... and it's very hard to understand why Fareed30 thinks Buckshot06 is devoted to making the ANA look bad whilst, um, making it look much more powerful. bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

bobrayner, you are an example of someone who was misled by Buckshot06. This is my point, he is putting lots of false information to mislead readers such as you. The 100s of news articles online that mentions 350,000 is clearly saying that the entire Afghan National Security Forces are 350,000. That includes the Afghan National Army, the Afghan Air Force, the Afghan National Police, the Afghan Local Police and others. We are only dealing with Afghan National Army (ANA) here. It is false to say that ANA is 350,000. I deal with Afghanistan and I know everything about this country in and out. Now, what were those well-documented problems in recent years? So you're saying that there were no success stories and only problems? You and Buchshot06 are ONLY focusing on the problems part but not a single edit was made by him about the success part. This is what I don't like about his edits and he's an admin who suppose to be a role model.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think the two parties need to relax a bit and discuss more on the talk page instead of ANI. Sources not being in perfect agreement with each other is nothing new for a topic like this. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Just been informed of this. In my view, the material that Fareed30 wishes to transfer to NTM-A simply doesn't belong there, because NTM-A was established in 2008. That is a military formation article, and most of the training took place under Combined Forces Command or Combined Security Transition Command - Afghanistan auspices; U.S. formations.
  • Now, I've been involved in editing many, many, national military articles, and have been abused regarding Poland, Somalia, Azerbaijan, etc., etc., on information which usually seems to disagree with nationals of those country's views, but is well supported by WP:Reliable Sources. There may be some mistakes in my approach - maybe the plastic footwear quote should go; willing to be corrected if Fareed30 can distinguish between the first claimed king back in 1500 or whenever and Abdur Rahman Khan, who all the WP:Reliable Sources assert effectively made a modern state out of Afghanistan (Library of Congress Country Studies) - but the basis for this dispute, in my view, is Fareed30's desire to move the rather unappealing information in the 'Training and Current Challenges' section to a less visible article. Now, national pride is just fine, but WP:Reliable Sources trumps all. The ANA faces significant challenges at present, and that material should not just be hidden because some find it unwelcome. Support for my general approach, and my qualifications, may be found from any of the coordinators of the Milhist project. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Buckshot06, the issue is that you're adding ONLY negative points about ANA and that makes you POV-pusher with certain agenda. Forget WP:Reliable Sources, that has nothing to do with my complaint about you. You're reverting my edits and ignoring my comment at the talk page. You should stay in line with other encyclopedias such as Britannica and books because those are edited by professionals. Now, I do not care what you add to ANA as long as it is properly sourced but I'm saying let's keep it short and neutral. You can explain in as little as one short paragraph that the ANA was one of the most terrible armies in the world before NATO began training it and that it still faces lots of challenges, including this and that. Btw, the plastic sandals were worn by some members of the Northern Alliance. If you want to make an entire article about ANA training and list every incident you may do so I don't care. However, let's not add excessive negative points in the main ANA article because what about the positive points? Military experts and analysts claim that ANA is doing impressive work today but did you see me add any of that? The answer is NO because I'm not here to do that.
    • The same source you mention (Library of Congress Country Studies) clearly states that Ahmad Shah Durrani created the modern state of Afghanistan in 1747 [55], which is backed by this, this, and the CIA. You still don't get it. Abdur Rahman Khan only modernized the Afghan army by providing them British training, uniforms, weapons and equipment. That's not considered the creation of a state. The "Afghan National Army" naturally includes all Afghan armies from 11th century to the modern one. It's made up of the same people (Afghans).
    • I told you before very clearly that I did not intent to add any pre-2008 material to the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan (NTMA) because that program began in 2008-2009. In ANA's article (which is becoming too long) there is lots of material that coould be tranferred to the short NTMA article. We can work together but let's stop the reverting of all my edits because it is frustrating and not a good thing to do for an admin.--Fareed30 (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
      • "the issue is that you're adding ONLY negative points about ANA and that makes you POV-pusher with certain agenda." That depends on the state of the article before those points are added. If it was overly positive beforehand... "You should stay in line with other encyclopedias such as Britannica and books because those are edited by professionals." WP:NOTPAPER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Thankyou for your comments Fareed30. I'm not really interested about whether you consider my edits positive or negative, and I entirely reject your proposed engineering of the article to overemphasise the positive. Sure, it's the best army AFghanistan's probably ever seen. That's worth putting in. Find a source that says that, and add it!! But that does not mean I'm going to let you remove truthful solid research on the army's weak points;- that's POV-pushing itself. I tried to explain to you on your talk page, also by quoting the example of FA-standard Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, that our job is not to balance one positive point with one negative point -it's to report what reliable sources say. My admin status is not relevant for this discussion; for this purpose, I'm just an ordinary editor. Now, again, we're supposed to go with peer-reviewed journal publications as our best sources, which are accorded higher status than encyclopedias (as I explained on your talk page) - have you ever accessed any of the articles by Antonio Giustozzi that I'm quoting? Any of that material? Do you want me to send it to you? That's the materials wikipedia rules encourage us to use, and it backs up my general gist completely. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I read everything. The report by Antonio Giustozzi is from 2008 but you keep presenting it as "current status". This is misleading and is what bothers me. Yes, in 2008 the ANA was still unorganized and ill-trained. But, after the start of the NTMA things have changed in a very big way. Do you get my point or do you want me to go into details? The pre-NTMA situation (2005-2008) should just be part of the history section and not presented to readers as "current statuts". If you want me to add positive points about ANA, I will do that later when I have free time. There are 100s of major news articles which talk about this, they quote top NATO military commanders.--Fareed30 (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
          • The section I created "NATO training and Taliban insurgency" is perfect because NATO has been training ANA since 2002. The Taliban insurgency also started after 2002.--Fareed30 (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
          • The Afghan National Army#Training and current challenges keeps repeating "According to a 2009 news report, the Afghan National Army was plagued by inefficiency and corruption.... corruption, widespread illiteracy, vanishing supplies, and lack of discipline..." You see this in the first sentence of the 1st paragraph and then again in the 14th paragraph. In fact, that entire section needs to be re-written in the order of years. The current version starts with 2009 and goes back to 2006 and then to 2012. Plus, it's very long and should be made a little shorter. Instead of reverting my edits you should fix this problem.--Fareed30 (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Well, would you not mind removing impeccable material from the Library of Congress regarding 1880 creation of a modern state? Or my carefully assembled material on corps and divisions from the 1980-90s? Have you seen [56] by Giustozzi in 2009? Or Adam R. Grissom, 'Statebuilding Orthodoxy and the Afghan National Army, in Egnell and Halden, 'New Agendas in Statebuilding,' 2013, which reiterates all the well-known problems? The essential character of the force hasn't changed. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
              • The Library of Congress is saying that after the end of the Second Anglo-Afghan War, in 1880, a new government led by Abdur Rahman Khan rose to power in Kabul with help from the British. We don't consider that as a creation of a modern state because there was nothing modern about it. For example, the British did not build a single railroad or highway, or built anything else, or bring any machinary, the British actually left that country in that same year (1880). The only thing the British did was quickly assemble for Khan a British style army. Before Khan there was a state called Afghanistan and it was led by Mohammad Ayub Khan who had an army known as the "Afghan army". This lithograph was made in 1847 and it clearly showes "Afghanistan" and its army.
              • In 2009 the Afghan army was just 90,000 strong, and was poorly trained and lacked everything. Today, they are 200,000 strong, well trained, well equipped, well fed and well paid. The US is paying around $4 billion a year to the ANA and another $3 billion a year to the ANP. This includes the ANA salary and everything else for another at least 10 years as of now. The ANA now has US-style military bases all across the country, in every part, several command centers, and better weapons and everything else. It is quite evident that ANA is NOT the same as what it was in 2009.--Fareed30 (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
              • You're like one of those who use incidents like the Maywand District murders and Kandahar massacre to degrade an entire army of a specific country. This is to your google book.--Fareed30 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Thankyou for your comments Fareed30. If you wish to remove material from a WP:RS like the Library of Congress you must present equally well or better sourced info that disagrees. Your repeated assertions have no value here. Instead of arguing with me here, why don't you remove the key words 'modern state' from the 1880 section and leave the rest, which helpfully expanded on what was previously there?
• I'm not sure what your sources are for your assessment of the 2009 situation, or now, but I do not agree with them. Again, find something - not unreliable too-close-to the source U.S. government press releases (like the original source of the pajhwok.com story you just cited) - that say '200,000 strong, well trained, well equipped, well fed and well paid'? Find something that claims that from peer reviewed journal articles or similar academic sources, and that would be great to have!! Do not expect me to believe U.S. government claims on ANA performance after the incredibly unreliable trail they wove on, for example, Iraqi troop strength, or anything relating to their desire to declare victory and get out as soon as possible. The relevant rule is WP:SELFPUB, point 4, '..reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.'
• Oh, and I'm not critising the entire army of a specific country. Find and cite reports on specific units and we'll get along much better !! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you carefully read the news story posted at Pajhwok Afghan News (PAN), which is about Dr. Peter R. Lavoy, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, telling the United States Congress that: "The ANSF are being tested this fighting season. They're performing admirably. Afghan forces now plan and conduct the overwhelming majority of combat operations and also are taking the vast majority of casualties...." If you don't like how the story is presented at PAN, you may find the same information at other news sites, including at the U.S. Defense site. [57]
  • You don't agree with what in particular? Please be specific. Why do I need to 'find something that claims that from peer rewiwed journal articles or similar academic sources'? If I say in a comment "the sky is blue", you want me to find a peer reviewed journal article that mentions this as my proof? I have said that you are POV pushing with specific agenda and it is now getting clear that you are doing that. If you don't trust U.S. government then who do you trust? Anti-American elements such as Iran, North Korea, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbullah, and etc? You're misunderstanding me, I'm simply saying to you here that ANA's strenght is now 200,000, which was only 90,000 in 2009, and it's well-trained, well-equipped, well-fed and well-paid as compare to before 2009. This is as clear as saying that the sky is blue. You can find alot of information on ANA by following them at [58] and [59]. ANA is taking over responsibility for the entire country. The Afghan people have finally began supporting the ANA like never before. This is the reason why the Taliban came out in Qatar a few months ago asking for a deal because they realized that they have no chances of winning against the ANA, and if they don't come out now they will be vanished in history as nothing.
  • My overall point is let's not try to degrade or glorify the ANA. The history part should not be very long and explained without going into details like some soldiers were wearing plastic sandals, others decided to hide during a fight or another group began aiming weapons away from enemies. Those are only isolated incidents and involved a few soldiers. This is using small petty incidents to degrade an entire army of a specific nation. People usually do that stuff in chat rooms or other such places.--Fareed30 (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion at the start of this thread that Buckshot06's edits "are clearly attempts to degrade ANA and the United States" is ridiculous: Buckshot is an editor in good standing with a fine track record of fair-minded and well referenced improvements to articles on the militaries of developing countries. Moreover, Fareed30's assertions about the ANA suggest a strong bias. The general theme of expert commentary I've seen on the topic is that while there are some good ANA units and the overall quality of the force has probably improved over the last couple of years, the ANA as a whole is seriously flawed. This reversion by Fareed30 in which he or she labeled some of Buckshot's changes as POV-pushing and removed reasonable requests for citations appears to illustrate this problem. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Nick_D, lets focus on the edits and not the editors. His edits are misleading. That link you posted is actually him reverting all my edits from July 2013. I ask that he stops doing that, and I made it very clear that I don't care what others think about ANA's performace or whatever. I only edit to improve the article by putting stuff where they belong. Nick D, show me a link to "ANA as a whole is seriously flawed." I want to know when and who said this. Thanks.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm not interested in assertions. Find me a solid academic source that says that the ANA is 200,000, 90,000 in 2009, and it's well-trained, well-equipped, well-fed and well-paid in comparison to 2009, and we can put that in. It probably is. But that does not mean that it is free of mass absenteeism from units, on the order of 50%, that northerners do not wish to serve in the south and find it less comfortable there, that no units can conduct difficult operations with coalition artillery and air power, that almost all logistics are being provided by U.S., ISAF, or contractors, that the 'Afghan army is not at war above the company level,' that '.."Nepotism, corruption and absenteeism among ANA leaders makes success impossible. Another line, "If Afghan political leaders do not place competent people in charge, no amount of coalition support will suffice in the long term." etc etc etc. [60] That's not the PR spin; that's a U.S. military report that was leaked back in December 2009.

Now, you're probably going to argue with me again and say things have changed since 2009. I'm sure they have, and mild improvements have been made. But you're obviously an Afghan, so you know better than me the way giving of favours, baksheesh, whatever it's called in your home district, is simply a fact of life. Modern administrative-bureaucratic systems (that's a Max Weber term) have real trouble operating in that sort of environment without breaking. That's why the ANA is, from a First World perspective, fundamentally rotten. Now instead of hysterically attacking me because I'm not parroting the announced official line, why don't you work with me?

You obviously don't like the 'modern state' line re 1880. I'm really not worried if two Library of Congress scholars put things a slightly different way. What I wanted to do was expand the material before 1979, and you've reverted all of that. Please let me reinsert some of that material, and don't just delete it by chunks.

Secondly, some of your wordings are simply not completely precise: the ANA was not built up by ISAF at first because it was a whole bunch of independent national efforts, as the text below says. So I've requested a cite for that inaccurate line in the intro. Please cite it. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D won't actually be able to find you a line that specifically says 'flawed'. He's speaking from a survey of the evidence. But how about this?- Antonio Giustozzi in personal communication with an ANA mentor in November 2009 was told that it was 'poorly led, largely illiterate, and often corrupt.' That's cite 2 from the [61] by Giustozzi in 2009. Now you've emphasised the size increase. Giustozzi says that, as of 2009, the training centre in Kabul is getting ready to increase its output from 4,000 to 5,000 a month. This will cut soldier training to eight weeks and officer training to twenty weeks: '..This is controversial, as the short basic training course was already heavily criticised in the past. The risk is of churning out grossly unqualified soldiers or, as some are beginning to argue, 'cannon fodder. (Giustozzi cites Martin Fletcher, 'Rushed training 'risks turning Afghan troops into cannon fodder,' The Times, 13 October 2009). These are the things that make me worry about the issues described further above. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Believe your words were: 'well-trained, well-equipped, well-fed and well-paid' compared to 2009. Have you taken a look at http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5279 ? Jane's describes this as U.S. Asst Secretary of Defense Peter Lavoy saying that '..a residual [U.S.] force would be needed to help the ANSF complete more mundane tasks such as logistics, ensuring soldiers get their paychecks, procuring food, awarding fuel contracts, and more. Lavoy noted that the Afghans are still developing those skills and it will be "well beyond the 2014 date" before they are expected to be capable.' Doesn't sound like they're properly fed or paid, and as for training, half the news conference was complaints about attrition rates, so they don't stay in long enough to be trained !!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

User PrivateMasterHD is back

...editing as IP 69.122.190.4 since yesterday and showing the exact same behaviour as before he got blocked. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me, clear-cut block evasion. As from all appearances this is a stable IP for a very, very long time, blocked for three months. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently he believes this is appropriate use of his talk page when blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference by userTokarro666

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Tokarro666's contributions consist almost exclusively of mass genre additions to several musical articles without discussion or sources. The user has been warned several times yet the behaviour continues and seems to be escalating. Warnings obviously won't do anything but perhaps a block will get the message across.

A few examples from today:

• [62]
• [63]
• [64]
• [65]
• [66]
• [67]

A willingness by Tokarro666 to edit war is also evident. ChakaKong^talk 20:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tarc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it OK for a user to post such messages ? Considering that the named contributor is austrian, I find this message and the diff-comment wildly inapropriate. The message

Pleclown (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Based upon your example, this user is definitely guilty of incivility. I'm not sure it needed to be brought here though. Was the comment the cause of a serious disruption? Did you or anyone else discuss that particular comment with the user? ChakaKong^talk 22:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note special mark links to Yellow badge. --Dereckson (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

We may have a different history, but calling another person a nazi is not "incivility"... I do not speak with such people. Pleclown (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

According Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility, this qualifies as an emergency situation: 'In "emergency" situations (where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call) take it to the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard.'.

We're in a case with a need for a 'fast and strong wake-up call'. --Dereckson (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Note this is also another commons admin jumping in. This seems very tit-for-tat. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure which is more drama-laden, ANI, or Jimbo's talk page. The particular topic in which Tarc commented has been going on for the last five days. Interestingly absent from the "discussion" is Jimbo, not to mention Pleclown, who, bye the bye, has made only a handful of edits in their account history here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  And it wasn't the best approach in my opinion. Any argument that needs to be so strong as to justify the use of World War II references is a weak argument. I do find it distasteful and unconstructive and contra productive. Taking the residence or nationality or language of the user into account (mind you: 68 years after the war) is an equally weak point. I think ignoring is far more helpful… L.tak (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  I dunno. Tarc has a habit of making inflammatory comments. This particular comment seems worse than usual, not that I've memorized all of Tarc's comments. I'm sure people will have differing views, but mine is that it's not an emergency, nor should it be ignored.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not an emergency, and it can be, and should have been dealt with on the editors talk page. But somehow I suspect Pleclown isn't here for the long haul, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Pleclown is a legit user on Wikimedia Commons. The discussion on the User:Jimbo Wales's talk page is related to Wikimedia Commons. So, Pleclown has a legitimate interest to act. --Dereckson (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for filling me in, Dereckson.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Does this do not apply for comments on Jimbo's TP ? Just to know... Pleclown (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The policy applies to all pages on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's not a personal attack, and you are assuming bad faith to say that it was said because another editor was Austrian. I don't think there is any indication that Tarc was aware of that. It's usually a bad habit to come running to ANI when there is an issue with potential civility which could have been resolved with a quiet word. Did you discuss the issue with the editor? Did you in fact follow any of Wikipedia:CIVILITY#Dispute_resolution? (and no this is not a case of "death threats, bigoted attacks, threats of violence, legal threats," IRWolfie- (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Amusing that you would point out that user is Austrian, and therefor it matters more. As if that was a consideration. Sheesh. Since the crat is over at Commons dictating which editors voting opinions count and do not count, it seems at least an over the top comparison, but not an attack. Since you have only 62 edits in this project, perhaps your complaint shouldn't matter, eh? In any case, it's directed at the procedure being used on a different project and is not an attack. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• As a general matter, I really wish we could leave the Commons drama on Commons. We have more than enough problems here to keep us busy without worrying about the slap fights on sister projects. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If I had to list the qualities of an ANI filing that I am most dismissive of, they would be, in no particular order;

• A redlinked username
• Someone with whom the subject has had no prior contact
• Filed in proxy of another user

"Pleclown" has just rolled trips. Let's get this straight here, the Wikimedia Commons is a stain upon the rest of the Wikimedia universe. The 1,999 categories of breasts that no one can ever get the numbers reduced because every deletion discussion turns into an "image kept, because we don't have enough that particular color/size here". The sex offender that the WMF had to step in to remove when the Commons regulars refused to. The current situation with Russavia commissioning a penis artist to paint a picture of Jimbo Wales, and attempting to adorn the artist's article wit the picture. DOn't get me wrong, there's a lot of good material and people at the Commons, but their work is overshadowed by the unrepentant douchebaggery of the more vocal troublemakers and their enablers over there.

As for the current thing, yes, I compared the actions of a Commons bureaucrat to the singling out of Jews in pre-WWII Germany; it is quite a fitting analogy. Many longstanding editors of other WMF projects are being told that their votes on a Bureaucrat removal discussion are about to be discarded, a maneuver that disproportionately hits those who wish this bureaucrat to be kicked out the door. The Wikimedia Commons serves all other Wikimedia projects, it is where many of us link to freely-licensed media for use in our articles. One should not need to be a regular media uploader or monitor over there in order to have a vested interest in what goes on within that project. It is not analogous to an AfD here, as another Commons insider tried to say, where many votes were discard because of nationalistic prejudice and canvassing. Those people had no vested interest in the improvement of a Wikimedia project, they wanted to keep that article (based on a Russavia-created image, for the record. Funny how he is Ground Zero for all of this) for purely discriminatory reasons.

So, there we go. This is a deplorable act by a Commons bureaucrat, to segregate voters based on what wiki-project they hail from. Again, a harsh analogy but not out-of-bounds. There's a difference between saying "so-and-so is a Nazi!" and "so-and-so is doing something that the Nazis once did!". Apples and oranges. Finally, I did not know the user's nationality beforehand, nor do I think it has any relevance now. Thankfully I hail from a freer country that does not criminalize speech in the ways that some European ones do. Tarc (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Absurd (and, yes, highly offensive) analogy. What "the Nazi's once did!" is NOT this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is it highly offensive, and who was offended? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is it highly offensive? Because of what the Nazi's did do. Who was offended? Several people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That is extremely vague. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What? Well, to clear it up, begin by reading Nazi. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Godwin's Law notwithstanding, "you can't compare something to the Nazis because it offends me!" seems like a good way to cause a chilling effect on a discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Chilling effect is making analogies to Nazi's in a Wikimedia process dispute. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No. It's not. Do you really expect people to believe that someone over there is cowering and sobbing in the corner because Tarc called him out for being biased in a pointedly tough manner? Emergency situation? LOL. I don't visit Commons much, and after reading some threads there, I'm glad I don't. The whole thing should be nuked and every questionable person with rights there should be stripped. The whole place is a big mess. Dave Dial (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Do I expect people to believe what? LOL what? Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency? It is hardly to be thought that anyone is cowering under police batons, jack boots, or extermination, here or there -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I toyed with the idea of just replying with a short "this user has made few edits to en.wikipedia, thus his opinion isn't important enough to be counted", but even I couldn't muster that much Tarc-snark^(tm). Tarc (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• What is not ok is the continual stream of nonsense from Commons. There appears to be no way to handle it because the enthusiasts have taken over the free website with unlimited storage for anything that may "educate" someone somewhere. When a wider group of Wikipedians go to Commons to comment on the status of a bureaucrat, their views are disregarded, and Tarc was making a pointed but civil comment about that. This report is totally misguided. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Cost of having to read this drivel and nonsense: 10 minutes. Cost of seeing somebody use the word douchebaggery:Priceless. Please shut this thread down now and stop with all the "oh, no, the Nazi comparison, indignation. --Malerooster (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Didn't we just have another discussion about commons and the cabel there being the death of wikipedia, or at least commons? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe Johnuniq should you read again the diff and the question opening this section: nobody forbids Tarc to comment the situation about Wikimedia Commons. Pleclown highlighted a personal attack against an Austrian, tagging him of nazi.
  Tarc has demonstrated he has a non acceptable behavior on the matter, and he goes on in this section to act as most offensive as possible. Please note the use of the verb Hail in the sentence Thankfully I hail from a freer country that does not criminalize speech in the ways that some European ones do.. This is clearly an allusion to Heil Hitler, to demonstrate he gives himself the right to shout nazi slogan to insult his peers.
  This is clearly not a constructive behavior on a collaborative project like Wikipedia, and so a warning is needed. --Dereckson (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is obvious from your comment here that English is not your native language. Tarc did not call anyone a Nazi and did not tag anyone as a Nazi. Construing "Thankfully I hail from" to be alluding to "Heil Hitler" is quite frankly, ridiculous. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"This is clearly an allusion to Heil Hitler". Bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

What kind of herpy-derpy horseshit is this? Heil Hitler ? See, this is kinda solidifying my point, that some Euros completely fly off the handle at the slightest mention of ANYTHING Nazi-related. We don't do that HERE (here as in America), here making analogies to Nazism is just routine brusqueness, not criminal or amoral. That was the gist of the "Thankfully I hail from..."' line Tarc (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wolfe Tone Societies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I created this article yesterday: Wolfe_Tone_Societies. User:Psychonaut has blanked the page citing copyright violation. I believe this is overkill. I am a hardworking, daily contributor to Wikipedia and if he had highlighted any issues to me I would have rectified them immediately. I think he is aware of this. I don't believe it is to the advantage of the wiki to have this article placed in stalemate for any length of time when I am absolutely committed to putting any errors right. If any admin wishes to make the page available to me again and either tags the suspect text as "copyvio" or hides it with a note to tell me what is wrong I will correct it so that it fully complies with whatever guideline I have overlooked. I do apologise for getting it wrong in the first place and will use this experience to help me avoid such issues in the future. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the text of the article again it appears to me as if the only thing wrong is a missing set of quotes to identify the section "Formation" as a quote from CAIN. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Just remove the (potentially) offending material and reinstate the other stuff. Unless Psychonaut has given you a better, more specific reason that you're not telling us about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Duplication Detector report The Banner talk 12:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's some of it. The duplication detector doesn't work on printed books. The material copied was from the section of the book cited as a reference. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#Werieth may provide some context here. Since that thread (before which I had no knowledge of or interactions with this user), I've been occasionally observing their activity here and on Commons, cleaning up after their copyvios where necessary, and offering them help and advice. Regretfully I have come to agree with Cailil's conclusions that SonofSentanta has been given more than enough time and opportunities to familiarize and bring himself into compliance with our copyright policies. That he has failed to do so in five years can only be explained by either incompetence or disingenuity. The latest copyright violation (i.e., the subject of this ANI report) is rather blatant, with a considerable amount of text copied and pasted verbatim from a website and a printed book, and yet he professes not to know where the problem lies. His personal insults and threats to disrupt the projects don't help much either. (The latest link is to a Commons thread, though it reflects his attitude to objections to his copyright violations generally, irrespective of whether they're done there or here.)

Anyway, to address the specific subject of this complaint, when I tagged the article as a copyvio I immediately provided the author with full instructions on how to go about correcting it. He knows now (if he didn't already from reading the template on the article) that all he has to do is to write a non-infringing version of the article on a temporary page. The temp version will then be copied over the original, and the problematic versions will most likely be revdel'ed by an administrator. This is the standard procedure for complex copyvio cases here (i.e., those which mix infringing and non-infringing text). I imagine it would have taken him less time to simply follow the instructions to fix the article than to post this complaint here. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is what happened when I went to Werieth asking for help and advice [68]. Some mentor eh? This was after I had posted this message [69]. Does anyone notice that I'm the one doing all the work, approaching people and asking them to work with me? What do I get for it? "I don't have the time to deal with you". SonofSetanta (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Mentoring or block for SoS. Is "copyvio" an acceptable topic for TBAN? Like if he makes any more copyvio edits he is immediately blocked, and this is his final warning? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he's going to get any more information from a mentor than he has from me, User:Stefan2, and several other users who over the past month (if not longer) have very patiently and repeatedly explained various aspects of copyright law, licensing, and Wikipedia/Commons media use policies to him. I am not going to waste any further time on what amounts to retyping information which was already provided to him in copyvio/deletion notifications, directing him to informative policy pages that he doesn't appear to actually read, and explaining what distinguishes free content from non-free content over and over again. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Persistent violation of copyright is grounds for an immediate indef block usually. SoS is already on a final warning per the previous ANI thread, which wasn't that long ago. At the very least, a sanction for CIR should be considered. Blackmane (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I am dreadfully upset by your comments Hijiri. Why would I need to be blocked because I make a request here? The copyvio notice at wolfe Tone Societies states "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." As per that I am requesting the page be restored so I can correct the errors - that's all. I've made no complaint about Psychonaut or anyone else - just a simple request to sysops from a hardworking editor. Restore the page, clearly identify any areas of concern, and I will rectify it/them immediately. The fact that there are errors are simply oversight on my part. I should have used quote marks when I cited CAIN and Richard English and I apologise for not doing so. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do I need to be blocked for making a request here? This is not about image copyright, which is what all the previous discussions have been about. This is about me making a simple request to have an article restored so I can correct errors. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG. By posting here you inadvertently drew the community's attention to your own persistent pattern of disruptive behaviour. As much as it pains me to say this to a fellow Paddy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is an open-and-shut case, isn't it? If they've violated a copyright-related final warning, which they have, then an indef block needs to follow. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

How have I violated any warning? I left out some quotation marks. The warning you're referring to was in regards to me trying to keep images where there were copyright issues. That's a totally different matter. I've come onto this board to request an article be restored to allow me to correct it by putting in quotation marks. So how is it an open and shut case when I'm trying to comply with copyright? Am I saying anywhere there isn't a copyright issue? Am I saying I'm not going to fix it? Am I insulting anyone for drawing my attention to copyright issues? No. I've made a simple request for the article to be restored to allow me to quickly correct it. FYI: I use quotes from CAIN copiously. I have a permission from CAIN to use an image from their site - sent to OTRS today. I quote from books all the time and fill in the bibliography diligently. Why on earth am I getting all this grief because I left out a couple of quotation marks and want to correct that error? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

But there is no persistent pattern of disruptive behavior. There were issues a few weeks ago concerning files I had uploaded in 2008 as well as a couple concerning military insignia where I didn't understand the complications of Crown Copyright. That has all been resolved now, mostly through my own efforts to keep them. I have worked with the editors who are trying to enforce copyright and I have worked very closely behind the scenes with OTRS: something which editors on here won't be aware of. All my copyrights on images are fine now and I understand the process a lot better. This issue is simply about a textual copyright concern where I failed to put quotation marks in to show I was quoting from CAIN and "Armed Struggle" by Richard English. It was the end of the day and I was trying to get my wee article largely wrapped up by dinner time. I had an article update in mind for today. I examined the copyright violation notice at Wolfe Tone Societies and was more than a little annoyed that Psychonaut didn't just tag the text and draw my attention to it. I would have fixed it immediately and I believe he knows that. The softer option to me was to request restoration of the page here as per the notice. I did investigate the other options but noted complaints from others that temporary pages were left for months without action. I promise you: I am a hard working Wikipedian. Take a look at my "contribs". Have you looked at the copyright discussions I have been involved in where I've managed to fix issues, sometimes with the help of others? I am not a disruptive editor. Whatever problems I had with copyright are in the past and I just want to fix these wee errors I made yesterday. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That never occurs in practice. We don't block people when they are discussing with us and willing to fix the issues. Admins only block if there is a case of sheer incompetence, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to these files: File:BKY08MEM Memorial Gdn BKelly 3677.JPG (uploaded today); File:Crest of the Royal Ulster Rifles.jpg; File:TSMG UDR 1.JPG (nominated for deletion by self]]; File:UDR Stable Belt Colours.jpg (nominated for deletion by self as new image was introduced follwing advice); File:Royal Irish and UDR badges side-by-side.jpg; File:Army Training Booklet.jpg; File:The Elizabeth Cross in presentation box.jpg; File:GSM-ACCM and miniatures.jpg; File:Royal Irish Rangers.jpg; File:Irish Guards cap badge.jpg; File:UDR Greenfinch.jpg; File:Soldiers of 1 UDR on parade at Steeple Camp, Antrim.jpg. These are all files I've uploaded recently - within the last two weeks. There are no copyright issues with any of them. All the issues of concern with copyright are dealt with and my understanding and appreciation of copyright is vastly increased since two months ago when all this started. May I suggest that, instead of taking up everyone's time deciding whether or not I need a mentor, can the page Wolfe Tone Societies be restored so I can fix the copyright issues by putting in quotation marks? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are still copyright issues with several of your images. Isn't GSM-ACCM_and_miniatures.jpg simply a variant photograph of the one deleted as a copyvio at Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Service Medal 1962 rev.jpg? And isn't Army Training Booklet.jpg the very same scan which has already been deleted as a copyvio twice (first from File:Basic Battle Skills.jpg and later File:Excerpt from Basic Battle Skills.jpg)? The current image description page has a prominent notice indicating that the confirmation of permission received by OTRS was invalid, so it too will soon be deleted as a copyright violation. I can also point to several more absolutely unambiguous copyright violations of yours made in the past few days, including File:3 UDR Funeral.jpeg, File:A soldier of 3 UDR on patrol in Irish Street, File:Piper 3 UDR.jpeg, File:3 UDR with RUC-Newcastle.jpeg. The fact that some of the photos you've uploaded recently haven't (yet) been challenged doesn't atone for the infringing material you have continued to contribute in the meanwhile. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. GSM-ACCM_and_miniatures.jpg is not a variant of the Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Service Medal 1962 rev.jpg. It does not show the reverse of the medals and has not been used on the General Service Medal (1962) page. It is an update of another file uploaded by User:The Thunderer and used at Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Awards.2C_honours_and_decorations. Someone challenged my ownership of the medals so I took a new picture and uploaded it - with the correct licencing, under the guidance of OTRS. Other images were challenged in this way and I uploaded new versions of them all to prove my veracity, even offering to upload negatives to prove my ownership. Army Training Booklet.jpg has been uploaded to replace others but doing so isn't a copyright violation. Much work has been done on tracing the original and I am currently working with OTRS to establish the correct licence now that we have the publication date of the first edition. You know all of this from the discussions and I'm very disappointed you're using this example to try and show me as a copyright violator. I've got all the e-mails exchanged between myself and OTRS, MOD, IWM. HMSO and Defence Imagery on the subject of this book. I can show very easily that I have worked hard to try and find the correct copyright tag to use. As for File:3 UDR Funeral.jpeg, File:A soldier of 3 UDR on patrol in Irish Street, File:Piper 3 UDR.jpeg, File:3 UDR with RUC-Newcastle.jpeg, I misunderstood the licence from the Boston College Library. I made an enquiry at your talk page here [70] when you deleted them and was satisfied with your answer. I realised I had made a good faith error and didn't repeat it. I have made no infringements with my other images. If I had, you or one of the others who are engaged in the witch hunt against me would have tagged them for deletion by now. Feel free to check all my image files however and note any errors I have made. By becoming aware of where I have made good faith errors I become more aux fait with copyright requirements. I think sometimes you lose sight of the fact that we're all good Wikipedians and have something to offer. As a graduate my skill is in text and I've had to learn all about copyright since you guys took an interest in me. Constantly beating me like this isn't very encouraging and it doesn't display the type of collegiate discussion which Wikipedia is supposed to foster. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Whilst it can be seen as a violation of their last warning, in all technicality that was in regards to images not text. The copyvio's going by the report don't seem that bad, and SoS at the opening of this AN/I (why open it here in the first place?) has said that they are willing to work to fix the issue. This appears to be a simple easily fixed situation that has become blown out of proportion by SoS's own posting of this AN/I thread. Articles have talk pages and I see that SoS went to the talk page, and whilst Psychonaut did post a template, engaging with SoS on the talk page would of helped the matter as well.

A solution for this issue would of been for a test page to be created in SoS's talk space where they can edit it, for example at User talk:SonofSetanta/Wolfe Tone Societies, and the objector or whoever can give it a going over when SoS has finished to see if it is still has any copyvio issues.

In response to Hijiri 88, how exactly is this an instance of disruptive behaviour? There is no edit-warring or the like. SoS did the right thing and take it to discussion.

If this does count as a violation of their last warning, should they not receive a minor block/topic-ban first? There have been worse offenders in Ireland related articles that have got away with 1/2/3/6 month topic-bans for doing far worse. Psychonaut also could of engaged with SoS in a more direct way. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"For all you people say you know about copyright you don't seem to be aware that Crown Copyright on written or printed matter expires after 50 years, except where otherwise stated - idiot! ... I really don't know what gets into you people but you seem to be the sort who enjoy pulling the legs off spiders." I know it's on a different Wikimedia project, but it's clearly related to this issue, and obviously disruptive. Both users are engaging each other on the same issue on this project as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

SoS also clearly thought he was posting on Wikipedia at that time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked here: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Arthur_Denaro.jpg where I get called a liar? And here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tannenberghindenburg2okt35ba.jpg? These are just two of the number of occasions this has happened. I get frustrated with them from time to time. I can find more, probably worse examples if you wish? There was hardly a day went by for over a fortnight but they hadn't tagged an image of mine for deletion sometime with the spurious tag "suspected of copyright violation". I have dealt with approximately 15-20 cases now where images were incorrectly removed or tagged for removal. In the vast majority of these the image has either been kept or reuploaded with revised licencing. It has been frustrating and I have to confess that sometimes I have allowed my frustration to spill over onto discussion pages. I haven't called anyone a liar though or accused anyone in the wrong the way I've been. I'm only human and ultimately I'm a disabled editor who doesn't always cope the same way an able bodied person would. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mabuska. In fact I did try another option. In the lead section there is a statement: The previous content of this page has been identified as posing a potential copyright issue, as a copy or modification of the text from the source(s) below, and is now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems (listing) I followed that link, which seemed to be the most sensible first option, but there's nothing there about this issue. There were however other comments from editors who've been waiting for some time for their issues to be resolved so I made the choice to come here and make a request to have the page restored in order to correct the errors. I felt that, for once, coming to the ANI board for a common sense decision on a minor matter might resolve the issue for me and for the wiki much faster. In the past when my name has been on this board it was as a result of me complaining about something or somebody complaining about me. What I'd love to see happen now is for a sysop to display that famous WP:COMMONSENSE and act on my request. At the moment I'm feeling very upset because things from the past which have no relevance anymore are being dragged up as a stick to beat me with and I don't feel it's warranted. I don't feel like a valued editor. Can anybody see that I just want to correct the errors on the Wolfe Tone Societies and move on to the next article. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not try actually creating your own article on the subject, using sources appropriately? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The article Wolfe Tone Societies is my own article. I created it yesterday to replace Wolfe_Tone_Society, an article which was very inaccurate and which I had tagged as such the previous day. I can promise you I used all seven sources correctly to ref inline. I created a bibliography to index the two published sources I used. There's actually nothing wrong with the article itself beyond the fact that I forgot to use quotation marks where I did a copy and paste from CAIN and typed up a quote from "Armed Struggle" from Richard English. The inline refs are all these however. As someone who works regularly on articles which deal with the various periods of Irish "Troubles" I am always very careful to make sure that every statement is properly sourced. In the time it's taken for all of this discourse however, the article could have been reinstated by one of the involved sysops and I could have corrected it. That's all I want to do - correct the article as advised to do so. Are you not a sysop? Can you not let me back into the article to correct these minor errors by using quotation marks? Do you not think that would be preferable to the situation we have now whereby various editors are trying to assert that I am a constant copyright violator who cares nothing about Wikipedia rules and conventions? Look at Pyschonaut's comments above: Isn't GSM-ACCM_and_miniatures.jpg simply a variant photograph of the one deleted as a copyvio at Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Service Medal 1962 rev.jpg? Totally untrue - neither image is related. It doesn't stop him making the accusation though - why? Do you know how many times Psychonaut and his fellow travelers have called me a liar over images I have claimed ownership on? Should I start posting links to those exchanges? Such displays of incivility were common. I was being interrogated like a criminal until I rescanned my original images and posted them. I protested vigourously of course and got apologies but the fact remains that editors who concerned themselves with copyright affairs called me a liar, on more than two occasions. Now we've got Psychonaut trying to assert here that I am a constant violator of copyright. My issues with copyright arose from my use of military insignia. They are resolved now. I have two images, Army Training Booklet.jpg, and another, where OTRS and I are trying to work out copyright at the moment. That isn't copyright violation. It's simply me working with OTRS to satisfy the requirements. The onus is on me, because any images I don't work out the correct copyright for will get deleted. Nobody has considered either the number of my own photographs I have uploaded onto Wikipedia and put into the public domain. Does none of this satisfy anyone of my good intent? Does nobody want to look at Special:Contributions/SonofSetanta or commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SonofSetanta and see the amount of good work I do on Wikipedia? I'm not asking for thanks, just a recognition that I'm an ordinary, hard working editor, who doesn't cause problems on the wiki. I don't understand why this simple request here has created so much trouble for me. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Noticeboards is says, Noticeboards on Wikipedia are pages where editors can ask questions and request assistance from people who are familiar with the policies and guidelines covered by each individual board. That's what I've done: I've asked for assistance to allow me to correct a previous error. The debate has been ongoing since 12:20 GMT and no sysop has restored the Wolfe Tone Societies article to allow me to do so. All I've seen is argument about why I should be blocked or banned. Will no-one allow me to render this article readable again? I've come here in good faith for help. Will you not give it to me? I'm very tired and frustrated now and at the moment I could see Wikipedia far enough. I'm feeling that if this is the kind of message being sent to hard working editors when they ask for help, why should I ever bother asking again if all I'm going to see is a load of people lining up to kick me? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to say that this situation is of your own doing. Any other editor who had asked this probably wouldn't have raised an eyebrow, although there may have been a few trouts issued. However, with your history of issues with image copyright more than a few eyebrows are raised particularly if there is a sentiment that your copyright issues are extending into text. As has been said many times in the past, AGF is not a suicide pact, it will extend only so far before it runs out. Rather than bring it to ANI where one can be guaranteed a thrashing, approaching an admin directly probably would have been a better idea, that being said I personally don't see why the article couldn't be userfied into a subpage. Blackmane (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever issues I had were temporary and came from a lack of understanding of copyright law. As my understanding of that has improved the problems have faded into the background. I believe I enter enough textual information to illustrate I have a good understanding of the requirements. Why should one be guaranteed a thrashing here? I did approach an admin directly btw but he didn't reply. I also contacted OTRS and they didn't reply either. I'd never encountered one of these notices before so I made my choices based on the information I could see.SonofSetanta (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, SoS, "Check my contributions list on a different Wikimedia project to see all the good work I do for Wikipedia" is not the right way to convince us that sanctions need to be placed on another user. Your opening post here, especially given that it was here (on ANI), heavily implied that you wanted an admin or the community to intervene on your behalf in a dispute. I told you yesterday how you can deal with the problem in good faith, but then further evidence came out that you in fact have a persistent problem in this area, and apparently you have already been given your final warning... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't sought sanctions against another user. I moaned about the way it was done is all. I felt, and still feel, that it would have been better for Psychonaut to have tagged the offending material and allowed me to correct the errors without the need for blanking the article. It wasn't a dispute. I read the text in the notice, and reproduced it here, which suggested an admin could restore the page. I dealt with the issue in the way you suggested by using a temporary page. The article still hasn't been restored. This further evidence you speak of all relates to the past. The copyright issues I had at that time have all been dealt with and my learning curve has extended into working closely with OTRS, to whom I am very thankful, to resolve any issues regarding copyright directly with them and some quite complicated licencing has been used in this process. To say I'm now a copyright expert would be very wrong but I know enough to approach OTRS for help when the correct method of licencing seems difficult to select. Let's put this all into perspective by saying: I have never willfully created an image with the wrong licencing information. I made some errors, that is all. It would be very wrong to assume that I did so in a deliberate attempt to disrupt editing on Wikipedia. The fact that I involved myself in all discussions regarding images I felt were worth keeping is surely evidence of that - and the fact that most, if not all, of those images were kept, either as originals or by substituting new images with the correct licencing. If you're asking me will I ever have a copyright issue in the future then the answer would probably be yes because it isn't my area of expertise. The difference is, I know how to resolve the difficulties now. Is that not the Wikipedia way? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

On ANI, I often see a leap from discussing the initial complaint to scrutinizing the behavior of the participants in a dispute then leading to talk of blocks and bans. There is a reason these are called the "drama boards". Is it possible not rehash SonofSetanta's mistakes of the past and address the question that brought them to ANI in the first place? Should this discussion return to the Talk Page of the article? Or move to Dispute Resolution? How can we move from talking about users' failings to resolving whatever problems surround the posting of this article and any deficiencies it has? Can this be a constructive conversation instead of a punitive one? 69.125.134.86 Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, these "Drama boards" as Newjerseyliz calls them, seem to be a place where all anyone does nowadays is talk of punitive action rather than tackling the core issue.

Also note that despite Psychonaut's response here they have still failed to particpate in any talk page discussion with SoS over the article and the problems Psychonaut highlighted for example at Talk:Wolfe_Tone_Societies and basically blew them off at User_talk:Psychonaut. I'd question the behaviour of Psyuchonaut as well here. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both the above comments. Why on earth should my simple request have turned into such a drama? Why did Pyschonaut start bringing up past issues when I wasn't asking for sanctions against him? The main issue is - why isn't the page restored now that all the errors have been fixed? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Mabuska, I am no longer engaging with SonofSetanta because my many weeks of doing so patiently and politely have led me to believe that it is futile. It appears that SonofSetanta has perfected contrition into an art form. It seems to work very well on people he meets in passing (like me several weeks ago, and some of the people upthread) but anyone who sticks around will see that this is a very practised performance. First he contributes someone else's material with blatant disregard for licencing, attribution, or fair use conditions. Then someone removes it, after which he moans that this was manifestly unfair and impolite, that they're failing to assume good faith, and that they should have contacted him privately to resolve the matter [71] [72] [73]. He goes on to say that he was on a learning curve but that all his mistakes were in the past, that there is almost nothing wrong with anything he's recently contributed, and maybe also that he's the victim of some sort of "agenda" or "witch hunt" [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]. He expresses regret for any disruption he may have unintentionally caused, claims that he's always been "friendly" and "obliging", and points to all the hard work that he's been doing "improving" the encyclopedia. But then the whole cycle starts all over again.

I think he's probably not acting in bad faith. For whatever reason the information he's being given just doesn't penetrate. Multiple people have dedicated entire threads to explaining things like fair use and non-free derivative works to him, at the end of which he often makes some statement or request that directly contradicts everything everyone has been telling him, much to everyone's amazement, consternation, and exasperation [79] [80] [81]. Numerous users have pleaded with him to stop contributing material, or at least to seek advice before doing so [82] [83] [84] [85]. And rightfully so: he has wasted a phenomenal amount of his fellow editors' time, both in cleaning up after his messes and in trying to explain to him, with extraordinarily little success, how to avoid making messes in the future. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

How vindictive is that? You've had everything you wanted from me as regards copyright. There are no further issues and yet you publish such a list of complaints? I am appalled. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for CIR enforcement

The previous ANI report concerning SonofSetanta led to a call that he be topic banned. The discussion was closed on the grounds that it had not attracted enough input from editors who had not interacted with him before that report. Well, I'm exactly the sort of editor that was missing from that discussion, so I hereby endorse User:Blackmane and User:Lukeno94's suggestion above for an indefinite block under WP:CIR. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Cailil's closing comments here were clear This thread really hasn't has enough input from outsiders (people who haven't crossed paths with SoS before) on the mattering of banning SoS to effect a community sanction, and also there has been significant improvement in the issue. With SoS now working with Wereith to resolve the problem (I see that as a very positive step in the rigt direction). In the spirit of actions not being punitive I'd be happier to see this closed with a reminder that if such behaviour happens again a dim view will be taken and in that instance the conversation most probably will be pick up from this point. I believe that should suffice for now

I feel I need to remind you that the discussion you are using to try and get me banned stemmed from issues around copyright of images, all of which has faded into the background and already well discussed above. Yet here you are asking for a punitive measure because I inadvertently left a few quotation marks out of a new article which you could easily have advised me of directly instead of blanking and templating the article. My understanding of copyright has improved significantly and I put it to you and other interested parties that there is no reason to call for this ban simply because I called your approach to Wolfe Tone Societies into question. I feel I need to add that: despite me almost totally rewriting the article to please you and asking you here, at the article talk page and on your user talk page, you still haven't restored it. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban fails to get the point. Werieth (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What point is that Werieth? Where are the current issues concerning image copyright? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• For the sake of sysops who may be reading this. I'd like to point out that there are no current issues regarding image copyright, everything is under control and there has been a vast improvement in my knowledge and approach to copyright issues since a month ago. There has been no repetition of the behaviour which led to the suggestion of a ban at that time. This entire thread is about the fact that I left out quotation marks on the new article at Wolfe Tone Societies. The errors have been corrected, in fact the article has been substantially rewritten, and that has been pointed out to User:Psychonaut who has accused me of plagiarism, but he still won't restore the article. This is the first time in five years as an editor that such an accusation has been made against me. I have not engaged in disruptive editing, I haven't been uncivil, I haven't done anything except come to this board and ask for the article to be restored. Initially to correct the errors but now because the errors have been fixed on the temporary page at Talk:Wolfe Tone Societies/Temp. I have requested of Psychonaut here, on the article talk page and at his own talk page that he restore the article. Instead of doing so he calls for me to be banned.SonofSetanta (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Weird, Echo didn't actually ping this. Given that SonofSetanta is still unable to understand why copying large amounts of text verbatim is problematic, and that image copyright and text copyright are not mutually exclusive, and that they have violated a copyright-related final warning, I support an indefinite block. It's not punitive, as some have claimed; if you violate a final warning, then you deserve all the sanctions you get. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by asserting that I don't understand the consequences of copying and pasting large amounts of text verbatim? Of course I do. I'm a graduate and I am studying for an honours degree at the moment for which I write essays all the time. I made a mistake by leaving out quotation marks is all. The source was clearly indicated. If I'd been allowed to return to it the next day and review the article I would have corrected this error and quite possibly rewritten a lot of the text anyway. This has never happened to me before in all the thousands of edits I've made over the last 5 years. Please do not suggest I did this deliberately. I wouldn't countenance plagiarism for one second. What I didn't realise of course was that the original article created on 22 March 2006 and seen here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfe_Tone_Society&oldid=568088587} was a direct cut and paste from CAIN, so I copied and pasted that into the new article. You'd have thought someone would notice in 7 years? It was certainly noticed quick enough when I included it in the new article - now what does THAT tell you? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - I may not be an administrator, however I get the impression that Psychonaut is simply being vindictive here. SoS has started to use temporary pages in talk pages to work on things such as Talk:Wolfe Tone Societies/Temp and User:SonofSetanta/sandbox and asking for comment on them such as at Talk:The_Troubles#Rewritten section available for viewing/tweaking in regards to the sandbox page. He is learning, and Psychonaut's hounding for an unreasonable indef ban, I would see as SoS getting the message and thus worth a reprieve in this instance. Why is Psychonaut demanding an indef ban? Why not a month long, or two month, or longer topic-ban or overall ban that expires at some stage etc.? Feels like vindictiveness going for an outright ban when the editor does make a lot of constructive edits. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What would the ban be for though? The image copyright issues are well behind me. I came here asking the Wolfe Tone Societies article to be restored because I had made errors in not clearly marking the CAIN material as quotes. I've fixed the issues on a temporary page as you quite rightly note - although the page still hasn't been restored. What is the issue here? (I've been using my sandbox since 25th June btw when I came back after a year's break). What I suggest is necessary here is for this idea of a ban to be thrown right out the window because nothing has been done to warrant it and for a sysop to restore the Wolfe Tone Societies article from the temporary page at Talk:Wolfe Tone Societies/Temp. I can't stress enough and I'd like sysops to take note - I've done nothing wrong. Not a single thing, nothing, nada. Sure I made a temporary mistake, but has anyone here never done that? Here's the edit history of the article in question Wolfe Tone Societies: Revision history showing that, after creating it, I worked on it for one hour, 15 minutes - in total. I wrapped up for the evening and when I came back the next day the article page was blanked.

Can anyone show what I've done to warrant a ban? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose ban or block. WP:CIR is an essay not a policy, you can't ban someone "under it". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:ONLYESSAY, and yes, we have blocked people for it on many occasions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • This is ANI, not WP:AFD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose ban or block. It's ridiculous to watch a conversation devolve like this, going off-topic and sliding into personal insults. This ANI concerns the Wolfe Tone Societies article and some users have used it as an excuse to attack another user. If there is a conduct problem, concerning SonofSetanta, then file a RfC/U or file another ANI (since your original one was closed without a decision) where you can build your case and show off all of your diffs. But it it is bad form to hijack an editor's ANI and use it as an excuse to attack him. It's sloppy, reactionary and lazy. Address the subject of the query and don't let these noticeboards become no better than a discussion board on a tabloid website. Newjerseyliz (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as I am an editor with autopatrol rights, to help SonofSetanta out and learn how to create the basis of a well formatted article that meets Wikipedia guidelines I've made substantial edits to the actual article. It should help give him tips on paraphrasing and what is needed. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Editor appears responsive to the comments of concern, and is adapting. I don't see any grounds for a block due to lack of competence. If there was some particular reason for a block, I don't see it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • He's certainly responsive, but the only thing he is adapting is the excuses and contrition he uses to delay or deflect action against his disruptive behaviour. I've seen no real improvement in his understanding or application of copyright. His various accounts have been blocked 12 times since 2008 [86] [87] [88], often for edit-warring over non-free content. And he has still been doing it since receiving a final warning in the previous ANI thread last month, re-uploading images immediately after they're deleted, stubbornly vowing to do so again and again, and relentlessly forum-shopping complaints when his infringing text or images are removed through entirely normal procedures. I can appreciate that different editors will draw the line at different points, so how much longer do you think he needs to learn? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blanking of AFD discussion and notices by new user, perhaps the subject of article concerned

A new user, User:Sdcha, has blanked the AFD for the article on Nicholas Alahverdian, as well as the notification on the page itself. After the blanking of the AFD, I placed a notification on blanking on their talk page. After this, Sdcha removed the notifications on the page itself. I reverted both of these as vandalism. I'm afraid a revert war will now begin, as the article Nicholas Alahverdian appears to have been created by the subject himself and is maintained by a series of single-subject Wikipedia editors, all creating an maintaing articles that involve Alahverdian or inserting photos of Alahverdian onto pages of politicians. Can someone help me out? I don't want to get into a revert war. Thanks! NewAccount4Me (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, he's reverted again. Here are the diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Alahverdian&oldid=568871867 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Alahverdian&oldid=568872229 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Alahverdian&oldid=568873364

Help! NewAccount4Me (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

At this moment Sdcha has made 12 edits, all of them being unexplained deletions and blackings. In the absence of any attempt to explain this behavior, I cannot treat it as a content dispute but instead judge it to be a vandalism-only account. Therefore I blocked it indefinitely. If another administrator thinks a shorter block would be more appropriate, I won't object. Unfortunately I suspect this person will just return with a new name. Zero^talk 01:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I keep posting more, but the other accounts that seem to be single-use or nearly single-use associated with this article are: User:Fred newman, User:Pro lights, User:Inji hyung, and several anonymous IP addresses (24.249.217.178, 198.228.228.156, 173.14.188.230). I'm not sure if that will have any bearing on your vandalism or blocking decisions. Thanks for blocking the account causing this today's specific issue! NewAccount4Me (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted several edits of User:Fred newman, all adding the Alahverdian case with WP:UNDUE detail to multiple pages. I also listed the case for AfD as a non-notable pending trial level case. I'll notify him of this discussion also. I also started an WP:SPI on the accounts. GregJackP Boomer! 02:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If I wasn't assuming good faith, I might assume that someone has been doing a bit of publicity/damage control on behalf of Nicholas Alahverdian. Someone should clean up the use of primary sources (court documents) in that article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I deleted a good portion of several of the articles as it is rife with errors and misstatements of fact, based on an examination of the pertinent court documents from both the Ohio court system and the Federal court system via Pacer. First, Alahverdian, then known as Rossi, had his conviction affirmed by the Ohio S.Ct. in 2012. On his motion for a new trial based on the victims MySpace page, there was testimony by a detective on loan to the FBI as a forensic computer that the webpage evidence presented by Rossi had been altered. His habeas petition was dismissed by the Ohio S.Ct. as moot. His libel lawsuit in Ohio was described as frivolous and dismissed for failure to state a claim. He has been ordered to submit a dismissal stipulation to the RI federal court by August 20, 2013, meaning that case will be over. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. All of this can be backed up by court records. It appears that Wikipedia is being used as an attack page on the Ohio victim, and appears to be a clear WP:BLP violation, in addition to being a general attack on the RI foster care system. GregJackP Boomer! 05:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

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 [[89]]

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... [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] 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)

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 ([96]). Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Moheen Reeyad and TilottamaTitlee regularly edit each others' userpages [97] and trade barnstars [98].
• Moheen Reeyad and TilottamaTitlee both have userpages that look like articles. When I tagged them as userpages [99] [100], Moheen Reeyad untagged them [101] [102].
• 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 [103] [104] (entry originally added by 202.65.173.11 (talk) [105]) [106] (Leelebratee did this first [107]) [108] (Leelabratee added the original [109]) [110]
• Moheen Reeyad repeatedly requested a redirect from mainspace to his user page: [111] [112] [113]
• Moheen Reeyad removed content from Leelabratee's talk page [114]

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[115][116] 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:Shoun Sarwade and recent edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Peteforsyth & Russavia

On 19 June I blocked Russavia (talk · contribs) indefinitely for disruption and this block was overwhelmingly supported by the community [117]. 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 [118]. 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 [119]. 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 [120] 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 [121] 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 [122]. 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 [123]. 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. [124] 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.[125][126][127][128][129][130] 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.[131][132] 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)

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 ([133]) 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)

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)

Holy editwar, Batman!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disgusting personal attack and racial remarks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In an RfC User:GabeMc made unfounded [[134]] 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protecting Danzig

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Preempting discussion of Jesus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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." [135]. 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)" [136]
• 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.[137]

• 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. [138]

• 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.[139]

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! [140] - Richard Burridge is a member of the Church of England General Synod! [141] - Robert van Voorst is a pastor! [142] Michael Grant wrote "popular books" and only knew about Roman coins! [143] 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 [144] [145] 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 [146]. Strangesad says the cited source is no good because it comes from a "popular book" [147]. 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) ".[148] 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 [149]. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. He also canvassed Jeppiz [150] and Sergecross73 [151]. 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 [152], [153] despite being warned about it [154]. Ignoring the warning, Strangesad continued edit warring and reported the other for edit warring instead[155].
- Strangesad explicitly encouraged "allies" to create a sock to avoid their topic ban. [156].
- Despite several admins pointing this out [157], [158], Strangesad refused to withdraw the call to creat socks. [159]
- Strangesad argues in favor of violating Wikipedia policies [160].
- Strangesad often goes after people who displease here. [161], [162], [163], [164].
- Shorter blocks has no effect as Strangesad declares they won't change her style. [165].
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. [166] 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 [167] wasn't that egregious, but he has a documented history of disruption [168]. 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 [169] 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 [170], [171]. 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 [172], 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. [173], [174]. 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. [175].

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 [176], 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 [177]. 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 [178] 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 [179], disappeared for a while, then came back to battle over the Jesus article. I left her a message today [180] - "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 [181] 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 [182]. Your next edit consisted of deleting even more content [183]. 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.[184]. When you first came to the talk page [185], 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 [186]. 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 [187] "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 [188] 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 [189] "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 - [190], the Jesus article, just promoted to FA, itself [191],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, [192], and WP:FORUMSHOPing to try to find different answers to the same old junk [193]. 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 [194], 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" [195])
• 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 [196], which she blanked without response (somebody else put it back) and another message in another discussion [197] 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violation of ban in less than an hour

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

What's clear is that you get off on threats. The policy states a consensus must be of uninvolved editors. Period. If you think it is wikilawyering to cite the rules, you shouldn't be an admin. Strangesad (talk) 02:59, 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)

Why not? Frankly, I've never been able to tell the difference between AN and ANI. The community that made the ban was here, this community can undo it. Strangesad (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please restore the sectioning I created. Strangesad (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No. You already have a subsection; that ought to be enough. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather than respond at several places, I'll merely respond here, as you (User:Strangesad) would seem to be watching this page.

A couple points:

I am merely a closer in this case. At the moment, that I am an admin is immaterial to the close itself.

With that in mind, upon positive, collegiate request, I am happy to clarify any closure.

I am guessing, based upon your usage of the word "accounting", that you may be unaware that Consensus isn't "vote counting". It is determined by reading through the discussion in question and weighing the arguments of those in the discussion in light of the current discussion, and in light of the broader Wikipedia previous consensus and common practice (as may be noted on policy/guideline project pages).

And with this in mind, I'll also note I did take into account this previous discussion, and the findings of its closer.

I'll also note that while many commenters "emboldened" "topic banning from all religion-related articles", when the rest of their comments are read, it's fairly clear that they were not including any of other of the world's religions, but merely the Christian religion.

I'll also note that there were several who commented, who did not "enbolden" their comments, but their comments still had weight, per WP:CON.

And I didn't address several things which did not have consensus. For example, presenting these issues to Arbcom. As others noted, it would be contrary to Arbcom rules, and besides there was no consensus even in this discussion to do so at this time. At this point (as always), someone is welcome to cite WP:IAR, and try to request a case there, but they would do so at their own discretion, and may risk being accused of disruption, WP:IDHT, and/or WP:POINT, among other things.

To be clear in case it is not, this page (as also noted by several in the discussion) has zero to do with content but rather with behavioural actions. And of course "preventative, not punitive" is a guiding principle. The goal is to prevent further disruption of the project. And with that in mind, and hopefully as a help, I would encourage you to read both WP:DE and WP:TE. - jc37 03:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, maybe not much, I read over the discussion following the complaint above, and I agree with Jc37's conclusion. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Not that my opinion really matters here, but as totally uninvolved, Jc37 and Drmies are right. Free advice - drop the stick. It's not going to help and the horse isn't going to get up. GregJackP Boomer! 03:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You didn't address the main point. The majority of those supporting/arguing etc. for a ban were involved in the underlying dispute. You don't have to provide a vote count (although several others did so, and wrongly counted involved editors). But if you refuse to provide a breakdown of any kind, you are refusing to be held accountable. There is nothing close to a consensus if you follow the rules and exclude those involved in the underlying dispute. If I am wrong, please demonstrate that. Strangesad (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I provide a breakdown above and you claim I do not provide a breakdown?

You want a count but it doesn't have to be a count?

That seems rather contradictory to me.

But regardless - while I do not advise this, as I personally don't think it would be in your best interests at this point - I think from here I'll defer to what User:Drmies said above. If you want this reviewed, feel free to start an WP:AN discussion. As always, I welcome the community's thoughts. - jc37 03:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Maxximiliann

Section on Maxximiliann

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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. [198]).

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[199][200].) 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 [201] 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.[202]--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 [203] (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".[204] 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).[205] 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."[206]

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.[207].--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[208], 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.[209][210][211][212] 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.[213][214][215] (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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional section on behavior of Jeffro77

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• I 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"[216]. 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.[217] 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,[218] 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.[219]--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)

Okay, then as Doug and John are mainly happy, User:Qwyrxian or any admin may close this section. Still on principle I am uncomfortable with any User being labelled as a member of/advocate of any specific religious group. The large number of non-JW sources for this archaic chronology (both in 1850 and on Google Books now) indicates that this view isn't specific to JWs and Maxximillian probably wasn't a JW, given that he refused to confirm the accusation and editing behaviour doesn't strike one as being a member of any organized church. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You haven't provided any sources showing that any groups other than JWs (as well as some very small Bible Student groups with common origins, as I previously stated) currently adhere to that chronology. Of the old groups from the 19th century, they suggested 606, as did JWs until the 1940s. The editor's dogmatic assertions about 607 represents a belief unique to JWs. And the editor directly quoted from JW literature.

editing behaviour doesn't strike one as being a member of any organized church - Seriously?! That's like saying Christians never lie.

Please direct In ictu oculi to stop his frivolous accusations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Yitzhaken

I would like to call admins' attention to User:Yitzhaken, a new user who has devoted the last month to putting external links to his commercial music site in all articles dealing with Jewish and Israeli music. I have commented on his talk page that these links are of doubtful relevance to the Wikipedia. Perhaps a firmer hand than mine is required. Thanks, Ravpapa (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added a uw-spam4 notice. If he ignores it, he can't say he hasn't been warned Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Maxximiliann

Section on Maxximiliann

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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. [220]).

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[221][222].) 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 [223] 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.[224]--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 [225] (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".[226] 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).[227] 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."[228]

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.[229].--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[230], 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.[231][232][233][234] 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.[235][236][237] (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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional section on behavior of Jeffro77

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• I 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"[238]. 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.[239] 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,[240] 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.[241]--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)

Okay, then as Doug and John are mainly happy, User:Qwyrxian or any admin may close this section. Still on principle I am uncomfortable with any User being labelled as a member of/advocate of any specific religious group. The large number of non-JW sources for this archaic chronology (both in 1850 and on Google Books now) indicates that this view isn't specific to JWs and Maxximillian probably wasn't a JW, given that he refused to confirm the accusation and editing behaviour doesn't strike one as being a member of any organized church. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You haven't provided any sources showing that any groups other than JWs (as well as some very small Bible Student groups with common origins, as I previously stated) currently adhere to that chronology. Of the old groups from the 19th century, they suggested 606, as did JWs until the 1940s. The editor's dogmatic assertions about 607 represents a belief unique to JWs. And the editor directly quoted from JW literature.

editing behaviour doesn't strike one as being a member of any organized church - Seriously?! That's like saying Christians never lie.

Please direct In ictu oculi to stop his frivolous accusations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

There isn't a large amount of users who use IPv6 at the moment. If memory serves right, that range had zero collateral but keeping it at softblock just in case. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Yitzhaken

I would like to call admins' attention to User:Yitzhaken, a new user who has devoted the last month to putting external links to his commercial music site in all articles dealing with Jewish and Israeli music. I have commented on his talk page that these links are of doubtful relevance to the Wikipedia. Perhaps a firmer hand than mine is required. Thanks, Ravpapa (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added a uw-spam4 notice. If he ignores it, he can't say he hasn't been warned Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Of the last 100 edits, only 3 weren't aviation related. Almost all of the edits were about the auto= argument: Some templates don't use it, and of the ones I looked at that were Biography templates, a few of them are of the auto=inherit variant, which isn't documented. I think the editor meant well, and the Biography template ones probably can be explained to them. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Penwhale, the IP makes many edits per minute, so sampling from just the last 100 would seem insufficient. If you think the editor means well, what does he/she mean? Two other people thought it was vandalous -- why are they wrong? What's the value in removing 'auto='? Sorry to press this but I just don't understand it. On the other hand I do understand the suspicious vandalizing of "Types of bots" coinciding with the start of this IP's edits. Vzaak (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• {{WikiProject Aviation}} specifically said "it is usually appropriate to remove any unused parameters from the template", which is what the IP editor has done. Also, the edit speed that I can detect lies between 2 edits/min to 3~4 minutes between edits. It's still humanly possible to do so. This edit seems unusual (re-classifies an article as a different class) as it doesn't fit the normal MO of the editor if it is a bot behind it. I do think a block is appropriate for one reason: The editor is failing to communicate with us and clarify things. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

obvious self-promotion

Coming over from Commons where I checked File:S.A.Muthu.jpg, uploaded by User:S.A.Muthu DME, and found it in use on the following :en-pages:

• User:Muthu S A
• User:S.A.Muthu DME
• User:S.A.Muthu
• User:Akkinimuthu/sandbox
• User talk:Akkinimuthu
• User talk:Akkinims

The first 4 pages contain an identical, obviously self-promotional article about the depicted subject. The latter two only an infobox with the image. This scenario is highly suggestive of self-promotion and, in addition, strongly suggests that the 5 involved user-accounts belong to the same person. --Túrelio (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeffed by JohnCD as a promotion-only sock. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 15:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

I read the comment and it seems strange more than a threat since there is no person singled out for retaliation. In fact, Jattnijj seems to be saying he and his friends will provide backup if there is a fight. But it's more like boasting than a threat to any individual. But if you feel anyone is targeted, you should report it. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 19:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Having followed the Operation Blue Star page for a while now, I believe that the comment is a bit scary. There is a tacit threat of organized violence, but it seems that Jattnijj (talk · contribs) is supposed to be an accomplice or participant (in favor of the suggester) in this violence. Wer900 • talk 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, it's time to leave the dramaboards. Articles need writing. Wer900 • talk 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Single-purpose account accused of sockpuppetry continues blanking pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Fred newman has been blanking pages diff and diff, and reverting edits diff associated with a suite of articles written and deleted through AfDs about Nicholas Alahverdian. His account is accused of sockpuppetry and one of his alleged socks has already been banned as a vandalism-only account for the same behavior. The diffs are gone now since the article has been deleted, but near the end of the AfD for the Nicholas Alahverdian (which the user did not participate in), the user also made edits blanking the page with edit summaries of epithets.

Can an admin help? NewAccount4Me (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 12 hours for page blanking, previously clean block log and at least some appearance of positive editing in the past. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a bit more info for you, many of the user's problematic edits were deleted along with the articles Nicholas Alahverdian and Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al. Here is the diff for the blanking+epithet, but the link is dead now. The previous, partially unresolved ANI from yesterday has more information if you'd like more corroboration for a pattern of abuse from the user. In any case, thanks for helping! NewAccount4Me (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Of the non-deleted articles the user has contributed to, nearly all major edits were made to include information about Nicholas Alahverdian in peripheral articles (John J. McConnell, Jr. , United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth & Families ) or are additions on topics that the are WP:SOAP subjects for Alahverdian (ex. Manatee Palms Youth Services). The lone exceptions are some information added to the Marathon Bombing article and a non-free image of a Channel 4 TV show box set. NewAccount4Me (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

SPI has concluded with checkuser confirming multiple accounts, which were blocked by NativeForeigner. Although involved, I'm closing this as an NAC since no other admin action is needed. Feel free to revert if the closure is believed inappropriate. GregJackP Boomer! 15:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need Block for WP:RBI of "Beatles OTRSN spammer"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Enacted Community Ban: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive231#ban discussion from ANI
• Current violation: [242]

IP Editor is now attempting to target me, as one of the people who consistently opposed their attempts to sneak copyright-infringing "The Beatles" work into Wikipedia. I request that the entire 176.15.*.* address space be put on a 6 month rangeblock [243] (using wildcard lookup addon) The edits reveal that this IP hopper has used the range before to push the exact same arguments of "Donating music of 'The Beatles' for cultural heritage" or some other nonsense. Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• The IP itself is blocked by The Bushranger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I don't have the wildcard lookup capability, so I cannot assess the IP range edit myself. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-report, requesting block

I am a former user who was blocked for uncivil behaviour. I used to make useful contributions on Wikipedia, but I've become embittered, my edits are worse in quality, and I am exhibiting highly anti-social traits, I believe I'm entering a bout of depression. I developed an addiction to Wikipedia and have requested to be removed, but I am struggling to break the habit of coming back to edit here. I wrote and removed extremely uncivil and hostile comment when I was in a rage of anger on the User:N-HH, I reverted it, but I was stupid to write in such rage. I am requesting that it be removed and that this IP address be blocked in response.--50.101.211.33 (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Judging by these and the history of N-NH's talk page, the IP editor would appear to be the indef blocked User:R-41, so the IP should be blocked for socking and the really hateful personal attacks in those edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal blocked the IP and removed the attacks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

All said, I hope that if this user decides to return at a less distressful and more mature point in life, that this serve as an indicator that they know they did wrong but that they would like to return to the positive and productive editor they once were. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, this is about the third time this individual has flamed out like this, been abusive and had their comments removed, either from my own pages or article talk pages, only to reappear on yet another IP address to do the same thing over again, before saying "sorry, I know that was wrong, it won't happen again, I'm quitting". There's comes a point where that isn't going to wash and comments like "let's give them another chance at some point" make the person who's been on the receiving end of this, ie me, a bit baffled. Also, the reason why this individual suddenly took against me like this is because I dared to point out problems with their edits. Those edits are a big reason why so many of WP's politics pages are an utter mess and often full of outright misleading material, so I'm not sure encouraging them to be "productive" in that fashion is such a good move either. In fact, an audit of their voluminous contributions would be a more sensible route to go down, but that of course is not a question for ANI. Let's hope this is done for now (as I said only about a week ago). Thanks again to those who helped sort it out. N-HH talk/edits 09:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyvios by User:The-blackrobin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• The-blackrobin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In February, this user was blocked for a week for bad image uploads. A look at the upload log shows red links from as late as two weeks ago (this is an occasional editor who returns on roughly this timescale). The user is completely unresponsive to talk page messages (0 user talk edits). Furthermore, I have removed one text copyvios from this user: [244] from [245].

I haven't yet considered this user for CCI. MER-C 13:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeffed. Hopefully, it will cause him to engage. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog at WP:SPI

There seems to be a bit of a backlog at WP:SPI again. There are 16 cases that show no sign of having been looked at even by clerks. At couple of those are almost two weeks old. I'd volunteer to do some clerking myself if I knew anything about detecting sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I assure you that they have been seen...but more admin eyes as well as non-admin eyes to offer input is always welcome. Clerks administer certain aspects of cases but it is a misunderstanding that the responsibility of sock hunting falls on their head. Our roles are clearly defined. We do hunt socks when we see cases where we choose to do that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: are you looking for clerks, or are you full up?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

We're looking for any admins who want to help. You don't need to be a clerk to review cases, decide whether or not abusive sock puppetry has occurred, block any sockpuppets, and mark them for close. Of course, more clerks is helpful too. :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I already do patrol SPI, although I suppose I could do that even more. Based on your comments, though, I've formally applied to be a trainee clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Threat of Violence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to report a threat of violence against me on my talk page. Please take the appropriate action and perma-block this IP. Arzel (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor is User:190.12.43.27 for reference. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 17:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A 6 month block by User:JohnCD should be the end of that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Arzel (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible Sockpuppet Overload

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I created the Mike Tyson vs. Andrew Golota page a few months back and their seems to have been no less there have been no less than 13 new editors who have edited the page, which seems suspicious. None of these users have really vandalized the page, but I'm not sure whether or not these accounts have been created to avoid a ban or not. Beast from da East (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong forum. If you have reasonably well founded suspicions of socking, then I suggest you take your evidence to WP:SPI. If the edits are not constructive, as the editors are not yet autoconfirmed, perhaps ask for WP:page protection or WP:pending changes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible sock puppet of 67.87.140.155 ‎

Earlier today, I came across these edits:

[246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253]

I am starting to revert these articles. Here are the pages for evidence. Judging by these edits, including putting in false volumes on these articles. He 216.185.58.18 is a definte sock puppet of 67.87.140.155! He really needs an super long block for abusing another computer. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion by an anon?

192.154.182.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), an anon editing from TIME WARNER CABLE INTERNET LLC in Plano, Texas made one edit on Amy Grant (diff) This is very similar to the many edits made by a blocked anon 68.203.6.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) editing from TIME WARNER CABLE INTERNET LLC in Austin, Texas.

Is this block evasion or just a coincidence? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion...192.xxx blocked one week.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't both be blocked for the same duration? Also, I don't see any block activity at 192.x.x.x. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Banned User Returned as SockPuppet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Patriots49ers

This guy, who threatened both me and an admin, just keeps creating new accounts...

It's clear from the timing of the creation of his account, as well as his editing pattern regarding rock bans, and personal attacks in the Tom Corbett article

A previous incarnation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rock%26RollSuicide

Here's the sockpuppet investigation of his various old sockpuppets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gypsydog5150/Archive

His editing pattern: politician - Tom Corbett; rock bands - Van Halen, Poison, and Anthrax, don't leave much room for doubt that this is the same guy.

Old thread (from 11/9/10):

Pittsburgh Sock Puppet

There's an editor in Pittsburgh who has been permanently blocked under multiple acounts as a result of threats made against me and an admin who intervened. It appears he's back.

He originally used the handle Gypsydog5150. Here were his contributions using that handle. Here is the original ANI discussion regarding his threats.

He then created an account called Hemmingwayswhiskey and used it to go through various articles undoing my edits. Here are his contributions under that account and here is the ANI discussion regarding that sock puppet account.

He also created a (now blocked) account called MisfitsFan10. The contributions for that account are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

He also makes edits using a dynamic IP that all trace back to Pittsburgh.

I would appreciate it if an admin would consider blocking this new sock puppet.

At one time there was discussion of banning the range of IP addresses he was using. An admin noted that he reported the guy's abusive behavior to his ISP.

Thanks.

Personal information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've undone an edit that added personal information (physical address) to WP:Requested templates, but it should probably be removed from the page history. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 21:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This should be emailed to oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org. And your notice should be removed from the noticeboard, to avoid spread of information. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision deleted in the interim. Nick (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Ymblanter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User: Ymblanter seems to be having some conduct issues.

It began with an inappropriate ANI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#User:Holdek) in which he was corrected on policy, and he agreed that he should definitely take a break from Wikipedia (I also told him on my talk page that the ANI was the wrong place to bring up his concerns, although he never apologized or even responded [254]).

I don't know if he took his break or not, but he seemed fine and communicated pleasantly with me about another edit I had made, but then inappropriately made a threat in an edit summary where he sourced material (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moscow_mayoral_election,_2013&diff=566841529&oldid=566838360). I asked him to politely to be more careful in his wording of edit summaries, and he replied with hostility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ymblanter#Your_Block_Warning.)

He then made another threat on my talk page along the same lines that he was corrected on in his previous ANI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Holdek#August_2013.

I believe another break from Wikipedia for this user may do him some good to improve his tone. I understand he disagrees with my approach to the Wikipedia project, but, particularly as an admin, he needs to learn to cooperate better with those with whom he disagrees, or at least to not bother them.

Unfortunately, my attempts at discussing these issues with him on my and his talk pages have been meet with either him ignoring them or reacting with hostility, so I felt the need to bring it here. Holdek (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You may have felt the need to bring the issue here, but what exactly are you asking us admins to do? User: Ymblanter is almost surely aware of his responsibilities as an admin. This seems to me to be more of a content issue because it appears Ymblanter is one of the contributors (although I may be wrong). If there's a 3R going on, or PA or incivility, it would be different, otherwise perhaps the best suggestion is to really try and talk it out together, or failing that, take it to DRN. Let's see what he has to say first.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to your question, but I'll abide by your request to let Ymblanter respond first. Holdek (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the history of the Moscow mayoral election, 2013 and fully agree with User:Ymblanter that contributions by User:Holdek are disruptive. He is removing non-controversial pieces from the article that are either a matter of public knowledge (that city of Moscow considered a federal subject by Russian constitution but its head in named Major not Governor) or actually referenced (Fox News is a good enough source that Navalny is an opposition leader). Ymblanter was correct in issueing warning to Hlodek and if the disruption continues it should be stopped by an administrative action Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

According to WP: Verifiability, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." (Bold in original.)

Furthermore, Ymblanter, while he doesn't like it, knows this, as he acknowledged in the previously mentioned ANI. Holdek (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You are perfectly aware of the fact that your persistent removal of material from this article meets opposition of other editors. Moreover, you removed material which is actually sourced in the article (in the last series of edits you managed to remove several sentences from a sourced paragraph). WP: Verifiability does not state and can not state that anyone can remove any piece from any article provided the piece does not have a source template. It does not even state that there must be inline references at all, only for material that is likely to be challenged. This is purely disrupting behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And, indeed, if you feel some material is incorrect and should not be in the article - this is a content issue. Please go to the talk page and discuss it.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a content issue, this is a conduct issue. If you have a special request about cites on the article that go against policy, you are welcome to discuss it on the article's talk page or my talk page. In fact, Alex Bakharev and I reached an agreement on the Moscow mayoral election, 2013 article on my talk page. Unfortunately, you later tried to disrupt that agreement with hostility. And, you said you would make your request known on that article's talk page, but you never did.

I will repost the policy that I posted for Alex Bakharev above. Please read it carefully: According to WP: Verifiability, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

To answer Kudpung's question above, what I would like is a mandated Wikibreak for Ymblanter so that he will cool down with his nasty attitude and stop issuing threats without any basis. He admitted himself in the earlier dispute when he was corrected on policy that he needed a break. He seemed to be more cooperative after that. I believe a policy refresher on WP: Verifiability, WP: Civility, and WP: NOTHERE, and a calm down period would be the best remedy at this point. I'm open to suggestions for how long it should be, especially from Ymblanter, who has managed to improve his conduct in the past when it was an issue. Holdek (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop misrepresenting things. Everybody can check that you have not reached any agreement with Alex Bakharev on your talk page. Instead, you offered him a deadline of two days to find the references and threatened to remove the material after two days. He did not (yet) respond, hence this is not an agreement. I have to repeat for the third time that if you have problems with the material, sourced or unsourced, on this talk page, and you clearly see that you edits meet oppositions from other editor (basically all your edits in the article were reverted by me and other editors), you have to take it to the talk page, which you were offered to do but opted to continue removing the material. Specifically concerning this edit, for which you got the warning, this is removal of sourced material. Also, I would like to remind you that, from what I know, not me, not Alex Bakharev, and also not other contributors to this article are not paid for editing Wikipedia and have to rely on other jobs, therefore making an ultimatum that missing sources have to be found in two days is grossly incivil.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I invite anyone reading this to just go to my talk page and read the conversation between me and Alex Bakharev. He said someone will add cites to the unsourced material within a couple of days, or if not, he will, and I said that's fine. There was no "deadline," and he proposed the the timescale. The rest of your statement is also erroneous. I'll assume good faith and assume you are tired rather than purposely lying. Holdek (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• At the very least, I want this to be on record in case Ymblanter tries to block me if I remove unsourced material, contrary to policy, and which has been explained to him before and which he accepted in another ANI. Holdek (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  Please stop lying. I did not accept that any unsourced material can be removed from any article anytime without discussion and can not be returned by any editor.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, a refresher on WP: Assume Good Faith. I'll assume that your memory is fuzzy, but here, to refresh you from the previous ANI:

"To be precise, do you personally find this edit constructive?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It removed years-old unsourced material. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Then I obviously need a break from editing Wikipedia, at least the articles I did not create."

Please take your own advice. Holdek (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, I feel like I should stop answering here and do smth more useful. Just repeat in big lines: Holdek persistently tried to remove material from Moscow mayoral election, 2013 and got reverted a number of times. Instead of taking the matter to the talk page of the article, they first went to my talk page, then here. At that point they had two administrators, one of whom is myself, calling their activity in the article destructive and warning them about a future block. It is clear that other active editors of the article oppose the removal as well. They still have not chosen to stop or to take the matter to the talk page but continued to insist that they have done all correctly and to solicit a block for me. Let them continue here if they want until the topic gets archived.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• At bottom this is a content dispute. Continuously parroting WP:V does not change that. The application of WP:V in terms of when material should be removed as unsourced, when it should be tagged, and when it should just be left alone can be a contentious source of disagreement among editors. If a situation arises in which editors disagree about the correct approach to take, it should be discussed on the article talk page. The most glaring thing I see in this dispute is the lack of any discussion on the article talk page. I don't want to have to jump all over user talk pages to find content discussions. Holdek needs to stop repeating himself (I'm not sure how many times he's quoted WP:V). Holdek also misrepresents some of the history here, in terms of the dispute and in terms of the previous ANI discussion. At the same time, Ymblanter should be more careful about his warnings. There's nothing wrong with warning an editor if the warner thinks it's justified, but when an admin issues a warning, it should be clear whether the admin is warning as an editor or as an admin. I don't see how Ymblanter could sanction Holdek because Ymblanter is obviously WP:INVOLVED, but some of the warnings read like he would do so (e.g., "Next edit like this will get your account blocked."). In this case, it would probably be preferable to use templated warnings. In that way, you don't create any special wording that might be misconstrued.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ideabeach and "Bosnian pyramids"

Ideabeach (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account, whose all ~300 contributions are devoted to debunking of the Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis (also known as "Bosnian pyramids"), an all too common fringe theory about promoted by certain Semir Osmanagić. So, Ideabeach seems to promote scientific point of view, which is what Wikipedia is about. In theory, that is. The problem is that Ideabeach's idea of "debunking" is that it must be so thorough that every sentence in the article must spell the word "hoax", "fraud", "debunked", "liar", "criminal" or like, and every editor who expresses a reserve with this approach is "insane", "paid by Osmanagić", "stupid", etc. Here's a list of selected quotes in past few months:

• "Again, you should answer the question: are you him (Mr. Osmanagić) or paid by him maybe? I don't see any other explanation as to why anyone in their right mind would push so hard for us to confuse this man for a scientist. You're obviously forcing your own POV " [255]
• "You two can try bury the facts under piles of nonsense as you attempted in the above, but 6:1 remains 6:1 for everyone who can add and subtract. " [256]
• "This is total BS. To call an absolute amateur's hoax (to quote the EAA) a scientific hypothesis is like saying Dr. Josef Mengele was performing scientific experiments in Auschwitz. I mean, how dare you go against mainstream science and majority vote on Wikipedia so openly and laughingly? Some nerve! " [257]
• "When will you revert the section title that was saying hoax and that you renamed without discussion?" [258]
• "Enough BS. " [259]
• " A 24-year old user Tariqabjotu came to rescue... Wikipedia is about scientific truth more than pleasing students with weird ideas on what the world should look like. ... So who is protecting Osmanagić? What a dark day for Wikipedia." [260]
• "As for the WP:BLP argument, look far below where four people (including myself) tell you that WP:BLP doesn't apply as this whole ordeal is a hoax, pure and simple." [261]
• "When you call someone a professor then yes, you are saying he's a professor. So you bought his books? While Osmanagić will thank you for a free commercial I personally don't believe you really bought his books. I do thank you for the laughter you gave me, however... " [262]
• Removes cited fact that Osmanagić is a professor of anthropology, and adds that his mentor was charged of embezzlement [263]

Not that I searched too hard for this material: every single of his contributions is a gratuitous insult, blanket accusation, endless repetition of scientific consensus (as if we don't know it). His targets are not actually promoters of the fringe theories, but sane, experienced editors (Ronz (talk · contribs), Dougweller (talk · contribs), myself), who just try to uphold base policies of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and, if you like, WP:CIVIL.

I don't think we should tolerate such obnoxious behavior and toxic atmosphere he creates, however we might sympathize with the POV he holds. He is apparently here just to disseminate WP:TRUTH and to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. At a minimum, I propose topic ban for all material related with Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis, broadly construed. No such user (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think a topic ban is appropriate for Ideabeach regarding anything to do with Bosnian pyramids and Professor Osmanagić. I sympathize with the wish to debunk a ridiculous pseudo-archeological theory, but the toxic attitude is not conducive to collegiality. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I concur. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • A Topic Ban seems warranted. I have a bad feeling that he'll move on to another pseudoscientific article as he seems to be a editor with a cause but you don't preemptively block people based on feelings and hunches. Keep it to a limited topic block. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 00:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Agree. I don't hold out much hope for change. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Azad Kashmir

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After an RFC consensus was reached for these two editsquote in the bodysummary in the lede. Two editors who had voted against the inclusion of this content have now taken it upon themselves to edit against the consensus and are removing it. Mar4d has removed it twice[264][265] Topgun once[266]. Will an administrator please explain to them they need to respect the outcome of the RFC and if they wish to remove this content they need to get consensus. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have explained there with only a single revert and then talk page comment, about why DS is wrongly interpreting the RFC closing whereas DS went to editwar with another user as well on the article discussing in edit summaries instead of talk. I'll rather not fuel WP:DRAMA here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not after drama, I want the consensus from the RFC enforced, otherwise what is the point in having them? And I see no way on earth anyone can misunderstand the close of the RFC, I shall paste it here in full, "There is consensus to have the quote in the article, but not in the lede. Consensus holds that an appropriately weighted summary in the lede is appropriate." Darkness Shines (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The RfC in question was over a year ago and the closing statement of the RfC is being misused by DS on that article. It was agreed based upon the consensus reached there that the quote was not acceptable in the lead, yet DS appears to be adding it quoting the second part of the statement which ambiguously gave concession for a summary of some sort. It was clear though that the summary is not meant to be the quote itself which DS appears to be doing. Mar4d (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not an admin but also not involved and so I commented there. - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)It does not matter when the RFC was, the consensus is still there, and you have not tried to change it, hell you have not even posted on the talk page. The close of the RFC says, quote to the body, summary to the lede, which is what I did. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Reverted to RFC version. The RFC is very clear and that version of the article is compliant with it - Hobit's close clearly states that the quote is valid in the body, and a summary in the lede. The version in the lede is clearly not the entire quote, and therefore valid per the RFC closing. I have reverted back to that version as an administrator action. If you wish to alter it, I suggest you open a new RFC, because you cannot run roughshod over the results of a consensus discussion. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I introduced a new, well sourced and updated section to the Ulster Special Constabulary this morning and another editor disagreed with the content and changed it. I reverted this change and opened a discussion section regarding the revert at here advising if no agreement could be found that an RfC be asked for. 9 minutes later Lukeno94 reverted me without any attempt at discussing the issue. This feels like tag teaming or forcing edits through without discussion. The page is subject to WP:1RR and is subject to {Troubles restriction} as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case. As the issue is so sensitive I request advice and guidance. The diffs are: rewritten section; contested rewrite; revert of contested rewrite; Edit warring diff.

The Troubles can be a very difficult area to edit in and Lukeno94's edit is not helpful where two editors involved in a content dispute (myself and User:Asarlaí) have each used the single revert allowed within this 24 hour period and are engaging on the talkpage. I request that an uninvolved editor or admin revert the section to it's new form as applied by me in the first diff and advise Lukeno94 to engage in discussion and not disruptive editing patterns. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing of the topic, but the wording of the version that is current (i.e., the revert of your changes) seems more neutral and less POV than yours. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That may well be the case Joe but forcing an edit through on a 1RR page is not responsible behaviour on a 1RR page with a Troubles Restriction. I seek no sanctions, just a warning and having the new version restored so that other editors can discuss it in a collegiate way against what it replaced. There are other interested parties, not just the three who are editing today. Discussion is the way forward, not edit warring. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• SonofSetanta, you clearly are willing to stop at nothing to get your way. You tried to use WP:BOLD as a cop-out clause for not discussing your edit(s) properly; I linked WP:BRD in my edit summary. And, although I also know little of the topic, the current version is definitely more neutral; you even changed the section heading to suit your POV. Your allegations of "tag-teaming" are utter bullshit; I have the page watchlisted after running REFLINKS previously, and I saw your revert pop up with an incorrect edit summary. You've also tried to claim that I am a "friend" of one of your other opponents, despite having barely interacted with them. How many swipes are you going to take at the multitude of editors that disagree with you? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case Lukeno94 seems to have been correct in reverting an edit that was questionable on POV grounds and a breach of WP:BRD. SonofSetanta would need much stronger evidence than this to make an allegation of tag teaming stick. Furthermore SonofSetanta, no matter how frustrated you are on those pages, continuing to edit war and using ANI as an attempt to "win" over opponents is exceptionally ill-advised given that your actions are currently under scrutiny at arbitration enforcement, I would be trying to fly under the radar as much as possible if I were you. Valenciano (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Valenciano are you suggesting that because someone has made a complaint against me elsewhere I can't ask advice here? Isn't that what this board is for? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's right SoS, advice-giving is not really what this page is for. The rubric at the top says "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." It's really a last resort to be used when other avenues have failed and only admin tools such as page protection or blocking, or community decisions such as bans are in order. Coming here prematurely (which I think you have done) is not a good idea when other options are available - seeking the advice of an admin you trust, or raising the issue on a project page for example. If this is a straighforward matter of edit warring then WP:EW is the place to go but I submit that it's early days to go down that route. Try some softer ways of resolving things first. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok Kim. As you're around may I ask that you close this discussion here and I will engage with you on your talk page? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

North Korean denier and BLP

Shin Dong-hyuk is a North Korean prison camp escapee who is famous as a representative of the human rights abuses in North Korea. He spoke at the UN yesterday (NYT), movies, TV, best selling book Escape from Camp 14, his wikipedia article gets 100s to 1000s of hits a day.

Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk#Corroboration has seen a long-term personal attack by User:Jack Upland against the subject of the article, Shin Dong-hyuk. Upland started the thread innocently asking for corroboration of Shin Dong-hyuk's story, which was provided, but he has refused to accept the conclusions of every single reliable source on this topic (South Korean Government, award winning journalists etc), and over the course of months revisits the page each time increasing his personal attacks on Shin Dong-hyuk, saying that Shin Dong-hyuk is a fraud who has never been to North Korea. Sources have been requested to support this crazy conspiracy theory, but Upland has provided only his own original research and crank theories that are frankly full of logic errors and massive leaps of conclusion. Basically he is engaging in negationism, most famously used by Holocaust deniers. Shin Dong-hyuk is like a Elie Wiesel of the Korean "Gulag" prison system, and like Wiesel and the Holocaust, Shin has attracted deniers and conspiracy theorists. If someone was calling Elie Wiesel a liar and fraud, that he never was in the holocaust, that person would be in a lot of trouble in Europe where such things are illegal. I also believe there may be socks involved should anyone want to investigate but it's not important. My main concern is the thread Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk#Corroboration be deleted from the permanent record so it doesn't continue to provide a forum for Upland's unsourced conspiracy theory and unsourced personal attacks on Shin Dong-hyuk. He gives the appearance of seeking the truth but in fact is just ignoring sources and repeating his personal belief that Shin Dong-hyuk is a liar. The thread is a violation of WP:BLP. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

So is your post. You're effectively Godwinizing a fellow editor. Voicing suspicion that someone is an impostor is not tantamount to holocaust denial. If you think he's a kooky conspiracy theorist, then why not just stop participating in the discussion? —Psychonaut (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the talk page (e.g., Talk:Shin_Dong-hyuk#Corroboration)? User:Jack Upland appears to be violating WP:DE and WP:BLP. The problem of User:Jack Upland disruptively posting to the talk page of the BLP by repeatedly (WP:IDHT) alleging that the subject of the BLP is a fraud won't be rectified by the Green Cardamom "not ... participating in the discussion". JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that thread, and no, I don't see any WP:DE or WP:BLP violations. He's expressing doubts and asking for further sources. He's entitled to do that. The only major problem I see is that the thread starts off with the aim of challenging or improving the sources in the article, and then drifts off into matters not obviously connected to writing an encyclopedia. That's the fault of everyone participating, not just Jack Upland. I suggest this matter can be dealt with simply by having someone close the thread. If he really thinks he's found the next Binjamin Wilkomirski or Laurel Rose Willson, then Wikipedia isn't the place to expose him. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Upland does more than voice suspicion, he calls Shin a liar, and denies that Shin was ever in North Korea. It is a systematic violation of WP:BLP over months-long period. If Upland had a source to support his position it would be different. There are no sources that say Shin is a liar. Every single source on this topic supports Shin's story as being accurate. Wikipedia is not the place to put forward and advance personal theories, in particular ones that are libelous and personal attacks on a living person. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am quite genuinely interested in the truth, and I began that post simply wanting corroboration. It rapidly became clear there wasn't any, and that many well-meaning advocates of Shin's story didn't even understand the concept. The more I read their posts, and read the book, the more I became convinced that Shin is an impostor, and that Harden is a sloppy, sensationalist journalist. I agree that Wikipedia is not a forum for such discussions, and I've tried not to argue for the sake of arguing my point of view. However, other users have continued to raise points which make false accusations against me, or (more importantly) underline the lack of corroboration, or (more importantly still) raise other points which should be addressed in the article. In fact, if other users had said, "Fair point. We need independent sources.", I would not have continued the discussion and would probably never have concluded Shin was fake. I think I have made my point, and agree to rest my case. However, I think deleting my posts is monstrously unfair. They will be archived soon in any case.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Even archived, they're WP:BLP violations, and BLP violations must be removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

On the Talk page??? That's ridiculous. People are defaming me and when I respond it has to be deleted??? OK, this is NOT a serious discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. This really wasn't serious. These people are just trying to suppress freedom of speech (in the name of human rights, naturally). They have never responded in good faith to any of the points I've made. They have never provided corroboration and appear not to understand the concept.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Mamadoudiabate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mamadoudiabate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has extensibly edited what I assume is his autobiography, insisting on terms like "world greatest kora player" (diff) without attribution. I attempted to explain why he can't do that, and it looks bad when people are puffing up articles about them. Not to mention the broken English and formatting errors. The user has already been blocked for disruptive editing before, but I can't characterize this as vandalism so perhaps another preventive block would encourage him to engage in some discussion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what brought this edit on but calling other people "racist cold hard devils" is certainly disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP (not originally created by, but significantly edited by User:Mamadoudiabate). User warned again, also about autobios. Unsourced since 2008. I'm looking for sources and if I can't find any I'll PROD it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original Research on 2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On 2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season:. IP 2.221.89.155 does not respect the WP:RS in Results by Round section and is using WP:OR rather than the information in the Statto.com source provided. Also has ownership issues with any changes made that (s)he doesn't agree with. Lastly, also going against a previous discussion on WT:FOOTY - here, where it was agreed that the Premier League does not have "Rounds", so I renamed the section from Results by Round to League Performance, which IP did not like and reverted.

IP also added Starting 11, which on WT:FOOTY it was agreed by consensus that it's also WP:OR and should not be included, but if I remove, I am sure it will trigger another edit war. The IP does not respect WP:CON. I have tried to discuss but ignored. Thank you, JMHamo (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Both users blocked for 24 hours for violation of 3rr - the last reverts occurring after this had been brought here. Dpmuk (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I have to add to the discussion, since I had the same discussion with User:JMHamo before he started edit warring with the IP-user. Our discussions can be followed on my talk page and User talk:JMHamo. I tried to discuss with him that he was reverting 6 different users and that there has been an ongoing discussion about the "round" but he was very certain he was the one who was correct and even issued a warning as I interpreted was an effort to scare me off. This is not only on the Arsenal page but on almost every other page of brittish premier league (not only with User:JMHamo but mostly), seen for instance here,here or here or any of the edits here. It has also been discussion here without User:JMHamo. A debate that has been on a lot of places, I am sure i can find more. QED237 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And it just got edited here. I am affraid there will be a lot of edit warring between User:JMHamo and others when the block is over. Myself I have almost given up, but i feel the need to write in discussions. QED237 (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not justifying the edit warring, but for what it's worth JMHamo's edit to remove the 'Startng XI' table is supported by consensus from the relevant WikiProject. GiantSnowman 19:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that even if I like the starting XI. But his changes in the round by round table is making people frustrated, and the thing is he dont make the same changes everywhere but on some pages, without good explanation (it has become better). I got the feeling he wanted to own the page for a while. Now editors are asking "why not here when it exists there". QED237 (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point completely Qed. When there is a source given - Statto.com then you should respect it. Without a source it's WP:OR and can be challenged. The reason, I have not made the change on every Season article page is simply that I have not got around to doing it yet. JMHamo (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• And their EPL standing gives a different positioning than, say, the team results. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read WT:FOOTY discussion for some background. The English Premier League does not use a "Round" system due to clubs having domestic cup and European games. JMHamo (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• The Statto link you just provided above directly contradicts THEIR current EPL standings table. The Arsenal Results and Fixture page shows 18th place while the official EPL standing on EPL site shows them sitting in 16th place. Doesn't this make Statto stats not valid? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you show progress over the course of a season that's not WP:OR? The Premier League table is always going to change as games are played, so how do you show historical league performance for all 20 clubs? I am not aware of any other source other than Statto.com that documents this. JMHamo (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• There are options on the EPL listing to list results at the end of a match day. For example, compare current standing at end of August 21 and at end of August 19. Also, EPL has their own standing viewable with regards to where each teams are after X matches played. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• You are always going to have this problem unless every team plays on the same date (or weekend) in each round. For example, Chelsea played Aston Villa tonight - which was actually a Week 3 match moved backwards - which means that all the Premiership teams won't have played the same number of games again until September 1st. And of course, this gets worse later in the season as matches are postponed due to the weather, domestic cups, etc. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly... which is why the Statto.com site is an excellent source for league position per match. The problem here is the definition of a "Round".. they don't really work in the English Premier League. JMHamo (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• We can say "at the end of play on the day in which this match was played", which would be unambiguous. This way you don't have to deal with teams not playing on the same day - for example, we can write in Chelsea's page that after their match against Aston Villa, they were sitting at 1st place (and Aston Villa in 5th). You also wouldn't have to go back and correct each of the pages when matches later in the week changes the positioning. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Also, because Statto.com has conflicting information between the standings and what they listed at Arsenal FC, I consider it unreliable and the Arsenal page info not valid. (And I gave the two links above, in case you were wandering.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I like your suggestion Penwhale but you have confused me. We can say at the end of play on the day in which this match was played at the bottom of the template but I would recommend using the Statto.com site, because it shows this exactly (no confusion) and backs up the unambiguous statement. JMHamo (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I must also say that I like the suggestion from Penwhale and i think that the absolute best to do is to use the leagues own source. I am all for that (and with a clarification at the bottom). The thing i dont know if it is best to use "matches played" or "matchday". QED237 (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this something to discuss at WT:FOOTY instead? QED237 (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am being thick.. could you show me where on the Premier League site they have the standings per game for each club? (not just Arsenal) JMHamo (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We could either base the table on this which is table after all matches completed a certain day or this which is when all matches for every "round" is played. QED237 (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Premier League site is as User friendly or as accurate as Statto.com if you want to use the "at the end of play on the day in which this match was played" statement. For example, Fulham were 4th after all games finished on Saturday, 17th - as shown on Statto - Fulham Statto.com I can't see this on the Premier League site? JMHamo (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• JMHamo: Did you even read why I did not want to use Statto.com? Their EPL standings has Arsenal at 16, which is different from their own team results page showing Arsenal at 18 (and note that the Chelsea - Aston Villa game doesn't affect the bottom of the standing). I consider Statto.com unreliable for this reason and would recommend either not using the Result by (date/match/whatever) or use the EPL's own standing. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether some of you are misinterpreting the Statto pages:

• their Arsenal results page shows them 18th after their first match, not 18th now. Their first match was played on 17 August, and the results page shows their position at the end of that day;
• their PL table as of now with Arsenal highlighted shows them, correctly, 16th now. Other matches were played on 18 and 19 August that affected the bottom end of the table;
• their PL table as of the end of 17 August when Arsenal played their first match (select date via dropdown menu) shows Arsenal 18th, consistent with the results page. Hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Struway2 for your excellent summary of Statto - my thoughts exactly. Referring back to my earlier comment about Fulham and Struway2's comments, is why I feel strongly that we should make Statto.com the source for ALL English league clubs that use this template. There are clubs outside the Premier League, in lower leagues like Championship, League One and League Two that need a consistent Source too. For example, York City in League Two has listed Statto.com as the source in the Match Details - which I feel all season articles should use. I don't see a reason not to use Statto.com for all 92 clubs. JMHamo (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• And here's the EPL equivalency to the Statto page that you linked, Struway2. (I had not realized that the Statto page did exactly what I said.) However, as now there's a way to get the information straight from EPL site, wouldn't you say it's better to use that? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.