Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828

Clavdia chauchat

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.

---

Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs)

Unfortunately this user is becoming increasingly difficult to work with; her civility problems have already been raised at ANI back in December 2013, yet she continues to smear an entire WikiProject (yes, of which I am a member) as "circle jerks" - complete with a link to the article on the sexual practice, just to make sure her meaning is crystal clear, latest diff here. Interesting to note her problematic editing/edit warring was brought here just last week. As she seems unable to engage in civilized discussion, without restoring to repeated childish insults, I seek wider input here. GiantSnowman 19:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's unacceptable. I have warned and will block for any repetition. --John (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks John. GiantSnowman 20:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This is pure WP:ADMINSHOPing. No action has been taken the first three or four times you and your pals brought this same thing here. This noticeboard doesn't exist for you to keep telling tales, over and over again, in the hope that a (fellow) weak or incompetent admin will do what you want and hand out a block. Much worse has been flung in my direction but my eyes remain dry and I'm not running here every five minutes, wasting peoples' time. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the issue of your language and civility problems has been raised once before here; if you think it is "three or four" then that obviously indicates we have a larger problem than I first thought. GiantSnowman 20:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, suffice to say all the complaints were completely ignored. That suggests that not everyone shares WP:FOOTBALL's outrage (which you regularly express on their behalf). Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because only members of that WikiProject have concerns about your behaviour. GiantSnowman 20:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved Admin please review the last comment by Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs) at WP:Articles for deletion/Anthony Gorman and her previous comment, where she accuses me of "ethnic cleansing". I am really offended by her behaviour and do not think she's being civil one bit towards me. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved Admin please review Fenix down (talk · contribs)'s comment at the same discussion. He accuses me of being "arse about tit", which has wounded my inner child. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Comment from uninvolved editor): "A (fellow) weak or incompetent admin..."? Clavdia, I can't even begin to tell you how many things are wrong with that statement... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Claudia's been a problem from the start, and is clearly going to continue to be so. I'd propose a topic ban from anything to do with WikiProject Football, because I've struggled to find anything this user has provided that is productive in this area. I particularly like how "No action has been taken the first three or four times you and your pals brought this same thing here" is perceived to be a good thing to Clavdia; what would actually be a good thing is to never having been brought here at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• I would support a topic ban for all these reasons. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban. There are obvious civility issues at play here, but her first comment in the AfD has enough substance to it that I would view it as a productive contribution. Civility and personal attacks are enforceable issues on their own, but aren't justification for a topic ban. If you'd like to topic ban her, please provide diffs that go beyond an AfD with an uncivil comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Talk:Australia national association football team should provide you with a multitude of evidence. As does the ANI thread linked to in the initial post; there she echoed the "circle jerk" comment. That link on its own is pretty solid evidence of why her presence in this area is incredibly unhelpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban While Claudia's language has certainly left something to be desired, we should be slow to shut down discussions of sexism and other forms of systemic bias. The scope of the topic ban is also quite unclear - every article on soccer is within the scope of the WikiProject, so is that supposed to mean that she's topic banned from all of them? Or is it just supposed to mean that she's topic banned from talking about or interacting with the WikiProject? Neljack (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• All of them, yes, that's the point of the topic ban. I have no issue with someone bringing up issues with sexism, but Clavdia is simply here to attack anyone who won't let her get her way, and has contributed absolutely nothing positive to the debates she has been involved in recently. She provides absolutely no evidence for her claims, makes claims that are absolutely and obviously false (like the claim of there being no female members of the WikiProject, for example; she lists herself as being part of a taskforce that is run by the very WikiProject that she constantly attacks). This is why she needs to be removed from the subject area, as she is purely and simply a disruptive editor, who gives absolutely nothing of value to the debates she involves herself in. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone can be bothered to plough through the talk page at Australia national football team, they'll find [1] and [2] which, in terms of "uncivility", are several categories worse than anything I find myself here for. Neljack is right, these constant WP:LAME attempts to get me blocked are more about putting a chilling effect on legitimate criticism. I've already addressed the circle jerk metaphor here. Do I think WP:FOOTY's 'activists' literally meet round at GiantSnowman's house for a game of soggy biscuit? No. Yuck. Do I share the widely-held suspicion that there is a disturbing lack of diversity at that project, and serious ongoing problems with sexism and ethnocentrism/xenophobia: yes. These activists (ie the ones who spend more time on political stuff like this than creating or improving articles) have created a wikiproject in their own image - pale, male and stale. If Wikipedia was a house then WP:FOOTY would be a teenaged boy's bedroom which smells of farts and gets a wide berth from everyone else. I know that rather than confront these issues, the forumshopping will continue and I'll find myself here every couple of weeks until an obliging admin gives them what they want. But that doesn't mean I'll be cowed from further productive contribtions in the meantime. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• A topic ban is not needed - and would prevent her from doing 99% of her solid editing work anyway, seeing as her taskforce falls under the remit of WP:FOOTBALL (whether she likes it or not) - and neither is a block (yet). What is needed is for CC to recognise that her language/behaviour is not welcome or useful and is becoming an incresing problem; the same goes for her combative, almost WP:BATTLEGROUND stance both here, at her talk page, and and at the AFD. GiantSnowman 13:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

So you brought me here again to have me admonished and to hope I'll 'recant'? I'm not sure that's really what this noticeboard is for. Still, the credulous John (interests: Scottish football) could hardly get his yellow card out quickly enough so I suppose it's mission complete. I remain surprised that a "childish insult" could arouse such petulant indignation. Perhaps, deep down, some members of that project recognise the description of themselves? Perhaps they are pretending to be offended in order to shut down valid criticism? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I won't block you for insulting me. However, I am noting that you have responded to complaints about your insulting editors by throwing more insults around. Since you have raised doubts about my competence and impartiality, I shall be sure to bring any block I need to make here for review after I make it. I still very much hope not to have to do this. --John (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you raised doubts about competence and impartiality with your own insulting and high-handed input. You've completely ignored evidence of editors directly telling me to "fuck off" and instead pretended that my "regrettable pattern of combativeness" took place in a vacuum. Your first threat to block me over what you thought was a "nasty edit" (as nasty as telling a fellow editor to fuck off?) was hasty. Your repeated threats increasingly oppressive and disproportionate. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Diffs Highlighting Clavdia's Behaviour

• One - whilst perfectly within her rights to remove what she likes from her talk page, the edit summary openly acknowledges that she has offended editors on more than one occasion.
• Two - the frankly quite strange accusation of ethnic cleansing, essentially accusing editors of wanting to delete articles purely on the subject's nationality.
• Three - unfounded and unsupported accusations of disengenuous editing by others
• Four - further unfounded accusations of bias against an apparent cabal of editors at WP:FOOTY whom she doesn't name.
• Five - additional aggressive comments about "jerking" from a previous ANI about her edits.
• Six - more unfounded accusations of bias and how there is an always unnamed group of editrs against her
• Seven - again well within her rights to remove what she likes from her talk page, but refusal to acknowledge that her accusations and language are offending editors. Instead brands a perfectly civil message from Giant Snowman as "creepy"
• Eight - additional claims of a "circle jerk" within WP:FOOTY
• Nine - more ad hominem attacks against editors she perceivess as being against her views but never named.
• Ten - unfounded claims of sexism at WP:FOOTY
• Eleven - aggressive refusal to get involved in any suggestion that her conduct might not really be what is deisred
• Twelve - refusal to get involved in an AfD that wasn't going the way she wanted other than to call the nomination "inane" and claim widespread coverage without making any effort to support her claims
• Thirteen - Aggressively accusing another editor of being "lazy, sloppy [and] pathetic" and to "go back to editor school"
• Fourteen - Accusing GS of no being bothered to source things
• Fifteen - Further aggressive ad hominem attacks on GS accusing him of "wrecking" an article
• Sixteen - Unsupported accusations of WP:OWN

Now, I will be the first to acknowledge that these are not exactly the worst example of aggressive and offensive behaviour that WP has ever seen, but it only covers the last four months and is indicative of an editor who seems to have significant issues when things do not go her way. I would be infavour of a topic ban, but feel that this might be counterproductive. Clavdia is a good editor who is heavily involved in women's football articles which are neglected in general by WP.

However, that is the point, they are neglected, not undesired. There is no cabal trying to run the project specifically counter to her views, it is merely that in a number of instances her opinion is not in line with consensus. When things don't go her way, she regularly resorts to unfounded accusations against admins, editors and the project in general. Is it possible to have a topic ban on just for talk pages and AfD for a while, as this is where the issues lie, not with her general editing? I would support this but acknowledge it would not give her an avenue to validly challenge any issues other than reverting.

Overall, I think Clavdia needs most importantly to calm down, acknowledge that there have been regular instances in the last four months or so when things have not gone her way, but that the way to win battles is through consensus, not through mud slinging, claiming bias, chaivanism and "circle jerking" (which is incredibly immature and cannot possibly help support anything). If there is no form of topic ban gneral or just on discussion pages, then a final warning at least would seem appropriate, this is not the first ANI on this editor. Fenix down (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If these are the best you could WP:cherrypick I think it's becoming desperate and a bit embarrassing. I won't go through them all but I take issue with the recurrent nonsense about "unsupported and unfounded". In Twelve, for example, I did provide evidence of coverage, which of course was ignored. 13 through 16, Giant Snowman unilaterally drove a bus through the article, removing swathes of easily-referenced and non contentious material without lifting a finger to try and reference any of it. When I queried this he admitted that he "didn't have time" then pompously informed me that I don't understand the relevant policy or guidelines! I invite anyone to read the full discussion, rather than the one side presented here, and arrive at their own judgment. The circle jerk thing and the problems with exclusively-male WP:FOOTY are dealt with above. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find in 12 you didn't provide a single link to a source indicating GNG, you just claimed there was coverage. This is the problem, when things don't go your way you just start spouting generalisations and invective without ever backing them up (like in your post above where diffs are provided and you then just call them desparate and embarrassing and only discuss a ocuple that you feel you can challenge). If there was such coverage, why did you not simply provide some links? Kind of suggests things aren't nonsense. In the other example, GS is merely removing completely unsourced elements, the history exists and elements can be added back if and when sources are found. There was no removal of any sourced information except in one instance where the source was a Wordpress blog and it is fair to call the elements removed unreffed OR. Fenix down (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that's wrong - in 12 I added several WP:RSs to the article. My content dispute with Giant Snowman (more than four months ago btw), if it's supposed to evidence WP:UNCIVIL behaviour, is very tepid and applies equally to both participants — notwithstanding your selective quoting. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• You never addressed WP:GNG or WP:BLP1E there. Or even came close to, instead making the same pointless personal attacks against anyone who holds a different viewpoint to you (and this isn't even one of your regular targets of abuse). Nor do your claims of "cherry picking" make any sense here; it's a list of your incivility, so of course it will only contain links to you being incivil. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• CC, if you accuse these editors of cherry picking in our 'dispute', which you say was 2 sided, please feel free to provide diffs of my apparent poor behaviour, in the spirit of BOOMERANG. GiantSnowman 13:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be making Claudia's point, giving the sexist overtones of telling women to calm down. Neljack (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Neljack: - why are you bringing gender into this? Is one user only allowed to suggest another calm down if they are of the same gender? You might wish to review your previous comment and consider how it could appear offensive to people. You may also wish to question the inherent assumptions you have made about other editors' genders in making that comment. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Fenix down for your diligence in collecting these diffs. As you say, they are not the worst but they do show a pattern of combativeness which is regrettable. The circle jerk thing is a line in the sand and I will block over that if it recurs. Two serious questions; apart from the annoyance that User:Clavdia chauchat exhibits against the football project, are there other instances of personal attacks from her? Secondly, is there any justification for her charges of sexism and racism in our coverage of footballers? We do have a duty to counter systemic bias on our project. If the answer to question 2 is "yes" or "maybe", it would not justify Clavdia's behaviour but it could explain it and offer a different avenue to fix the problem. Thoughts? --John (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The answer to question 2 is no. We have, in addition to GNG, a clear guideline that requires a player to play for a club in a fully-professional league for them to have an article. The reason this was developed (over a decade ago) was because it was thought to be the best measure of notability, as professional status is inherently linked to the popularity of the sport, which itself links directly to notability. In some countries (for men's football) and most countries (for women's football) the domestic league is not popular enough to support professional clubs. If they are unable to draw sufficient crowds to support professionalism, this suggests their notability is also questionable.
  • No doubt my sincerity will be called into question because I am English and male, but my main interest in football is in the semi-professional leagues. The club I support plays at the eighth level of English football, and I am fully aware of the fact that the players I watch are in no way notable (except for the odd one or two who are winding down from a professional career). However, the club has a better average attendance than more than half the clubs in the Estonian top division. How could players in that league be considered notable when so few people are actually interested in what they are doing? Number 57 18:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

From my experience there does seem to be such sexism (I can't comment on racism). It may well be unconscious, but it is nonetheless troubling. The resistance to incorporating the word "men" in articles about men's national teams is a good example. There is also an attempt to inflexibly apply a notability guideline that is not suited to female players without giving any consideration to issues of systemic bias. There really should be a separate notability guideline for female players, and possibly separate WikiProjects for men's and women's association football. That might reduce the conflict. Neljack (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is the guideline unsuitable for women footballers? By and large, women's football is far less popular as a spectator sport - the average attendance in the Women's Super League in England last year was under 600, roughly equivalent to the sixth level of men's football (and the second level of semi-professional football) - which means the players themselves are less notable. Those that play international football do have articles, because playing for your country is obviously going to make someone notable, but is someone who plays part-time for Birmingham City and has never played international football notable? If they are, then they'll pass the GNG, but I can't see how a separate guideline could be applied. The difference in status/popularity may be down to sexism in the outside world, but it's not Wikipedia's job to put this right - we are not a activist organisation. And as with semi-pro men's football, I also watch women's football, even travelling to Germany to watch the last women's world cup. However, but as with semi-professional men's football, I am aware that the players I watch are not of the same notability level as professional counterparts. Number 57 22:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@John: - I only went back over the last four months and those were the examples I could find. I don't want to turn this into a witch hunt so I would say I am not aware of any other instances recently, but overall her responses to this ANI highlight the issue: namely a complete inability to acknowledge offence caused and, regardless of the validity of her claims, that at best she is also creating friction and issues which are not helping her case.

I disagree with @Neljack: about the notion of inflexibility on notability guidelines. WP:NFOOTY is the current consensus agreement on a first step to establishing GNG. Essentially it states that a player must have played in a FULLY professional league or played senior international football to be notable. There are regretably fewer fully professional female leagues, but I am unaware of any instance where a player of either gender has been deleted where they pass this criteria except on occasion where a player only just passed through 1 FPL appearance in their whole career.

This is not the only criterion however, GNG is always considered as well. Here the issue revolves around WP:ROUTINE and it is generally accepted consensus at WP:FOOTY that match reports which state merely that an individual played / scored are routine sports journalism and their quantity is irrelevant to estabhlishing GNG. What is needed is in depth articles on the player themselves (i.e. interviews, etc.) Again, I am unaware of instances where such sources have been applied to an article which has been deleted through AfD. Clavdia has created a large number of articles on female footballers which remain because they not only pass NFOOTY but also GNG. I think the point here is that worldwide, the womens game gets less coverage and there are fewer fully professional leagues. It is a function of the current state of the women's game that it is more difficult for a player not in an FPL or an international to pass GNG.

This does not mean that the means by which NFOOTY is viewed cannot be changed. However, Clavdia has made no attempt to put together a reasoned argument and present it at WT:FOOTY. I would suggest if she genuinely feels there are instances of bias / sexism then she should put together a user page that shows this clearly and present it to WP:FOOTY. If this does not get a satisfactory response, then she can always take it further to here or another forum. That would be more preferable than petty name calling and obstructive behaviour. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

1) No 2)Yes Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's customary to provide evidence for your opinion here. Could you please do so if you expect to be taken seriously? --John (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You're asking me to provide evidence that I haven't made any personal attacks. How do you suppose I do this? Could you provide evidence that you haven't made any? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My behaviour is not under review here, yours is. Have you edited productively and harmoniously in any other areas? Can you provide evidence to support your opinion that sexism and racism are a problem in our coverage of footballers? --John (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you look at Talk:Australia national association football team for your evidence. You're already WP:INVOLVED there, aren't you? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think there have been any other issues other than those mentioned in the diffs above, unless of course we count the general attitude being shown in this discussion. I would also hardly call John involved on that page as he has posted once to enquire what on earth is going on. Regards the many long-winded arguements on the Oz National football team talk page, they all seem to revolve around WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

It is clear from the discussion that on the one side are two editors whose use names appear to be female, and on the other side several other editors opposing whose user names, with the exception of Lukeno94, do not allow conclusions as to gender to be drawn. Clavdia, has however, taken it upon herself to assume that because she is female and people are arguing against her in a discussion surrounding gender issues within an article title that they must therefore be male. This is not a conclusion that can be drawn from this discussion (and I must admit I am not aware of the gender of any of the users involved where it is not obvious, despite having regular interation on football pages).

At no point does anyone make any indication that they favour an outcome on grounds that could be considered sexist, both in terms of the arguments that have been put forward and also because their gender is in the main unidentifiable. This discussion is symptomatic of my impression of Clavdia's attitude in general in the last few months when things don't go her way, namely she claims that everyone against her takes that position because of her gender, or some other perceived bias such as here despite being unwilling / unable to provide any concrete evidence that that is the case. Fenix down (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually the two sides there were the problematic WP:FOOTY faction versus everyone else, who doubtless were a cross section of healthy, normal society including men. The hostility started from WP:FOOTY with childish feet stamping, accompanied by accusations of "campaigning" and POV pushing. It's not campaigning, we just don't accept this small project pissing on our feet and telling us it's raining: ie. "It's not our bias, we're just reflecting inherent bias" etc. As an encyclopedia we have to be better than that. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Clavdia, can you provide a diff that illustrates "It's not our bias, we're just reflecting inherent bias", or is this just your interpretation of what you think others are doing? --John (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Granted you didn't start it but you behave just as badly in that thread, others' behaviour is no excuse for your own. It's one of the reasons that no consensus has been reached in any of the cdebates recently on that talk page, because both sides just descend into petty comments. Fenix down (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet I'm the one brought here to be gently upbraided? After some fairly enthusiastic WP:WIKISTALKING you've dredged up your, er, evidence of low-level naughtiness. You've found a friendly involved admin to do the ticking off. Why don't we just get back to the correct forum for these discussions? Further sanctimonious waffle is doing nothing to disprove WP:FOOTY's reputation as a "boring or time-wasting meeting or other event". Also can refer to self-congratulatory behavior or discussion amongst a group of people. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please review my block of Clavdia chauchat

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.

---

As I indicated above, I wish to seek a review of my block of Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I warned her here not to compare those she disagreed with to those who indulge in an obscure sexual practice, but she has gone ahead and repeated the behaviour I asked her not to. As she has indicated above that she has doubts about my competency as an admin, I think it only proper to seek other input. Let it be known that I have every sympathy with the position that there is sexism in our coverage of football, and if I see evidence of such I will do my utmost to ensure it is addressed. We will nevertheless not solve alleged sexist behaviour by casting obscene aspersions on others. If Clavdia can indicate she has learned from what has happened and undertake not to repeat the behaviour, I will of course have no objection to the block being shortened or remitted. At present it is for 24 hours. --John (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - You gave fair warning. Her constant hostile battleground behaviour and gross references to circle jerking are not welcome. JMHamo (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Good block Behavior is 100% inappropriate. I'd support an indef if it continues. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, I've only recently become aware of this ANI discussion, but the overt and offensive misandristic behaviour is entirely worthy of a block, particularly in light of the discussions here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Obvious support - She was warned, she knew exactly what she was doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Ridiculous block "Circle jerk" is a quite commonly-used term for a group of people who agree with each other in a somewhat repetitive or self-congratulatory manner. I've never regarded it as particularly offensive. I hardly think that anyone is actually going to take it as an imputation regarding the sexual practices of members of WP:FOOTY. The suggestion of misandry is utterly unsupported and absurd. Neljack (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Neljack misses the point entirely, it is not about certain words being used or not, it is about civility. The issue is around a combative editor who has made quite serious claims around sexism / bias when discussions on talk pages don't go her way repeatedly in the last few months without providing even a shred of support for these, and whilst others in certain circumstances on the Australia football team talk page also appear to have been potentially offensive towards her, she has responded in kind or in other documented instances above kicked off hostilities. She has continualy refused to acknowledge that she could even be slightly in the wrong regarding civility and in this ANI has essentially indicated that she intends to go on behaving in an incivil manner depite a number of editors requesting formally that she review her behaviour. Her like-for-like attitude is unacceptable, though her block should not be taken to mean she is the only one in the wrong in some instances. Fenix down (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

She was blocked for using this term, not for a general pattern of incivility or for making claims about sexism. And I would dispute that statement that she hasn't provided evidence for claims of sexism or bias - she's referred to the discussion on the appropriate title for the article on the Australian men's soccer team, where sexist assumptions - whether conscious or unconscious - seem to me to be common. You may not think this evidence is sufficient to support her claims, but that is a different matter - she is not required to provide evidence that will convince you. Neljack (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• She was explicitly warned about using this exact term, and still went ahead and used it. How can you claim the block is ridiculous based on that? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If the warning is not justified then neither is the block. Neljack (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• So you're saying that a warning about using a term that was clearly offensive to multiple people wasn't justified? Seriously? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• May be moot – I hope I'm mistaken, but it looks like Clavdia didn't appreciate your block, John. She has had her userpage deleted, along with six or seven nine highly developed articles she was creating in her sandboxes. Did you know she had created 324 new articles? You may not realize, John, how offensive that first block can be to an editor with a clean block log. To repeat, I hope I'm mistaken about her intentions, but if I'm correct, your block has damaged the project. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• No, it won't have done, as in recent times, she's been causing more harm than good. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• If John can overlook the behaviour of Mr. Civility (MF/EC), he can overlook Clavdia's behaviour too. Why didn't he? --71.178.50.222 (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Whatever John did in a different case is entirely irrelevant here. He warned Clavdia about using this exact term, and she went ahead regardless. She knew exactly what she was doing, and got the block she'd been warned about. Claiming this block was offensive is baffling. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Consistency in an admin is never irrelevant. (And, maybe you'll understand better how offensive a first block can be when you earn your first block.) --71.178.50.222 (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• An IP threatening me? Aww, how cute. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Lukeno94, to reiterate 71.178.50.222's point, being blocked can be a slap in the face, especially if you're trying to eventually earn adminship. A lot of RfAs have been opposed because an editor was blocked, even if just once. And for those who don't want to be an admin, other editors will gloat that they have clean block logs versus your blemished log. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Providing you can edit for a year without getting another block then most RFA !voters will regard most old blocks as lessons learned, especially if you or your nominator can say how your behaviour has subsequently changed. For a block to derail an RFA it needs to be recent or you need to give the impression that you would react the same way today. ϢereSpielChequers 00:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I remember that a previously banned editor was able to gain adminship (I don't know who exactly). But that is off-topic. Some editors, who have been blocked only once, see being blocked as if they had an arrest on their previously clean police record. It's just not seen as good to be blocked, as it sometimes causes the editor to lose some dignity (for example, the case of Trongphu). Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• A block can be a slap in the face, if it wasn't justified. There can be no question that this block was justified; they were warned on multiple occasions. Hypothetical RfAs are neither here nor there. And some editors have had multiple blocks that get totally disregarded anyway, if they are viewed to have improved their behaviour (I'm pretty sure I've seen successful RfAs on people who started out as petty vandals, just as an example). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good block - regardless of how good an editor is, language/attitude like that is not welcome. She has been given fair chance long before John's warning. GiantSnowman 18:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Well the tragic irony has played out. The poor footy fans all being hugely offended by the term circle jerk, to the point that they have to throw the foul mouthed woman out of their bar, and then gather together to say how necessary it was. FMMonty (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• The irony is an editor being "hugely offended" by a short block to prevent further disruption, and being so offended to the point that they're unable to edit Wikipedia unless they can do it their way. But when their way of editing involves slinging around insults, that's a problem that needs to be addressed (and was). An editor being blocked for behavior, after being warned that the behavior will lead to a block, is hardly problematic. The block was fine, that someone might not like being blocked (who would?) is not a consideration for preventing disruption to Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh the block was exactly within the letter of the rules. FMMonty (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. It's a shame when regular content creators can't conduct themselves within the spirit of friendly collaborative editing. This very short block was entirely with in the terms of prevention and should serve as a reminder that such behaviour while often escaping admonition, will not be tolerated when it becomes a persistent pattern - especially after warnings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The "circle jerk" thing is relatively innocuous taken by itself. It's a relatively common expression, at least in the US, with a sort-of-similar meaning to "wankathon", inspired by a sexual image but not intended to be taken literally. As the article explains: [i]n the metaphorical sense, the term is used to refer to self-congratulatory behavior or discussion amongst a group of people, usually in reference to a "boring or time-wasting meeting or other event".[1] Clavdia chauchat was clearly using the phrase in this metaphorical sense. So blocking over it seems excessive to me. I didn't look at the other stuff, which may or may not have justified a block. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2014 (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.

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.

Til Eulenspiegel

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.

---

Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs), reverts the Holy anointing oil article to a recent unsourced version, first made here> He also calls a legitimate and neutral post at a WikiProject, nl. Wikipedia_talk:JUDAISM#Cannabis_in_the_Tanakh "canvassing". En passant he made 4 reverts.[3], [4], [5] and [6]. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are reporting me for reverting once on the article, then reinstating my comment that you wrongly removed from the talkpage four times. You did not present this very honestly. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It was removed legitimately. Such inflammatory posts like yours with unfair headers are regularly removed or edited. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it was removed illegitimately. It has bearing on the current pov dispute over whether Sula Benet is reliable for purpose of establishing that the school of thought exists regarding cannabis being used in the Holy anointing oil. They are my comments and not for anyone else to censor. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Debresser, I'm not sure what exactly you're doing, but no we do not routinely remove posts with "unfair" headers. We do remove inflammatory posts, but that's not that we have here. What you removed[7] is the editor disputing how you've treated the sources and then complained about a call for revert warriors on WP:JUDAISM. You may be correct about the content and sources, but your talk page reverts are unjustified.--v/r - TP 23:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As a 5 year+ editor I can not easily go and find the diffs, but I remember several cases where my headers were edited and my talkpage posts removed for less outrageous claims than the utterly unjustified claim of canvassing in this case.

In addition, what did Til think to achieve with that post, and with making it a separate section? I see nothing constructive there.

I think Til temporarily was not thinking clearly (read: along the Wikipedia policies and guidelines) in regards to this article: reverting to an unsourced recent edit containing such a strong claim as cannabis usage in Judeo-Christian traditions?! That would have to be impeccably sourced! Debresser (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree with you about such an edit to the article needing very high quality sources. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that rebutting the talk page comment would have been better than removing it, particularly more than once. But I will say no more and leave others to weigh in. DES ^(talk) 00:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I just reviewed the talk page history, and the post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. In my view, the post was not canvassing, and I would also tend to agree with Debresser on the content issue (which isn't relevant to this page of course). However, i don't see that it was legitimate to remove Til Eulenspiegel's talk page comment, much less to edit war over it. Trouts all round. DES ^(talk) 23:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• One name which hasn't been mentioned so far concerning the holy anointing oil spat is Ploxhoi (talk · contribs), who seems to be on a campaign to push the cannabis theories of Sula Benet, who wrote the paper that everyone seems to refer to on the matter. there's been a fair amount of revert brinkmanship in the article over a tag and a very short phrase when really the whole thing suffers from a huge degree of WP:UNDUE on this plainly fringe theory as well as a lot of forking from anointing and chrism and probably several other articles as well. Til is not at all helping with his typical cheerleading on the talk page against us Enforcers of Orthodoxy Who Want to Suppress Dissenters. There has been a lot of recruitment on this issue not so much because we're looking for allies, but because of the paucity of scholarly sources which even care. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why a you claiming I am pushing cannabis theories of Sula Benet? I am trying to keep the article neutral as there are many sources that have shown cannabis is the ingredient and calamus is not. There has been an edit war going on where calamus is being replaced by cannabis and back and forth. I have been trying to keep both cannabis and calamus listed. There are those claiming fringe or are biased and removing cannabis, and there those removing calamus for various reasons. For over a decade I have researched religion and cultures in the middle-east. Most of my research focused on Zoroastrianism and the relation to Christianity. There is clearly an influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism and the Torah. Those that have done any research on Zoroastrianism will know they used cannabis for medical and spiritual uses. I have posted some of the sources in the talk page, but some wish to ignore the sources due to not being Jewish origin and claim fringe. I do not believe Til Eulenspiegel has done anything wrong. Additionally I do believe both ingredients should be listed to keep the page neutral. Ploxhoi (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm claiming that you're pushing them because, as far as we can tell, this claim traces back to that single source. We have talked at length about the sourcing, and I see that the same problems of plant identification exist in the Zoroastrian case (see Botanical identity of soma–haoma for detailed discussion). Anyway, the further point is that Ploxhoi has a history of this kind of idiosyncratic advocacy. For example I found this older struggle in which he insisted that the number of the beast was supposed to represent the bismillah. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And we are now moving into "out of line territory" in this edit to the talk page in which Til rambles on with allegations (presumably directed at some of us skeptics) that religious beliefs motivate objection to this theory. This is the kind of behavior from him that clogs discussion every time (a) he finds an ally and (b) we (and I say "we" because common interests have all of us washing up at the same articles) hold the line against some fringe position that someone else is dedicated to promoting. It's not religion that makes me doubt this theory; it's that I've never heard it before in an area which I have some knowledge of, and I find it's the pet theory of some outsider group tracing back to one person's dubious "research". And Til shouldn't be engaging in these ad hominems, and he knows by now that he shouldn't because he's been told over and over and over to stop. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What appears to be happening is decades of brainwashing that cannabis is bad by the west, especially the United States, and religious groups now associating cannabis as something terrible and evil. Yes I have state the Soma-Haoma case before, but in the Avesta cannabis is mentioned. I have sourced an Avesta translation book written by Piloo Nanavutty which is considered very good by the Zoroastrian community and in the Avesta bhang is mention for medicinal value. I am not sure of your research Mangoe, but I find cannabis in Zoroastrian research often. The reason you do not hear of cannabis is exactly the same reason why the cannabis point of view was removed from the page. What better way to get rid of theories or information you do not like other than burying that information so nobody else will learn of the research and look further. Whether or not the practice or anointing oil recipe being wrong is blasphemous, or cannabis being this terrible evil plant today, there clearly is strong bias against the idea. As for the bismillah theory of Walid Shoebat, I read several different religious scholar's reviews of his theory. Being peer reviewed and a well know theory I posted the information only after researching the topic. The scholars either agreed with Shoebat, said theory was plausible or were totally against the his theory. Those that were against had several flaws in their analysis. Most commonly repeated error was posting only the printed text and not the original written text and saying there is no obvious relation. Of course this theory is always removed due to posing Islam in a negative light and there are those that will be very biased against such a theory. As for idiosyncratic advocacy, I can post on the talk page peer reviewed, scholastic works, as citations all day long, but there will be those that are biased the will remove the content claiming fringe, uncited, biased, etc... What I am trying to do is place researched and peer review information and theories on the pages to keep the neutral and unbiased. I am not being biased removing anything I feel is against my person beliefs and in fact encourage both sides conflicting views. Burying points of views and research only hinders the path to truth. Ploxhoi (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We have been going over these references, but there is a common pattern: sources which are positive about the cannabis linkages are about cannabis or (less frequently) herbalism, while other articles generally deny the connection. But at any rate the constant trope in the argument of religious motivation for denying the connection is out of line. Personally my reaction to the discussion is surprise at a series of novelties in fields where I might be expected to be aware of these ideas. And what I have found is that the ideas are novel and don't have a lot of provenance. Correcting the prejudices of the ages is not our job. Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want more sources I'll have to dig through my collection of many books again. For your information Piloo is a trusted source and I had her book near my desk when seen the section and decided to join the debate. You'll even find her works in the Library of Congress. I am not sure why you keep believing these ideas are novel or perhaps fringe, other than they are rejected by the orthodox or mainstream without any consideration. There are many other sources to cite, but I will have to find the books and cite them. Since this type of research is not my career I will have to make time to do this, as I have been studying the subject for personal interest for 15 years. Additionally I do not see why the works of Sula Benet, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Chris Bennett, Neil McQueen, Victor Sarianidi, and others have to be completely written off, as has been done. I never knew of these people until Wikipedia, although others have cited similar findings in the research I had done on Zoroastrianism. They too seem have done extensive research and published cited works for peer review. I am not trying to right great wrong, like I have said before wanting others to know there are other perspectives that have been well researched and should be included in articles in order to keep articles neutral of point of view. I know to cite references, but citing references does not seem to matter to some. There are many reference cited besides the ones I have cited. Just look at my talk page if you want to see the bias of some members on the subject. In some people's minds any ideas outside their box are taboo and need to be removed, even if there is research on the topic and has credible citations. Ploxhoi (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The claim that "you'll even find her works in the Library of Congress" is manifest evidence of a lack of competence here. LoC is an indiscriminate collector, and the presence of a work in the collections is evidence of publication, not merit. Mangoe (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I was stating a fact that some of her published works are in the Library of Congress. I am sure if you dig deeper you will find her works in journals as well. She has been an an authority on Zoroastrianism for a very long time. If you want look her up, Piloo Jungalwalla Nanavutty. Ploxhoi (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Til generally seems to consider it his duty to push any fringe position, and frequently features at WP:FTN either pushing fringe views and they end up there (e.g [8]), or attacking others at FTN and disrupting anything he can [9][10][11]. He seems to see himself as some sort of anti-skeptic writing great wrongs. These are just diffs from one specific page, but they happen everywhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"Til generally seems to consider it his duty to push any fringe position" - BLATANT MISCHARACTERIZATION. I have repeatedly noticed that there are all sorts of partisan editors on wikipedia who are all too eager and willing to get their personal pov or hypothesis officially "endorsed" by smearing the countering view or hypothesis as "FRINGE" without real justification. This is seen as a much easier and more convenient way to "settle" unresolved controversies than admitting all the sources, even those we don't like personally. They feel it is wikipedia's role to decide who is orthodox and who the heretics are who must be persecuted with firebrands in hand, despite these other sources being easily available in real-world land, anywhere outside wikipedia's little bubble. Once this has been determined by these editor's determination, they can proceed to "fix" the article so it tells the reader whose view they deem "correct" and can be a one-sided article written to get "in your face" of every reader who disagrees or hold the opposite viewpoint - you know, one of those articles. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the above demonstrates my case more effectively than any words of my own could, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Briefly looked at the first example. I can understand why [12] is fringe, as Borrows refuses to disclose the location and let items be analyzed. In this case, should the topic be totally removed or included with factual note that the evidence has been authenticated as Borrows refuses to disclose the location and let items be analyzed. Seems a lot like Mormonism, which has not been flagged fringe, but has been noted that the artifacts have never been authenticated by anyone non-Mormon. Ploxhoi (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Holy anointing oil and cannabis. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And see[13] and [14] - he was lucky then he didn't get blocked. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

So the next step is for Til to drop an RFC on the talk page accusing his detractors of being a "faction" whose approach is "one-sided and antagonistic to NPOV". I submit that this is not the proper way to do these things. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You are picking excerpts out of context and going over every word I breathe with a super fine tooth comb to find some reason for complaint. In describing the dispute, I made certain to write "TO ME THIS SEEMS one sided and antagonistic to NPOV." You have conveniently omitted the first four words to misleadingly make it appear as if I phrased the RFC non-neutrally rather than reporting both positions in the dispute as other rfcs do. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I really wish you would focus more on the vast number of academic sources you are merely thumbing your noses at or brushing off as unworthy, and stop trying to make it about me. Even if you could muzzle the editors who consider these sources and make those editors go away, it still wouldn't make the academic sources themselves go away. It would be kind of like sticking wikipedia's head in the sand on everyone else's behalf. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Til, I thought briefly about dragging "seems" along, but there's no getting past "faction". And even with the qualifiers that was hardly a neutral presentation of the conflict.

I've looked at those "academic" sources (and I note that GScholar does particularly poorly here and mostly pulls up non-academic works), and I'm unconvinced. I keep coming back to the same conclusions: Benet's paper is a poor authority, and the fact that it finds use almost entirely within the marihuana advocacy/history community shows its lack of traction for non-advocates. I'm willing to discuss some small degree of mention, but that mention needs to tell the truth that this is basically the idea of one person picked up by one group of people from outside the field. It's impossible to move forward on this when we have you ranting on about how anti-fringe we are and Ploxhoi telling us that the cannabis theory is obviously right. Both are huge time-wasters. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Never said the cannabis theory is "obviously right" because its only a theory. You are so funny. What I said was over the 15 years of studying Zoroastrianism I have read many source stating the use of cannabis in Zoroastrianism, one being Piloo's book I had on my desk. Many of those sources are published and trusted sources. With Zoroastrianism having influences on Judaism and the other research that has been done to identify cannabis in holy anointing oil rather than calamus, the theory is not fringe, but definitely plausible and should be included. I say it again I believe there is enough evidence and research to characterize the theory as not being fringe and for the sake of neutrality be included. Ploxhoi (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you going to do to me for using the word "faction", crucify me? I didn't know it was a word we weren't allowed to use, or that it was an offensive or pejorative term, I used it deliberately thinking to find the most neutral expression possible for the, um, can I say "party" or would that be over the top? of editors that is vehemently disputing with the academic sources in question. As for "basically the idea of one person" - yes sometimes there are situations where some author comes up with a kooky idea and is a lone voice, nobody else picks it up. Fringe might apply better to those situations. Here though, you have whole sections of academia picking it up if you look honestly, making it a veritable school of thought, at least equal in number to the sources insisting on "calamus", yet with all this school of thought, you are still trying to play the "fringe" card. The cannabis = keneh bosem is suggested in one French scholarly source I found from 1926, it is not Sula Benet's original either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The word 'faction' means a small organised dissenting group within a larger group, so you are implying immediately that they are a minority. 'Some' would have done perfectly. And "Should all the academic sources hypothesizing that keneh bosm in Holy anointing oil refers to cannabis, be excluded as "FRINGE"?" is a loaded question. Since no one is likely to know every academic source making this claim (in all languages), the answer has to be 'no'. You need to mention specific sources. And you only mention 'fringe', ignoring the issue of WP:Weight. This isn't the way to frame an RfC and hopefully no one will try to answer a loaded question. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not know the word "faction" implied minority to you and don't know where you get that, it is not evident from eg. wikt:faction. I am comfortable with describing a situation as "two factions opposing each other" without intending any implications about their relative size, and I don't know who would take offense at the term. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe you thought I said "fraction"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Missed all this. It's the Oxford English Dictionary that says "a small organized dissenting group within a larger one", not my original research/opinion. Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this going to go anywhere?

I am getting flipping tired of all the attacks on my integrity every time Til gets a bee in his bonnet about one of these subjects. After I pointed out that one of the books being used as a source for the cannabis thesis (and the best such, in my opinion) comes from "an 'alternative' (i.e., fringey) publisher", Til had to throw out yet another attack rather than addressing my response. It's a very safe bet that even if this doesn't go his way, I, along with any number of other people who try to ride herd on questionable archaeological and religious history claims, will be the subject of his ill-will when he rides in to defend some dubious notion which sticks it to The Establishment. This kind of behavior is his history, as plenty of people have linked to. Is this every going to be brought to some resolution? Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have to say I agree with Mangoe here - I don't see why an editor in any article advocating use of WP:RS academic sources (in this case myself as well as Debresser and Mangoe etc.) should be subject to a constant barrage of personal comment and attack language. We're not talking about one or two comments here, scroll up the Talk:Holy anointing oil discussion page and I count 60 to 80 individual comments which are ad hominems against editors in the space of 2 or 3 days. Is ANI the place to ask Til Eulenspiegel not to do this, or is there another venue? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you are putting a little "spin" on this to make it appear now as if I am opposed to use of academic sources. Once again, I am not opposed to any academic sources and want all points of view in academia represented on wikipedia. Once again, it is you, Mangoe, and Debresser whp are objecting to 100% academic sources, regardless of who published them, because you have imposed your own unique litmus test onto the English definition of the word "academic" here to be able to say "well, but the sources we DONTLIKE aren't really academic sources." Um, yes they are. This can be easily cured by getting an English dictionary and finding out that academic doesn't mean "only the stuff we agree with" by ANYONE'S DEFINITION except apparently yours. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no spin. This response on ANI is less inflamatory than language on the Talk page but fundamentally still a good example of exactly the problem; so again; Is ANI the place to ask Til Eulenspiegel not to do this, or is there another venue? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a good reason why, when I am dragged here because someone else doesn't like academic sources and wants to pillory me as a substitute for the academics who published the offending theories, it generally dies on the vine. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Til, you keep saying this, and we keep having to go down the road of "not every academic source is a good source." Consider the smallpox blanket debacle, in which Til dragged out a book from a fringe publisher (which traced back to the notorious and discredited fraud Ward Churchill), a book on herbalism (which reviewers complained spent too much time on political commentary), and a third work which said that there's no evidence it ever happened. We're on the same road again: Til is insisting we have to accept the authority of a bunch of people who all reference the same paper (they admit it) and which has no traction outside groups either advocating marihuana or making questionable claims about the nature of religion. Making judgements about the merits of these sources is what we're supposed to do, and Til's arguments here ignore the reality that fringe ideas get published in seemingly respectable books. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, our sole authority so far for calling this theory "FRINGE" is three wikipedia editors who disagree with the theory. It has MORE scholarly backing than whoever originated the "calamus" theory, so this is why I say this represents ABUSE of recklessly throwing around pejoratives like FRINGE where no reputable scholar has done so. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Making judgements about the merits of these sources is what we're supposed to do" - Oh are you sure? You mean, like this? "We wikipedians are right about xyz theory, and all sources that contradict it (no matter how abundant) we therefore deign FRINGE and these published university academics cannot be mentioned or cited on wikipedia, because we know better than they do and know in our hearts that their theory is just wrong and ours is right." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that many of Til Eulenspiegel's edits are on articles that fall under the ArbCom Pseudoscience ruling, if an appropriate case can be made for his activity there, WP:AE may be the best venue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 4 February 2014 (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:Khabboos

N.B. This was originally posted at WP:AN, but since this is much more of an incident, I've moved it here. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User Khabboos has continuously and knowingly violated and attempted to violate Wikipedias stance on neutral point of view and rule on editing originally on four pages (Talk:Karachi, Talk:Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush). He has already been warned by other editors that this is not allowed. Even though knowing this he continued to request to have mine and Inayity edits reverted on the Sindhi people page. Following his recent edits on the Hindu Kush (here and here) with his deliberate disruptive editing of a quote in a attempt to push his "agenda" I had personally come to inform him that he is severely risking being banned.

Despite being clearly informed of this, he completely ignored my message and want on his normal ways on the Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush pages. He would again violate NPOV on Hindu Kush, restoring his edit after being told its not allowed and again even after being told by 3 different editors that his edits are not neutral and unsourced. He also claims that the sources provided say "flee" instead of "migrated" but on the contrary both sources say "migrated".

Other disruptive edits include:

Claiming to have "found a good reference" for the Jayapala page even though none of his edits related to the source provided.

Using original research on the Hinduism in Pakistan page (here) which is also not allowed on Wikipedia.

Using original research on the Persecution of Hindus page (here and here). The references used are the same as the ones used on Hinduism in Pakistan.

Adding a reference to the Sindhi page (here) to citation a needed. Though he provided a source it does not mention the numbers given on the article. I have already and several times before have told him to make sure his edits are supported by the source he has given and to make sure the source he gives is relates to the citation needed.

Providing a "dead" "sourced" link to the Hinduism page (here); which called Hinduism "a way of life" which would also conflict with the fourth and fifth word in the first sentence of the first article which are "a religion". AcidSnow (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You tried WT:INB, or WP:DRN? Noteswork (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Noteswork, please do not give misleading advice on noticeboards - WT:INB is not an appropriate place to raise a contributor's behavioural issues, dispute resolution is only of use where there is an active discussion, and page protection is unlikely to solve a problem spread over multiple articles. I've not looked at the evidence in detail, but from Acidsnow's comments, it appears that admin action may be needed - in which case, this page is exactly the place to raise the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And BTW, editing your posts long after initial posting [15] is confusing and unhelpful too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

While I'm new here, I have been taking advice from friends who are active here. They tell me that I can ask for a senior to tutor me, that I can write anything on the Talk page and it is counted only as a discussion, not an edit. I also asked questions at the Tea House. I was also told that if more than a week has passed after I posted something, I will not be blocked/banned for it. Please tell me how to proceed.—Khabboos (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard of this, who said it? I have warned you before that you were risking being banned if you continued, yet you ignored my message and continued. Anyways, even if it was true it does not mean much. As for the talk pages I said "attempted" since you were warned that these break NPOV and were clearly showing "to be advocating your point of view".

*Sigh*, once again you have added original research on the Persecution of Hindus page (here and here). This also has been said by another user too (here and here). Why are you still doing this when me and other editors can see your edits? How many times must you be told to stop before you stop? AcidSnow (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Some links that may be helpful. This is only for the Hindu Kush portion, which I happened to see at the teahouse (I don't know anything about the rest of the articles). Here is the teahouse thread, WP:Teahouse/Questions#https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FHindu_Kush. Here is my request for some savvy folks to take a peek, if they could, User_talk:Drmies#Talk:Hindu_Kush. Here is the article-talkpage thread, Talk:Hindu_Kush#Possible_edit_war. Note that dispute over the "literal translation" sentences in mainspace (albeit not between AcidSnow and Khabboos I hope! :-) has been going on since 2005, see Talk:Hindu_Kush#Miscellaneous. Khabboos claims to be getting information straight from the 1957 national geographic article, if I understand the article-talkpage conversation. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, you asked a question at the Teahouse on January 27, but a review of that discussion does not show any such advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already asked him who said it and to come back to the ANI on his talk page, but he has yet to do so. Hopefully he stops ignoring it so we can end these types of edits. This user appears to have a serious problem with Islam (see his most recent talk page discussion). Not just those but he has also continued to lie about his references then post them all over Hinduism in Pakistan (here and here) and on the Umayyad Caliphate page (here). AcidSnow (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I had made some edits to the article Hinduism in Pakistan that can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_in_Pakistan&diff=593445517&oldid=593438770, but User:AcidSnow has formatted it, removing the sentences that say there were forced conversions back in time, that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005 etc (the references say that). Please tell me what to do about it.—Khabboos (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you just ignoring all of my messages especially the edit summaries and the talk page I have left? None of the sources you provided support your POV. Are you simply Google searching books on the history of Pakistan without even reading them? As for the mob I have said this twice before it was a response to an alleged Quran desecration which you continued to ignore in your edits. It was not out of hate against Hindus but rather and attack out of anger. You have also ignored the questions previously asked you, but raised a question on what to do with my edits that have broken no rules. AcidSnow (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', but you removed it, which means you did break the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. In the article on Sindhis, you removed the names of 2 Sindhis, stating that they were not Sindhis, but the surname, Vaswani (see http://www.surfindia.com/matrimonials/sindhi.html and Vaswani, J.P.'s, 'I Am a Sindhi: The Glorious Sindhi Heritage - The Culture & Folklore of Sind. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 129–135. 9788120738072.') is a truly Sindhi surname (your edit summary can be seen here), which is again a breaking of the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war.—Khabboos (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Block proposal

I am not sure if I am allowed to do this as I am not an administrator, but this appears to be the only solution to deal/stop with this user. Following his countless POV edits, disruptive edits, use of original research, lies, ignoring messages when told to stop and to rejoin the discussion (see my other comments above) I have request to have this user to be blocked form editing on Wikipedia. AcidSnow (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a strong claim, and needs substantiation; please post specific diffs to show that the user has lied. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He has and very clear ones would when he said, "I was also told that if more than a week has passed after I posted something, I will not be blocked/banned for it." (he is referring to the Teahouse and I am not the only one that called him out on it). He has also claimed to "have found a good reference". AcidSnow (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You said that the user has lied.

Please can you show me where he has lied. Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For the rule he stated, theres nothing at either Teahouse discussion that says anything like it (see here and here for each one). There's also no other discussion about it in his contribute history (had to make sure so I don't make false accusations). As for the "good reference", none of the edits he made are related to it, so he lied about that too. AcidSnow (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so, you're talking about Khabboos (talk · contribs), right? Got it.

Next, can you show some specific diffs that require admins? Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am confused as to what you mean by that and what you are? You know a lot about Wikipedia's policies and have made many edits so far in your first day. They range from articles edits to blocking discussion; these are not normal for a first time editor. Have you been a user before?

Anyways, I have already listed all the things he has done up above. This discussion needs administrator intervention since this user could careless what others say (has been warned countess times). I was also guided here by a helpful user. Another user who has also glanced at this section also see it as such. Since you appear to have missed the issues stated about this user please reread this discussion.

EDIT: It appears that you have been a user here before since you claim to have made "over 100,000 edits". But than again "everybody lies". AcidSnow (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', but you removed it, which means you did break the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. In the article on Sindhis, you removed the names of 2 Sindhis, stating that they were not Sindhis, but the surname, Vaswani (see http://www.surfindia.com/matrimonials/sindhi.html and Vaswani, J.P.'s, 'I Am a Sindhi: The Glorious Sindhi Heritage - The Culture & Folklore of Sind. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 129–135. 9788120738072.') is a truly Sindhi surname (your edit summary can be seen here), which is again a breaking of the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. I therefore request the administartor/s to block AcidSnow instead of me.—Khabboos (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your going to try to block me for going against your NON NPOV? You do realize since you keep on failing to mention that it was an anger attack not a hate crime that you are once again pushing your POV (which you have been told countless times that it not allowed? This is not breaking a rules if I remove it since it misrepresents the source. Also its not an edit war if you revert it once (once again I have not broken any rule). Dispet knowing this you continue to readded it (here) I removed it because they are not sourced being Sindhi. You know many Turks have the name Yusuf which is an Arab name, but they are not Arab? So the use of the surname does not help.

You also added an unsourced comment to the Babri Mosque (here) about Pakistani Hindus which has nothing to do with the Mosque. This called Original Research, find a source next time (really, I still need to tell you this?). You also added another reference to Temples to the lead that have nothing to do with the mosque once again (here). AcidSnow (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you also tell us who told you the one week rule? You have already been asked twice, so you might as well as do it now. AcidSnow (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

My offline wikipedia friends told me that if an edit goes unchallenged for more than a week and it is backed up by references that say the same thing, it is acceptable.—Khabboos (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Name? "unchallenged" and "backed up by references", odd, you did not say these before. Anyways this has nothing to do with the issues you have caused as they were challenged and not backed up. This also has been a continues problem too. AcidSnow (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear admins, In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', which said the same thing, but AcidSnow is continuously removing it, so please tell me what to do.—Khabboos (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are constantly saying this? I have given you 3 legitimate reasons why its not needed, yet you keep on asking for Admin assistance? You are wasting time.

AcidSnow Could you explain to me why the sentence "Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera" is not relevant as it appears to be sourced? Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 00:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You are now forumshoping: (request for medition, asking at ANI which you did more than once, making your own section at ANI, asking Smsarmad, and at the teahouse). AcidSnow (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your a 100% right Flat Out that it "appears" to be sourced and if that was the only thing the source said or that it was a "hate crime" or anything related to it than it would also be ok to add. However, the article goes on to say they were out to "avenge an alleged desecration of Holy Quran by a man here". As you can see it was done out of anger and nothing to do with persecution. It is also a miss representation of the source as the section it's being used is discussing persecution of Hindus. This is just another one of his attempts to push his POV. Those were the three reasons: nothing to do with persecution, miss representation of the article, and POV pushing. AcidSnow (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, AcidSnow. It's important to remember that not everyone has the benefit of all of the details of the disagreement and that you will need to be specific both here and at arbitration. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 02:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, Flat Out I have edited my response at the Request for mediation.. Could you close it now since it's now pointless to have it open? Also do I continue too wait for assistance? AcidSnow (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I cant close. I will review your additions at Arbitration - Good luck Flat Out let's discuss it 03:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you anyways. AcidSnow (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Abusive administrator threatening editors for hurting their feelings

I recently became aware of a situation where 2 admins (User:Nyttend and User:Orlady) were using the administrator toolset abusively against User:WilliamJE. Not only were they disregarding policy by skipping directly to an only warning message before blocking, they are miscategorizing comments about their behavior as attacks. I believe this is because they are admins and the ones who are telling them they are being abusive are mere editors. I left a comment here that I felt they were being abusive. Nyttend then reverted it as a personal attack here and then threatened to block me (as single warning) if I continued these "personal attacks". I informed him on my talk page that he needed to reread what the definition of a personal attack is and to get soe thicker skin. I also told him at that point he was a disgrace and should resign. Then I reverted his reversion of my edit to Orlady's talk page here. My opinion of admins on this site is extremely low so I don't think anything will come out of this but I feel I need to report those 2 admins for abusing their tools so its at least on record. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• For clarity: If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying you are not User:WilliamJE. Correct? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct, I am not WilliaJE. He is not the only one on this site that has a problem with the rampant admin abuse that goes unchecked and I stopped editing largely because of it. I stumbled onto the discussion when I was looking at an article Orlady had edited, which led me to the discussion earlier today. I was curious so I looked more into it. I am utterly unimpressed with either admin but especially Nyttend who seems to think that policy does not apply to him and its not any other editors place to tell him about policy. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering the remarkable timing of your edits, that's an extraordinary claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Good AGF but I see your not even an admin so you can't even do anything about this. I am much more hated than William, I used to be Kumioko but I am not editing under my old username anymore nor am I really editing this site anymore largely because of admin abuse that goes unchecked just like this and the communities failure to do anything about it. Nyttend has always been arrogant and abusive towards non admins and his decisions are frequently wrong so I couldn't simply sit idly by and watch him run another productive editor from the site with his attitude and abusive battleground behavior. At this point its obvious no one cares so I'm going to log back off again. It looks like abusive admins and battleground behavior from the goes unchecked again. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Look at some of this IP's edits. Are they in line with WP:NPA?

• Edit summary Sanctions and Arbcom are both a joke You may as well ust stop editing Nina
• Arbitration Enforcement admins are abusive admins who are abusing the use of it, i.e. certain Arbcom provisions
• That is complete bullshit AGK, edit summary "That is complete BS AGK"
• You Sir are a bully and you are a disgrace
• I need to get "soe thicker skin", said right here

This IP is jumping into a totally unrelated situation in which William, immediately after coming off a civility block, tells the blocking admin that she's done something that "low-life cold-blooded snakes without a conscience" would do; tells the blocking admin "You continue to lie in the face of incontrovertible evidence. That's reprehensible. As for following around, that isn't harassment. Its making sure you and no other administrator abuse your tools and when you do someone holds all of you accountable and tries to fix the shit you've done to other people"; responds to a comment I made by saying "Not going to say anymore. You can't win arguments against idiots as my Mom used to say or people without a conscience. Absolute power makes that disappear in people"; and refers to an old case of which I'm not aware by saying "TigerShark is so incompetent that he proposed 0RR for Joe with no exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations". William was blocked making tons of unfounded accusations, e.g. that I was citing myself by claiming that this edit was by someone else. Included in WP:WIAPA's definition of personal attacks is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" — when you make a claim like this, arguing that citing myself by linking to someone else, how possibly do you have evidence? Meanwhile, note that William late last year got a month-long block for "highly confrontational, WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to dealing with others, personal attacks, inapproprate use of user page and holding and acting on grudges". Some time later, you say "Instead I will watching the both of you for the next time you try what you did to me to someone else. So watch out. I'll be leading the charge for you at ANI and Arbcom till you resign or someone at wikipedia shows some guts around here to take away your absolute power to do harm to someone for absolute bullshit!" You're obviously still taking a battleground approach and holding (and threatening to act on) grudges. Someone explain to me why we tolerate this? Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? You know that non admins can see the block log and history right? YOU KNOW,that all we need to do is look at his block log and see that the last block was in October of 2012 right? The block Orlady performed was purely disruptive and your attitude towards WilliaJE was as well. Anyone would be annoyed if someone, admin or otherwise reverted their edits without discussion, derailed an AFD and refused to discuss it and when you did it was snide comments and arrogance. Anyone would be annoyed at that. Your approach to all of this is what's highly confrontational and battleground. Your simply counting on your fellow admins to just stand beside you and back yo up and not look into the problem, which may well be right but I am hoping that someone will take the time to look through your history of battleground conduct on this site. Its clearly evident in your edit history and in your conduct here. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

[EC]My version of the history, for the benefit of those of you who are addicted to wikidrama: This relates to some interactions between User:WilliamJE and User:Nyttend, related to Wirtland (micronation) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wirtland (micronation). The on-wiki mostly occurred on Nyttend's talk page; also see User talk:Mark Arsten#Wirtland (micronation). Apparently there was some activity off-wiki on the Wirtland website, where complaints against Wikipedia and Nyttend were posted. After some amount of discussion:

• Nyttend warned WilliamJE about personal attacks: [16].
• WilliamJE removed the warning with an edit summary saying: "Take it to ANI. Your behavior on the page is reprehensible and you're an administrator. This is the 2nd time you've threatened me with a block for calling you on your bs."
• Nyttend gave WilliamJE a final warning on personal attacks
• WilliamJE removed it; edit summary reads: "Take it ANI or resign as administrator."
• Orlady noticed that edit summary on WilliamJE's talk page (which I had watchlisted in August 2013 in connection with an unrelated dispute where I was sympathetic to WilliamJE's position) and posted "Edit summaries can also be personal attacks -- such as this one: [diff]. I strongly recommend that you restrain your animosity."
• Interactions continued at Nyttend's and Mark Arsten's talk pages.
• After Nyttend posted on my talk page to thank me for getting involved, WilliamJE posted a new diatribe against Nyttend on my talk page.
• Perceiving the comments to be a continuation of personal attacks, escalated to the new venue of my talk page, I went to WilliamJE's talk page and posted an "only warning" regarding the continuation of his personal attacks. (Text included: You've already had a "final warning," so I could block you right now. However, I don't like to do that to productive contributors, so I'm hoping this warning will make a bigger impression on you, coming from a different user. If you persist in your obsessive (and apparently baseless) personal attacks on User:Nyttend, you should expect to receive a forced vacation from Wikipedia editing. )
• WilliamJE removed the warning (edit summary: Take it to ANI) and promptly returned to my talk page to make a series of three edits in which he added to his bill of particulars against Nyttend [17]. That evidence of his commitment to continuing the attacks on Nyttend, immediately after my warning, led me to conclude that it was time for an enforced wikibreak to help him calm down, so I blocked him for 24 hours for personal attacks.
• The rest of the history that I know about is on display at WilliamJE's talk page and my talk page (scroll down to find the several relevant sections).

IMO, this wasn't about "hurting my feelings" or Nyttend's. This was about deliberate and persistent disruption in the form of personal attacks. Unfortunately, WilliamJE's subsequent comments to me do not lead me to believe that he intends to give up that behavior. (Particularly when he said: "What you did to me is permanently on my block log. That's the Wikipedia equivalent of giving someone a criminal record. Only low-life cold-blooded snakes without a conscience do that. Your blocking me for harrassment when you don't know what constitutes it or explain how I was doing that makes you to be an incompetent if not administrator. Especially since almost everything you did or said towards me starting with that talk page message and your first comment to me on Nyttend's page has been labbeled dead wrong and or heavily criticized by everyone around Your buddy buddy with Nyttend is reprehensible and should be the cause of your losing administrative tools. ... I will watching the both of you for the next time you try what you did to me to someone else. So watch out. I'll be leading the charge for you at ANI and Arbcom till you resign or someone at wikipedia shows some guts around here to take away your absolute power to do harm to someone for absolute bullshit!") --Orlady (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In fairness this ANI is less about Orlady than NYT. NYT seems to have the attitude that policy doesn't apply to him because he is an admin and other editors (particularly non admins) don't have the right to question him on his edits. He has been repeatedly flying off the handly accusing editors of personal attacks for petty reasons. Orlady's problems was her rash action in defense of NYT. The walls of text that are forming to distract from the and the lack of discussion shows pretty effectively what the result of this discussion is going to be. No action against admin abuse once again. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

...regardless of anything else in this case one way or the other, 108, if an editor has a problem with admins, they can bring it to AN/I; you don't need to "white knight" for them. If they have a problem, let them address it. (Also if you really are Kumioko as you claim, your statement "I am not editing under my old username anymore" is somewhat curious seeing as you were, in fact, doing so within the present week.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It most probably is Kumioko, who is a recidivist WP:DIVA, and is currently once again "retired" - but will be back before long, if his usual pattern holds. BMK (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

See [18], Didn't last long [19], [20]. Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What's conspicuous about this discussion is any lack of mention of what these personal attacks were. As far as I can tell, at least one of the precipitating incidents was Nyttend starting a deletion discussion of Wirtland (micronation) and then trumping that by laying a redirect over it without discussion. [21] Another user reverted that, Nyttend undid that, and then WilliamJE reverted that with the "take it to AFD" remark— which was entirely appropriate. This turned into a templating fight between the two and then devolved from there. WilliamJE's behavior was hardly exemplary but after all the whole dramafest could have been avoided by letting the AFD run normally. It took admin powers to make the conflict stick the way it did, and handily Orlady was there to supply them. And equally Kumioko was available to come and complain and therefore take the blame, whether he had anything to do with it or not.

The original complaint had merit. I'm not an admin, and I couldn't have pulled off what Nyttend (assisted by Orlady) did. The AFD should have been let to run, and using admin powers to make sure it didn't was an abuse. Everyone involved should take a round of trouting and go on. Mangoe (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

{{archivetop|status=no further admin action|result=The blocking issue was already resolved by Sphilbrick prior to the opening of this thread. Concerns should be politely addressed to the admins on their talk page(s). <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 13:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)}}

The above discussion was created not on behalf of another editor who's problem has been resolved, it was created because of the issue with admins abusing their access to the tools and nothing was done about it. Just another case of admins protecting their own. Nyttend is an abusive admin who needs to be dealt with before his actions continue to cause editors to leave the site. Orlady jumped to rash action to back up her friend and block William for no reason. I am not using my account because I locked it and scrambled the password. I don't need an account to report abusive admins to ANI and I have a serious problem with this discussion being closed because you found it was me. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. The problem with William was addressed but this isn't about the, this is about the problem with admins abusing their tools and acting in a way that is not acceptable. And to BMK if you don't have anything productive to add to the discussion, then stay out of it, I'm getting tired of editors like you involving yourself. Your just as bad as the abusive admins the only good thing is you aren't an admin because the community recognizes as I do you aren't fit to be one. I also find it curious that there are no admins at all in this discussion. Just a bunch of editors which makes me think admins don't care that other admins are being abusive to editors. And you wonder why people aren't editing anymore. Every admin should be ashamed of themselves for letting their peers act this way. Its just disgraceful. Just one more thing, maybe if the admins on this site would start acting like admins and do something about the abusive admins and abusive editors like BMK above I wouldn't feel compelled to keep coming back. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

close struck, refactored as comment. NE Ent 15:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish Kumiko hadn't started this thread. (I'm trying to choose my words carefully; note that I did not say Kumiko has no right to ask that this group address admin abuse which may be occurring with respect to others.) The reasons for this wish are threefold:

1. While I consider it acceptable to request action on potential abuse involving other parties, it complicates the solution situation, and would be best limited to situations where the direct party is unwilling or unable to bring a request. William has indicated plans to bring such a request, so this one just muddies the waters.
2. Kumiko knows that his reputation proceeds him, which may lead others, fairly or unfairly, to be tempted to discount the concerns. This may end up hurting William, which presumably is not Kumiko's goal.
3. I think it is best if ANI actions are sought when other avenues fail. This incident is fairly fresh, and I felt that some progress, admittedly small, was occurring. My personal feeling is that ANI is for disputes that cannot be resolved among the parties, or are spiraling out of control. While I do not pretend it is likely that William and Nyttend will reach an amicable solution soon, I thought it was useful to try. I addressed Nyttend with some of my concerns, and that discussion is ongoing.

Kudos to User:Mangoe for a nice summary of the underlying incident.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I participated in the discussion on William's talk page. The issues are complex, and I don't believe that Sphilbrick and I agree on every nuance, but that said, S Philbrick's conduct in trying to find a constructive way forward was exemplary and they have the patience of a saint.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Block proposal

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.

---

As long as the IP/Kumioko saw fit to add to this closed report and NE Ent (the closer) saw fit to undo his close, I propose a block of User:KumiokoCleanStart and his IP for disruptive editing, harassment, and trolling. I would make the block of Kumioko at least one month and the duration of the IP's block is largely unimportant as it is a dynamic IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Kumioko's comments are only disruptive if we choose to make them that way, and suppressing them only feeds the "admins protect their own" meme. (and those of us who are apparently "just as bad.") NE Ent 16:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to block the IP for everyday ANI ranting, though it probably would be a good idea to indefblock the KumiokoCleanStart account, as they say "I locked it and scrambled the password" and therefore any further edits from that account would mean it's somehow been compromised. Other than that this should probably be closed as it's unlikely to lead to any action or productivity, just drama. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko is not ranting just at ANI (see [22]). That said, my interest is in seeing Kumioko blocked. If the IP continues to edit after that, he can be blocked for evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Ok, fair enough, I see your point. I wasn't aware the rant had spilled over elsewhere too. Still, it's just WP:DIVA stuff. It won't rise to disruption or blocking unless it continues. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

First I want to say that if you want to waste time blocking the KumiokoCleanStart account go ahead. Many of you have been wanting to do that for a long time anyway Its really a pointless waste of time but its your time to waste Second, I locked that account so if I choose to edit as an IP its not block evasion. I not really hiding the fact of who I was and if you took more interest in dealing with abusive admins like Nyttend, Sandstein and a stack of others than in silencing me for trying to bring attention to the problem a lot less editors would be leaving, more editors would be joining and Wikipedia would be a happier place. Lastly, My comments at Arcom were due to the poorly written "review" that invites increased abuse by admins who already abuse it and will continue to drive the problem of editors being treated negatively on this site. If that's not a problem for you Bbb23 then I' not sure what I can say other than that is disappointing. I would also add that if your intent is to send a message to editors that going to ANI with abusive admin issues isn't a to be done on this site and its better for them to simply stop editing and go like so many others have done, then go ahead and block me. I am already disappointed at how this whole thread has turned into a bash Kumioko for bringing an admin abuse issue fest. Its clear to me at this point that even admins with a history of abuse are more desired than editors or those who want to improve the system and make it fair. Adminship is no big deal and I am tired of seeing it treated like its the keys to theh kingdom. Many of you are disgracful and should be ashamed for not taking the issue more seriously. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko, you haven't been an "editor" here in any real sense in a very long time. You contribute virtually nothing to the encyclopedia itself, and you clog up Wikipedia space with your incessant whining and complaining about just about everything. One wonders why, if you hate everything about the Wikipedia community so much, you continue to hang around the place, torturing youself. Surely there are other worthwhile projects on the Internets that could use your apparently limitless energy, that perhaps you could focus on in some positive way.

There was a time, a long time ago, when you were (I am told) a productive editor. There was also a more recent time when you were indef blocked, and the community unblocked you. I said when that happened that it was a mistake, and I've seen nothing since to change my mind. Does it mean nothing to you that virtually no one here has actually defended you? Even many of those who opposed the block that Bbb23 proposed gave variations on "Let the diva rant" as their reasoning.

C'mon, man, don't you have any self-respect? Get out and find some place that you're happy contributing to. BMK (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

BMK, its because of editors and admins like you, that constantly insulted me at every opportunity of every day that I stopped contributing. Not because I couldn't take it, because no one stopped it and allowed it to continue. Some even dogpiled on. For years I was trying to build a collaborative project with WikiProject United States and you and others did nothing but complain about how I had no right to tag your articles. How WPUS was trying to take over the world one tag at a time and on and on and on. You insisted I couldn't be trusted with the tools when I was already doing hundreds of admin related tasks a month I just wasn't getting the credit (for lack of a better term) because I couldn't hit enter and had to let some admin that generally didn't even know what they were looking at implement it. Then I was told I didn't have enough experience with admin tasks because I couldn't implement them myself. Then I look around and I see admins violating policy and abusing the tools and nothing being done about it. Rude and nasty comments being left on editors pages, IP's blocked indef without warnings, admins being sent to Arbcom for severe violations and not even admonished. Baiting editors to justify being able to block them. Then I have editors like you, that just bitch and moan and snipe your comments and I am supposed to just grin and bear it but then if I reply I am blocked for incivility. Its absurd and that is why this project lost a 10, 000 edit plus a month editor who wanted to help build the project and collaborate. Because it didnt want to get rid of the ones who were destroying it. So now, I don't even care if you block me. Because its clear to me at this point that the community doesnt want positive contributors they would rather have A-holes like you BMK and Nyttend, Sandstein, Fram, Guerillero, Rshen and a string of others. That's why editors aren't joining and why editors and admins are leaving in droves. Its because of YOU and people like YOU. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see any policy justifications for a block--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Let the diva rant I'm sure that no admin is interested in playing whack-a-troll with Kumioko. Just revdel particularly nasty comments and let WP: DENY kick in. However, I agree with Starblind: a block of the KumiokoCleanStart account would be appropriate. MercenaryHoplite (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, no basis for a block, and I'm also opposed to this talk of "divas". I've seen essays, maybe even policies, though I can't locate them right now, that exhort us to consider the fact that there's a human being behind each account and IP, and to not talk to them in a way we wouldn't face to face with, say, a neighbour. I've always disliked the essay WP:DIVA as giving encouragement to forgetting the human aspect. I don't think linking to it serves any other purpose than to show the linker is superior to the wikiholics who "storm off" or "take their ball and go home", or various other amusing ways of putting it. The people that I've known who've "stormed off" "accompanied by a long diatribe against whatever [supposedly] petty issue drove them away this time" have done it because they've been deeply upset and have really intended to leave for good, not because they're hoping for "Please don't go" messages. Then they tend to find they can't shake the addiction and often return in some form, to a storm of ridicule. Ha ha, what fun. Bishonen | talk 20:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC).

I agree with the human being part, but, of course, whenever we block or ban an account, we do so to a human being, not necessarily because they're a "bad" person, but because they disrupt Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, freedom of speech. It's snowing. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "Freedom of speech" is irrelevant and does not apply on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, in so many ways. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, precisely correct. As proof, the next time you get blocked, either under this IP address, or another, or with your regular account, contact a lawyer and an elected representative and complain that your "rights" are being infringed. See how far you get before someone stops returning your calls. BMK (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not the first person to come around here crying "freedom of speech". And you won't be the last to accordingly be summarily ignored for having explicitly demonstrated you have no understanding of how Wikipedia, or the Internet in general, works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the IP is right BMK and The Bushranger you need to stop acting like jerks. This is why people leave. There are much better ways to address people and since this demeanor is reflected by both of you frequently it appalls me that neither of yo have been banned from the site at this point. You act like this all the time for no reason other than to be assholes and enough is enough. If anyone should be blocked its the 2 of you with your history. The fact that the Bushranger hasn't been stripped of his admin rights long ago for generally being a jerk to everyone is equally appalling. Firther proof that one does not need to be nice to editors on this site as long as they are an admin. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kumioko, my apologies to you that I am not an admin, because I know it deprived you of yet another opportunity to cry "Admin abuse!", which seems to be your primary activity as self-appointed amateur (and incompetent) Wiki-ombudsman. (And you wonder why nobody takes anything you say seriously.) BMK (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You know, given the comments virtually everyone else has made to me, the news I've been "a jerk to everyone" is quite a surprise. However, I don't suffer fools gladly, and when someone says something that is utterly and completely wrong to the point where they really don't have an excuse for not knowing that it's wrong (and, therefore, can be assumed to be trolling), then I'm going to be rather blunt in letting them know. The only way I "act like a jerk", to use your wording, to someone? Is if they are a jerk. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - as essentially being pointless. Blocking the IP will have no effect, as it is dynamic. Blocking the KumiokoCleanStart account isn't a terrible idea, but as it isn't being used at the moment, then it is an unnecessary action. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Point of order. Since I'm rather closely involved here, my yes/no opinion is already obvious, so I'll not weary you with reasoning. All I'll say is that if Kumioko's actions warrant blocking, we should block without regard to the technical side of things: if we block the account or one of the IP addresses for disruption and he doesn't edit during the duration of the block, all is well. If he continues editing via other IP addresses, his actions will fall under WP:EVADE. If a block is warranted, let's impose it now; the only reason not to block him is if we decide that he hasn't done anything warranting a block. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – Kumioko is retired anyway and has a dynamic IP. Guess what he'll do... Epicgenius (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Stupid blocking Kumioko as he'll just return with a new IP, & Since he's now an IP user I'm pretty sure he's not gonna give 2 shits as to whether his accounts are blocked or not! →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:42, 3 February 2014 (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.

Nyttend abusing his tools

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.

---

It's a very simple case. He issued[23] me a level 3 NPA warning on my talk page. What in these here[24], here[25], here[26], here[27], and here[28] here[29] posts that were my times addressing him before the warning merits a level 3 warning. Nothing at all.

Nyttend issued a level 3 warning as an attempt to bully me because he didn't like being criticized. That is an abuse of tools as an administrator....William 02:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

William, are you aware of what we mean by "abuse of tools"? It means that "editors should not act as administrators...in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about". Anyone, even someone logged out, could have made all of the edits I've made around here, aside from the original redirect, which probably requires autoconfirmed status. Let me remind you that you've just accused me of a bigtime WP:INVOLVED violation, and that's a serious accusation. WP:WIAPA says that serious accusations require serious evidence: you've provided absolutely no evidence of misuse of tools as an administrator. Why again should this not be considered a personal attack by you on me? Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If that is all you consider abuse Nyttend then you definitely should not be an admin because you don't have an understanding of when you should and shouldnt use the tools. You also cannot keep claiming personal attack when people are showing you to be abusing the tools. That is abuse of authority as an admin if not an abuse of the tools themselves. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Calling people "jerks" and "assholes" is not acceptable. Doing so while attempting to show that others are being abusive is not going to win you any points.[30][31] Yeah, you feel you and others been attacked/wronged/whatever. It's not an acceptable response. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I call it how I see it these days. If they act like good editors I'll treat them that way. If they act like a bunch of shit heads then that's how I'll treat them. Well I used to be nice and it got me no where. I was repeatedly insulted, told I couldn't be trusted even after years and hundreds of thousands of edits simply because I don't conform to the Admins are gods mentality. So now I am an outcast. 10, 000 plus edits aren't getting done every month and the lack of trust in this culture and assumption of bad faith finally got me to the point where I just don't care. If the admins aren't going to follow policy and be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want (as long as the target isn't an admin) ad get away with it then this project is really hopelessly lost. Since not one single admin, Jimbo or even you seem to care that the handful of abusive admins are destroying this site, running off editors and generally making the editing environment here miserable, then there really isn't much point in me editing articles until that gets changed. Everyone knows there are abusive admins but no one has the morale courage to do anything. So I tried, and look what happened to me. That will happen to any respectable editor who cares more about the project than some petty admin and their personal POV. If you care about the project and want to improve it your a heretic, if you just want to keep in your corner and continue to let this place fester further into a shithole, then you too can be promoted to admin. And if I could take back my 450, 000 edits and several hundred articles I would! Because this project doesn't deserve dedicated editors who care about collaborating and building it. You want to impress me Summer, save the accusations and do something to improve the culture of this project before Wikipedia is referred to in the same way as AOL and MySpace and that day isn't too far off. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

He lies too in message that came along with the level three warning[[32]. To quote word for word- 'Let me be substantially firmer than I was before. You completely failed to observe that I never even edited the AFD, but you recklessly accused me of vandalism. You completely failed to remove the AFD template from the page, but you accuse me of disrupting it by making edits without explanation. As WP:WIAPA says, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks, and you accused me of making a bad-faith nomination when I never made any nomination at all. Just read his edit summary of this edit[33]- Nominating for deletion. He issues a level 3 warning saying he never nominated anything for deletion. His edit history says that isn't true at all. Also the statement 'You completely failed to remove the AFD template from the page is a lie also. I removed the AFD tags completely with this edit[34] He didn't give any rationale for a nominating for deletion see posts here[35] and here[36] or for his converting the page to a redirect in this edit[37] other than saying 'better idea yet'. His grounds for me making personal attacks in the warning are total bs. The abuse of warning tags should have gotten him a block alone....William 20:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the overall substance, but where has he (and I quote) "abused his tools"? Has he blocked you inappropriately? Wrongly protected a page? Dumping a template may be tossing power around, but if he doesn't use his tools, he's not abusing his tools DP 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend is a manipulative individual who uses his knowledge of policy and status as an administrator to further his own POV. He frequently blocks editors who disagrees with him, he has a negative personal demeanor towards other non admins, he misinterprets policy to allow him to win disagreements, etc. He is only one of many disgraceful admins though and I don't expect anything to be done about his actions than has been done to any other abusive admin. No matter how abusive the admin is, the only way to remove the tools from one is if they resign the tools themselves and Nyttend isn't about to do that. He thinks he deserves to have the tools. He does not! I could list a long list of good admins to use as examples and he would not be one of them. He would be on the naughty list. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2014 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verasafe

It seems we have IP contributors coming out of the woodworks to !vote there with little or no edits elsewhere. As the nominator, I'm obviously involved in that AfD, but the page might justify semi-protection to save the closing admin from checking/clicking on the contribs of each of these IPs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Tag 'em up as Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, and trust in admins to evaluate consensus.

Remember that the idea of Wikipedia is to provide info; maybe a *little* article about that company might be OK? If it's not spammy, I mean; and if it meets WP:GNG.

The number of spammy advocates shouldn't matter, and there's always DRV, but really, think of the big picture; from a quick look, I imagine the co passes GNG, so we can keep a little non-spammy page about 'em? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, definitely add {{spa}} to those IP editors' comments if that concerns you. Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, more vigilance besides mere tagging is needed given weird edits like [38] [39] (both of those have been reverted), obvious double !voting (same user/sig), repetition of "sources have been found! see above!" with no specifics etc. I have been involved in quite a few company AfDs lately, but this one seems to exceed the usual level of questionable (desperate?) tactics. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of block and admin authority

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.

---

• List of most-listened-to radio programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ANI discussion • archived discussion from 18 January 2014
• ANI discussion • archived discussion from 21 January 2014
• WT:Edit warring#Multi-party edit wars • follow-up discussion on validity of a block for 1 or 2 reverts
• MrX (talk · contribs) • blocked 24 hours on 21 January 2014 for edits at Duck Dynasty (no prior blocks)
• Holdek (talk · contribs) • indeffed on 22 January 2014 (not asking for a review of this block)
• Aprock (talk · contribs) • blocked 24 hours on 1 February 2014 for edit at List of most-listened-to radio programs (no prior blocks) (asking for a review of this block)
• Toddst1 (talk · contribs) • admin performing blocks

A minor edit war at List of most-listened-to radio programs was raised at the first of the above ANI discussions, and Toddst1 issued warnings to three editors. The second ANI discussion involved claims that Toddst1 had not shown good judgment in connection with a block. The whole issue is fairly minor but, in my view, the recent block of Aprock is not what is expected from an admin, and I am concerned that if the matter is not addressed that there may be more "I am an admin and my advice must be followed" blocks.

The issue concerns List of most-listened-to radio programs where Holdek removed several items as unsourced. Those items were restored with edit summaries claiming that the existing references verified the material. The block of Aprock centers on Talk:List of most-listened-to radio programs#Removal of sourced content where this exchange took place on 19 January 2014:

• Aprock: "Unless an explanation of how the content is unsourced is provided, or how it is problematic, I'll restore the content in due course."
• Toddst1: "As the admin who stopped the edit war, I recommend you consider making the source for the contended material more explicit using <ref> tags. I suspect that's why this whole edit war got started and I'd hate to see anybody get blocked here."
• Aprock: "It's already in the article with ref tags."

No further discussion or edits occurred. On 1 February 2014, Aprock restored the material and added "I've gone ahead and restored the sourced material." to talk. Toddst1 then blocked Aprock. In my view, admins should be fairly brutal when entrenched battles are encountered, such as matters subject to arbitration enforcement, but an admin should not have the authority to declare that certain non-contentious text needs more references or a block will be issued. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not what Holdek was blocked for, and the block was fully justified.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion caused by my post, and I totally agree with what you say. My concern is in my last sentence. (I have added a clarification to my OP.) Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was very heavy handed blocking for no reason whatsoever. I've unblocked Aprock and will leave a note/warning for Toddst1. Just to throw an additional comment in there; this could be viewed essentially as edit warring. Although Toddst1 has an additional tool to use if he disagrees with an editor. Hence he should have much deeper justification for doing such things. In the discussion he admitted that the source was there, and valid. To the extent he made the perfectly acceptable point that sourcing could be displayed better. To then block, rather than implementing that improved sourcing as an example to Aprock, implies Toddst1 has lost sight of his purpose as an administrator. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with John and ErrantX. Also, I'm concerned about Daniel Case's decline of Aprock's first unblock request, giving the reason "It was strongly suggested that you use <ref> tags for your sources; I did not see any here". Such a decline is no better than such a block. Anyway, this thread should be of interest to Daniel, so I've dropped him a note. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC).

It was sort of hard to figure out what was going on. I admit that I serioulsy considered putting the unblock on hold and asking Todd what was up; from the review I could do it looked as if Aprock had simply made the same edit he'd made during the earlier edit war after waiting a while for it to be over. I admit that I myself might not have considered that a blockable offense in and of itself, but I deferred to Todd's handling of the situation. Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

? Not to rub it in, Daniel, but the point of the unblock review procedure is to provide independent outside review of the block. Not to defer to the blocking admin. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

I should perhaps have clarified that I agreed that making the same edit that had gotten you blocked for edit warring two weeks ago, without any changes suggested in the meantime, could be considered disruptive.

That was independent review. As for deferring to the blocking admin, I had a situation years ago (I think you may remember it) in which I unblocked someone with an hour to go on a 24-hour block, only to have the blocking admin, who I courteously informed, take it right to AN/I with all sorts of bad-faith accusations about how I was part of some conspiracy to undermine him. It turned out that there had been ArbCom issues involved in the block which I hadn't been aware of and did not turn up in a review of the circumstances of the block. So, I thought I had learned my lesson back then. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? No, I didn't remember that, I congratulate you on your tenacious memory. But surely you don't mean to say that when an admin resented you unblocking without consulting him, in 2007, it was so traumatic that it taught you to perform reviews, from then onwards, without even questioning any blocks? No, I can't believe that's what you meant. I seriously don't take you for a supporter of the admin Blue Code of Silence, Daniel, even if this review wasn't ideal. As for the 2007 discussion, I won't revive it here, that would be a little ghostly. But I've read your link with interest, and I recommend it to others who were here at the time and would like to relive some of the classic East European nationalist battles of the time. Very atmospheric, and I think we can all be relieved one of the main players in the thread is now indefinitely blocked. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

I was just saying that my takeaway from that was not to just lift blocks because I thought they were dubious because a) sometimes there's more there than meets the eye and b) sometimes the other admins consider it wheel warring. That doesn't mean I don't review blocks and question them—I have done that; in fact on the same day I persuaded an admin to change his mind about a rather than block that seemed to have no justification whatsoever. Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

? Nobody has suggested it would have been a good idea for you to lift the block without consultation with Toddst, have they? And you're an experienced admin, as your 2007 link reminds me; surely you know it isn't wheel-warring to undo another admin's action. It's the "third mover", somebody who hypothetically undid your hypothetical undo, who would be wheel-warring. If somebody "considers" an unblock of their block to be wheel-warring, just link them to WP:WHEEL, because they need to learn. Anyway, I'm sorry the admin in focus here, Toddst1, hasn't responded here or on his page, even though he has edited. It's difficult to discuss this business without getting his input. But perhaps he needs a little time. Please don't close this in a hurry. Bishonen | talk 18:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

If I am reading this correctly, Toddst1 is unlikely to be responding soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Brad, before deciding to post on his page, I did check out his contribs and looked at that edit. But I couldn't understand it, though of course I noted the suggestive edit summary. I'm a child in these matters. What does the code mean, or do? Bishonen | talk 22:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

I'm as useless as reading code as you suggest you are, but I believe it's a "wikibreak enforcer" (analogous to a self-requested block) set until next January 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It redirects him to the logout page immediately as long as the date is less than 1/1/2015. On every page in wikipedia. (He probably could get around it by using the querystring parameter that would turn off monobook though). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

On one hand, this seems very irresponsible of him given the concerns here, but on the other hand, the enforced break could be interpreted as his reply. -- John Reaves 22:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad. Perhaps you and I should rather say "We're old geezers in these matters", so as not to malign the kids, who can usually read js code like it was abc. Please note that there's some further pertinent information on Toddst's page now. Bishonen | talk 22:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

• There's presumably not much left to do, other than thank Johnuniq for his initiative and his work. We need more people who're prepared to open reviews of bad blocks and other mistakes, without being afraid of disobliging an admin. I'm convinced that calling out admin abuse can only make the relations between admins and non-admin content contributors ("peons") less fraught, not more. Bishonen | talk 23:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

I would like to thank Johnuniq for taking time to go over the situation. It's a largely thankless task, and often more effort than it's worth. I'd also like to thank Daniel Case for taking the time as the reviewing admin. I'd also like to thank Toddst1 as well. Regardless of whether or not we all agree, we're all working to make Wikipedia a successful project. 99.139.65.46 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2014 (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.

Disruptive IP editor on Talk:Wolf attacks on humans

For the past several months, the talk page for Wolf attacks on humans has been thoroughly disrupted by the efforts of an IP editor (currently operating under 76.250.61.95) who has wished to change the tone of the article to reflect positions and facts that every other active editor for the article generally feel are not consistent with the information found in our sources. He has been consistently resistant to the process of consensus building, engages in cyclical arguments (often ignoring, and apparently not even reading, the posts of those who attempt to reason with him), refuses to make even a minimal effort to keep his posts consistent with norms for talk page communication (down to the most basic elements of formatting and standards for new section creation), and, most importantly, becomes increasingly uncivil.

The only reason I have hesitated as long as I have to report the matter here is that he has carefully skirted breaking policy as regards the article itself; that is, he has not generally engaged in edit warring when his edits have been reverted (generally for lack of consistency with sources or because he has removed content that was adequately sourced but which he disagrees with). Nonetheless, the result of his efforts on the talk page are an eye-jarring mess of difficult to follow and redundant sections all covering the same handful of arguments, and a great deal of bad energy between him and the majority of the other editors. In particular, he continues to impugn the efforts and motivations of two specific editors (User:Chrisrus and User:Mariomassone who, to their credit, have refused to be baited by this behaviour). I myself came to the page as the result of an RfC involving the IP and initially tried to reconcile his position with that of the other present editors, but I very quickly came to feel that his approach to editing on this article (mainly the only article he participates on -- as best I know; he has operated across multiple IPs) is not consistent with the principle of verifiability but instead reflects his devotion to a pre-conceived narrative which he brought to the article as his main motivation for editing there; though I have not participated in keeping his behaviour on the article itself in check as consistently as most of the other editors on the page, the intervening months have nevertheless only solidified this perception.

I recognize that this is a subtle case in that the editor's overt violations of policy (except for arguably WP:Civility) have been minimal, but I still feel that perhaps we are overdue to have an admin review the situation and assess the possible need for a topic ban or other actions to return some stability and morale to the talk page and protect the quality of the article by extension. Thank you in advance to the administrator who looks into this matter, as it will likely entail a considerable amount of reading through messy threads. Snow (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your account above is cool, calm and persuasive; but when I turn to the talk page I'm somewhat mystified. It is indeed long. (Thank you for the warning.) I have not read it. I have skimread it, and read parts of it. (I haven't even glanced at the article itself.) It's easy to see who it is that you are referring to: his (or conceivably her; let's say "his" for convenience) message formating is distinctive. He's clearly irritated with most (not all) of the other editors. Most (not all) of the other editors are clearly irritated with him. I have not started to look at the validity of the points that he makes, but he does make (or at worst fake) points: it's not just hot air. At the end he titles a remark "Article dominated by Sarah Palin-type POV", which if seriously meant could be slanderous indeed (unless I suppose you take Palin seriously), but the only text he follows this with is "Is a truly hopeless situation"; so as I see it he's doing the typed equivalent of exclaiming "Goddamn it!" and punching a brick wall. Has he elsewhere called his fellow-editors mere Palins, or said something similarly dismissive/offensive? Has he edited dishonestly (eg willfully mischaracterizing others' edits or the content of sources)? My questions aren't rhetorical (they're not "Admit it, he hasn't"): I really don't know. ¶ That said, I'm off to bed and shall be in a hurry when I wake; somebody other than me will have to deal with this. -- Hoary (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I sympathize with your frustration trying to read the talk page. The problem is made worse by the fact that many threads have been auto-archived. I will try to help. If you wouldn't rather, I understand, but please do take the time to piece it back together to the point that you can confirm or deny the following summary by me, an admitted party to the dispute. I think I can explain it fairly nevertheless.

(S)He is an editor with an IP address that Googles to East Lansing who, at the time of entry, without citation, had already arrived at the strong conviction that wolf attacks are not real: the stuff of fairytales, superstition, and corporate ranching or right-wing nut-job propaganda and such. At first, (s)he tries and fails to delete or weaken readers belief in the reality of WAOHs, and brings up some good points, and some good things happen. For example, some of the weaker sources had to be replaced with only the highest quality WP:RS stuff. Many eyes are drawn to the article and it improved as a result. It was given a thorough overhaul by Mario, one of our most trusted editors, and then scrutinized for further tweeks and errors. Eventual overall effect on the article positive. System worked.

Then (s)he adds in a section called "quality of data and debate" intended to leave the reader that reports of wolf attacks are not to be believed. This was more subtle, but we demonstrated on the talk page how that it was an unfair summary of the sources, was WP:SYN, original research by synthesis; and other problems. S/he did not respond substantively or at all to this. So we deleted the Quality of Data and debate section, deletion was undone, and there was more talking and double checking, deletion was redone, and this time it stood. So here we are.

Thanks to in part to pesky East Lansing we stopped and checked and, it turns out s/he was wrong. WAOHs are real; don't take our word for it, check the citations. So there is no problem or reason to act against IP East Lansing, but thank you for being aware of the situation there and please do keep an eye on it, because even if East Lansing gives up and goes away, there is reason to suspect there will be more who disbelieve the reality of wolf attacks on humans and make perhaps more subtle edits that deny the fact that experts today do not disagree: wolf attacks are not the stuff of fairytales or right-wing lies or imagination, contrary to perhaps common belief in places such as East Lansing today. Don't let such edits stand unless carefully checked that these are the doubts of the experts, not the Wikipedians.

Hope this helps. Thanks and happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Any discussions of editor conduct should be accompanied by diffs. I came across this article back in November 2013, and I'd say there are some serious problems with it. This is not the place to discuss the original research and indiscriminate listcruft that plague the article (or did in November, I haven't looked recently), but anyone trying to improve it certainly has my sympathy. --John (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've written some comments at the foot of the talk page. Others who can't get worked up over lupine anthropophagy (or not) are most welcome there. -- Hoary (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Harassment by user: Uyvsdi

Continual ad hominem, Wikilawyering, failure to assume good faith, and out right harassment via continued derogatory messaging after repeatedly being told to stop. Occurred on "Eskimo" article, or on talk pages at related dates, December 2013--February 2014. DP removed wrong use of ANI-notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.69.23 (talk • contribs)

You're supposed to notify the user on their talk page, not here. Epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.69.23 (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wow. Not sure why 14.x is communicating with people using edit-summaries, but they sure have posted some doozies that could lead to a block. Thanks for bringing those to our attention DP 14:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Just in case you are referring my edit summary comment here: [40], it quotes the IPs attack here: [41]. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Um, no ... quite clearly I was referring to the edit-summaries by 14.x, not yours (I was invoking WP:BOOMERANG DP 19:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Hello, I guess I'm glad that 14.x posted here, because I'm not sure how to get help with this sustained individual's edit warring on Eskimo. The "harassment" has been three standard warning templates I've used on her/his talk page, for unsourced POV, deleting content without explanation, and IP-hopping. The same user is User talk:149.171.145.148, who recently issued personal attacks against and has been edit warring with User:Kmoksy, as the revision history of Eskimo reveals. This IP user used numerous sockpuppets in late December, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob the angry flower/Archive, but only one was permanently blocked. Eskimo was briefly protected and limited to autoconfirmed users (diff). During this time, users were able to makes helpful edits to the page, but within 24 hours of the page protection being lifted, the edit warring began again. Wherever the IP make helpful edit (and there have been some), they've been left to stand; however, the IP has a strong POV agenda that includes declaring Ethnologue an unreliable citation. An absurdly time-consuming edit war of attrition has resulted. Any help or guidance would be a greatly appreciated. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
• Comment. "Harassment by user: Uyvsdi"!!! Nooo! In fact, harassment by User:14.200.69.23. I know Eskimo-Aleut languages and cultures (especially North Alaskan Iñupiaq and Central Alaskan Yup'ik more and others less). The contributions of User:14.200.69.23 are speculative and himself ~ herself is disturbing. Please, see Eskimo talk page. --Kmoksy (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Dear Admin., I (User:14.200.69.23 and User 149.171.145.148) am merely acting in good faith to improve the article, in accordance with statements made on the Talk page. The article was poorly and unreasonably written, and was being obsessively "protected" and controlled by Uyvsdi. I have made no unreasonable edits, and the vast majority of my edits have been things that not only the majority of experts but the majority of editors connected with the article (including, at times, Uyvsdi). This individual, however, has been engaged in repetitive ego-tripping and spamming of my Talk page with ready-made Wikipedia threats, accusing me of conduct that I am not guilty of. I have no motivation for continuing this conflict, nor in having the "Eskimo" article be anything less than the best that it can be. User Kmosky is biased in this situation, as he has been trying to edit war with me (with good intentions, I presume), though I am currently holding the article version to his preference until input is given from other users. For the dispute to be resolved, however, Uyvsdi must cease the Wikilawyering, and preferably cease posting on my Talk page altogether at this point. From there we can engage in reasonable, polite, good faith dialogue on the Eskimo, but it must be reasonable from both sides, not just my own. Otherwise, I must request that Uyvsdi be blocked or banned. I am a user new to editing, and unaware of many of the rules and customs of Wikipedia, but as a frequent user of, and believer in, Wikipedia, I have good reason to want Wikipedia to be as good as it can be, and I have very strong feelings that this article in particular should be appropriately written, in accordance with the facts. I am willing to accept that I have reacted unnecessarily strongly to some of the slights that have been sent my way and the obstacles placed before me in good faith editing, but I must stand up for myself, and what has been happening due to Uyvsdi's aggressive style is simply not right and not acceptable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.148 (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I should add, Ethnologue is an "unreliable citation" only because it is outdated, being in conflict with both dominant literature and (in the case of the link provided) current attitudes, on this subject. I spent nearly an hour trying to find the correct tags without being inflammatory, only to have the tags removed, repeatedly, without justification. Uyvsdi, and in fact a few other users, also attempted to defend, without any justification, a citation that was given with the certifiably wrong name of the author. I am aware of the Wikipedia guidelines that say it is edit warring even if you are right, but I'm not trying to edit war here, just trying to get the article closer to being correct and true. Thanks.

“If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm.”--Marcus Aurelius -149.171.145.148 (talk)

Plea for help with Eskimo

We really do need some administrator help with the user who apparently has nothing but time on her/his hands and to push their POV and OR on Eskimo. The same is user is: 149.171.145.148 and 14.200.69.23, and formerly James More ison, Artanajuat, and Bob the angry flower. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I did warn you repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, to cease your aggressive behaviors, and this is a clear case of victim blaming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.148 (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And if by "POV" pushing you mean "posessing a point of view", or if by the "edit warring" you accuse continually me of, you mean "editing," then yeah guilty as charged. But I assure you I do not think Wikipedia is the place for injecting a non-neutral point of view, and I in fact have very little time on my hands, which is rather the problem with you constantly reverting whatever edits I make without comment, harassing me, and generally quoting irrelevant rules and regulations instead of communicating like a human being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.148 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Uyvsdi, I suggest applying for a few days worth of protection at RPP to the Eskimo article until the disputes are resolved. From what I can see, it looks like at least one problem is occurring (if it's not the edit warring, it's the lack of AGF from the IP.) Epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try for semi-protection and see if that goes anywhere. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

It worked! Thank you for the suggestion. WP Arctic is quiet, but perhaps some fresh editors can be encouraged to help out. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

What dispute? One way dialogue (by me) over a single use of a single source on a single passage is not a dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.148 (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Philip Seymour Hoffman

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.

---

FYI, news reports of his sudden death. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What has this got to do with AN/I? And FYI, it's already been posted as a recent death at WP:ITN. Perhaps re-consider what you believe this noticeboard is used for. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

From the past it's been common courtesy to flag high-profile deaths here so regular ANI'ers have a heads-up to keep up with vandalism; there was no ill intent TRM. Not everyone goes to ITN. Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps it was just that it was reported two hours ago and has already hit the main page, way before this note. And was already protected nearly two hours ago by Tariqabjotu. The Rambling Man (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Trypto was living out his fantasy of being a newsboy from long ago. You know 'Extra! Extra! Read all about it....'...William 21:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Nate, that was my intent. And the rest of you, perhaps you should reconsider what WP:AGF means. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps next time check the main page, or ITN or somewhere similar. Thanks for your concern, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2014 (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.

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.

---

My attention has just been drawn (via an external site) to this thread. The initial post in the thread was in good faith and perfectly reasonable, and the obnoxious tone of the first response it received was not acceptable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed. Or, with Tryptofish and NYB I also believe that's what this noticeboard is used for. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• I have to agree – this highly-monitored board is often used as a central notice board, and the bite-y comments are out of line imo. Tryptofish, I am sorry you received such an adverse reaction from two different users. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• BLPN is also an appropriate notice board. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN is for announcements like this (although ANI, meh)... it's not the intent of BLPN to say "heads up! incoming!" DP 10:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't know what was obnoxious about asking why this related to AN/I; there was no "incident" to speak of, the page had been protected well in advance, what more was there to say? Move along people. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The top of the page says "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." There was nothing unreasonable with asking admins and editors to monitor the PSH page. WP:ITN (currently) has 527 watchers, this page 6000, and I'd guess "ANI" wiki-types might be more attuned to BLP issues. The obnoxious part is "Perhaps re-consider what you believe this noticeboard is used for." NE Ent 11:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate, there was no need for administrator intervention. The page had been protected hours earlier. Please, haven't you all got better things to be doing? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. I also want to say that the comments above are obnoxious. There's no need to add comments in the tone of William and Rambling Man. (Though it in the case of Rambling Man's comments, there was at least substance to what he/she said, irrespective of whether anyone else agrees with it, even if the tone was off.) --Tóraí (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

William's was made in jest, in an attempt to supportive. See [42] NE Ent 11:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, obnoxious. I would also add pointless. DeCausa (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I just looked back here, after a pleasant evening watching the Super Bowl and a good night's sleep. I want to say that I am just about touched to tears (happy ones!) at the incredibly nice comments by Brad and by everyone else! Thank you! It's things like this that make me love Wikipedia! I also want to acknowledge that William meant well, and he and I are just fine about this. For future reference, there would have been no problem with a response to my post along the lines of OK, it looks like the situation has already been noted at ITN, and administrators have already been paying attention to the page, so it looks like things are under control. I'm not an admin and don't particularly want to be, but I really do have more than an elementary understanding of how noticeboards work. (Now, I have to go see what the "external site" says...) Happy editing, everybody! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't bother, it's hardly sparkling entertainment. Nice of Brad to dangle that pointless carrot, helpful as ever. For what it's worth, sorry to you Tryptofish for any distress I may have caused you. I guess I assumed you'd already have seen the protection being applied hours before your post and that it was on the main page already. As noted above, WP:AN was probably a more appropriate venue as there was no incident that needed admin attention when you posted. I shall endeavour to point these things out more carefully in future. Perhaps now all the hangers-on can disappear back to their lairs and do some proper work around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I guess if I look hard enough, I can find an apology somewhere in there, thank you. Time to move on, everybody. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2014 (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.

Those Woody Allen allegations, again

Due to an article and a blog posting in the New York Times, the "sexual abuse allegations" that came out of the Woody Allen-Mia Farrow custody dispute are receiving a lot of attention today. Just two weeks ago, in a related dispute, the consensus/conclusion was that the longstanding treatment of the subject in the Allen article was appropriate, and that adding to the article to place greater emphasis on "unproven court-rejected allegations" was not appropriate absent clear consensus.[43] There are also allegations that Farrow is pressing a campaign to deny Allen award recognition for his most recent film, and that the NYT journalist involved has a serious conflict of interest.[44] On BLP grounds, I've removed several changes made over the last 24 hours, whether supportive of or rejecting the allegations (see my talk page comment [45][46], but I now believe that, absent temporary full protection in the state before the recent publications, the article will be a battleground and fall out of compliance with BLP. The situation is a BLP nightmare, and just trying to discuss the situation without referring to inflammatory accusations on both "sides" has been difficult. I believe that temporary protection and a period of careful discussion are called for, rather than what could easily become a free-fire zone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I made what I thought was a reasonable proposal at the talk page there. If everyone can live with that we could move on with no drama. --John (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand the concerns that have been raised, but my off-the-cuff reaction is to include a sentence or two on the latest allegations. There's a veritable media circus surrounding it, COI of journalist notwithstanding. We just can't ignore it completely. Coretheapple (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    • This seems to be spilling over onto the Mia Farrow article as well. Some additional eyes/page protection there might be helpful. TwoTwoHello (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Allen just issued a vigorous denial, so I added one sentence on the renewal of the allegations and one sentence on his denial, broken out as a subsection within the Farrow subsection, and added "children" to the subsection header. I think that's a properly weighted way of dealing with it. It's such a low-level subsection that it's not even broken out in the Table of Contents. Coretheapple (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Realistically, this will still need more eyes on it for a while. --John (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've commenced an RfC on how to deal with the controversy. Right now it's dealt with in a pretty minimal way.Coretheapple (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

potential slander of identified living person on abandoned userpage

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.

---

When checking the use of a recently overwritten image from Commons (I am admin there), I stumbled over User:Chuequis/sandbox, which has been created in April 2013 by Chuequis (talk · contribs), who had no more edits since then. To me, the content of that page (includes a portrait image) looks highly problematic and should be speedy-deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

True that. I just G10 CSD's it. (probably the wrong alpha-numeric designation, but hopefully close enough) NE Ent 22:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done G10 fits, and i so deleted it. (and everyone knows how picky I am about precise CSD reasons.) DES ^(talk) 22:11, 2 February 2014 (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.

Trolling/BLP violations by static IP

Short-time block applied by Diannaa. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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 being reported: 69.165.134.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IP posted comments on a BLP arcticle talk page with accusations of <redacted>.[47] When I removed the comments they reinstated them[48] and placed a vandalism warning template on my talk page.[49] I request that the IP be blocked to prevent further disruption. TFD (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Done -- Diannaa (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2014 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Dranias

A user by the name of NickDranias responded to the AfD and is claiming something about liability when it comes to the WP:COI policy. I myself am unfamiliar with legal jargon but wanted to bring it to the attention to the admin board here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User has been warned for COI and creating autobios. One of the most blatant promotional autobios I have ever seen on WP and I'm also concerned about WP:SPA IP comments that may eventually indicate possible sockpuppetry in order to influence the discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I was one of the editors involved in this, and noted the same concern about liability. It is absolutely appropriate to note this here and on the editor's talk page, but I think we should also consider the context. If the editor is indeed the subject of the article, then this is a very personal and emotional experience. The article was almost (if not entirely) written by editors with a connection to the subject. It is unacceptably promotional, but I also believe the editors were acting in good faith as they understood it. @NickDranias:'s comments reveal several fundamental misunderstandings of what Wikipedia is and the principles involved in editing here. That is understandable for a first time editor, and emotion is unavoidable for someone who is editing a description of their own life. Let's stay with the assumption of good faith a bit longer if we can, and give emotions a chance to cool before taking action. Also - I doubt that the comments on the AfD page are an example of sockpuppetry. To me, the wording indicates that this is almost certainly an editor who is new to all aspects of Wikipedia, and simply neglected to log in before adding a comment. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

He is insulted that we doubt his "notability"; this is actually fairly common, especially with academics, or quasi-academics, particularly when it's possible that the article may be an autobio. We should not make too much of a big deal about this matter by looking for ways to use NLT. Perhaps we should try to avoid that n_y word with BLPs--there's usually some possible circumlocution. After all, it's WP which is out of step with the rest of the world by using it in a special sense, not its normal meaning. It's not his fault in not realizing this: we are, frankly, peculiar, and we sometimes forget just how peculiar. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well said. Now back to my ordeal (Just above) Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd never heard of him before, but I suspected he might be notable given his association with the Goldwater Institute. Once you go past 10 pages in a Google search, lots of notable sources show up from NPR, MSNBC, Forbes, Fox News, and more. To my surprise, he is likely notable for much of what is in the article. I am One of Many (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I will concede that he possibly forgot to log in, and that (as per DGG) Wikipedia criteria for inclusion may be easily misunderstood by many good faith editors. However, the article is exceptionally promotional and in-depth sources per BLP must be supplied. All the more reason why Wikipedia should make its criteria more obvious for creators and/or first-time editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is an important part of the Wiki COI policy that folks have not considered yet: "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly." My legal analysis of the unreasonableness of interpreting the COI policy to prevent remedying defamation was not a threat and it turns out to be accurate as well! I just figuring all this stuff out, so I hope you will bear with me. I see now that I am supposed to email people when I make those edits, but I don't know how to email yet and when I figure it out, I will. I am also trying to figure out how to notify the administrator about this comment.NickDranias (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor's user page often has an email link. (Just search for the string "mail".) But you are not expected to email people before editing. There are thousands of administrators; do you know which one you want? -- Hoary (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since I made the comment above, the editor claiming to be Nick Dranias has added this statement: [[50]]. I believe he is escalating his attempts to intimidate, not "cooling down" as I had hoped would occur. In this comments, he twice accuses me of "false and defamatory statements" - legal terms and ground for lawsuits. This is in addition to earlier comments about libel and others, which were not directly aimed at me. In the same edit, this person claiming to be Nick Dranias accuses me of "disappearing my user account" for some unstated nefarious purposes. I think the situation is getting worse, not better as I had hoped. James Cage (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

James Cage, your intentions may have been pure, but the reality is that your critique did have the tendency to damage my good reputation. The only reason I learned about the critique was from a colleague who was concerned about its impact. I have no intention of suing you. I would rather engage in an offline discussion to resolve our differences or dispute resolution if such is available. I will correct the statement that your account has disappeared. It must have been a computer hiccup on my end, because I clicked on your name and nothing pulled up. In regards to my concern about your critique, keep in mind I am engaged in high profile policy matters and do generate considerable personal attacks as a side effect of that. Having a wikipost about me deleted because I supposedly only self-published, if it became known, could prove an annoying diversion from the substance of policy issues I am advancing. Now I still can't figure out how to notify an administrator that I just wrote this. NickDranias (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I will certainly not communicate with you offline, under any circumstances, and will view any attempt by you to contact me in the real world as harassment. Feel free to contact me on my user talk page, where our discussion will be public. James Cage (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And for whatever it's worth - I don't have a user page. Many editors don't have user pages - YOU don't have a user page. Click on the link labeled "talk." And I will repeat my suggestion, echoed by many other editors, that you PAUSE, SLOW DOWN, THINK, and most of all learn a little about Wikipedia before you go on in this way. James Cage (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And, again, for what it's worth, I never said that you were only self published. You have claimed I said that in multiple places, despite at least one editor pointing out that this is not the case. On the plus side, in the post above you did not repeat your claim of that I made "false and defamatory" statements, so that may be progress. James Cage (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

James Cage, didn't you write this: "I did a search for Nick Dranias on ProQuest and in Google, but did not find primary sources to replace the self-published sources referenced in this article. Even if all the self-published sources here were acceptable, they do not establish that the subject is notable." If you did not, let me know. If you did, I hope you can understand why a colleague of mine would have interpreted the statement as indicating that I had no primary sources to replace the self-published sources, i.e. I had only self-published. That may not have been your intention, but even the use of the term "self-published" with reference to the cited publications had a false connotation (I concede that wiki may have a specialized understanding of "Self-publication" but in the real world, it is a derogatory concept usually referring to someone publishing stuff on his own dime because he can't get it otherwise published). The original references were to publications by the Goldwater Institute, incidentally. Goldwater uses an independent peer review process for all of its publications and has extensive publication standards. Look, I don't quite understand why you think your critique was accurate or handled with due care, but it did tend to harm or threaten harm to my reputation. I know that because a colleague of mine contacted me with that concern and, really, that's the only test for defamation-reputation is a subjective thing. That puts my actions squarely in the COI exception for defamation. Rather than accusing me of being too quick to respond, keep in mind you put my post on a 7 day delete schedule. For a few minutes today, someone had it posted as a quick delete. Short deadlines tend to require quick action. Quick action tends not to be perfectly formed. But frankly, I think I am in the right here. You are in the wrong if only because of carelessness. Please learn from this and keep in mind, everything you do is in the "real world."NickDranias (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

James Cage did write that, and it did NOT assert that Dranias has only self-published, it was about all the references once in the article being from the Goldwater Institute. Relevant diffs are this edit by James Cage which explicitly only stated that "I did a search for Nick Dranias on ProQuest and in Google, but did not find primary sources to replace the self-published sources referenced in this article. Even if all the self-published sources here were acceptable, they do not establish that the subject is notable....", and this prod edit by James Cage with edit summary asserting all references were self-published ("Proposed Deletion - Not notable. All references self-published, flagged as such since April. Several searches failed to find adequate references"). As editor Nomoskedasticy says at the article Talk page, what matters is that the references that were in the article "do not meet WP:SECONDARY. This is obvious in regard to the Goldwater sources that were the only references then on the article." It has been clarified at the AFD that saying the references did not meet WP:SECONDARY would have been more technically exact. I noted at the AFD that Dranias seemed to have a point, and I also think James Cage has had some good points, too. At the AFD it seems that things are cooling down. I think nothing needs to be done here at ANI. --doncram 16:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Said user is expanding on his accusation that I have defamed him on his user talk page: talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Cage (talk • contribs) 13:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Repeating and expanding on "false and defamatory" charge here: [[51]]. This person claims to be a lawyer, and it wouldn't be that difficult for him, or for someone else reading this, to find me in the real world. I now believe that these charges are a considered attempt to intimidate, and not just something brought on by a moment of frustration. James Cage (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• It appears that Dranias's concerns leading to accusations of "defamation" might have originated in the use of the term "self-published" in an edit summary: [52]. An edit summary… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The actual definition of defamation includes an intent to cause harm. See [[53]]. If the editor is the subject of this article, he is a lawyer, and knows this. He now seems to be implying that I defamed him with pure intent, which is impossible. But he posts a self-serving and incomplete definition of the term in a forum for non-lawyers. He continues to repeat accusations that I defamed him to non-lawyers, who might not know the real definition. To his "actions have consequences" comment at the AfD page, he adds statements like "everything you do in the real world" above. I now believe this is an attempt to intimidate me and the other editors at the AfD page. James Cage (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• What needs to be grasped here is that Wikipedia is a self-governing collaborative project with no qualifications required for working here. James Cage is a newbie here himself and I'm absolutely sure that he was not acting with any malice aforethought; it takes a while however for many editors to adjust the way they express themselves on Wikipedia - a skill not everyone is born with. We try hard to accommodate the issues of people such as NickDranias who also believe they are doing the right thing until they are made aware of Wikipedia's policies. Those policies are very strict and are devised purposely to avoid both negative prose in articles about people, and overly promotional content, and also to avoid negative comments addressed at each other while working on those pages. Here, we are at the Administrators' Noticeboard which is the right place to be and where, hopefully, admins will attempt to resolve the issues based on their longer and deeper knowledge of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Our usernames do not say which of us are admins (but you can check on our user pages). An univolved one evaluates the community's consensus on what should be done and closes the discussion to the satisfaction of Wikipedia rules if not to that of all concerned parties. So rather than turning this into a tit-for-tat debacle, let's get it sorted out, and the community will decide at AfD whether or not the article stays, and if it does, in what form. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• James, one thing that helps is to avoid the word "you". We're discussing an article, or comments, not a person. Even when the subject of an article comes right out and says "I" in the discussion, it's better just to keep referring to the subject, or to the name. Things get over-personal much too fast here, and it does help to make a conscious effort to be as impersonal as possible. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point - will do. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• After much thought, I believe that some action, even a symbolic action, should be taken ...

I apologize to the other volunteers here. I reacted emotionally, and contributed to this waste of time. Wikipedia volunteers should not waste more time on this. James Cage (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Coming late to this discussion, I have to say that although Nick Dranias obviously needs to learn "wikispeak", many other editors here are not formulating very carefully either. The sources in the article were NOT all self-published, nor would it have helped if a Google search had dredged up primary sources. What the article contained were sources that were not independent from the subject of the article and what is needed to show notability are secondary sources from a third party (i.e., independent sources). Dranias is an expert in his field, so actually if there do exist things that he self-published, those could conceivably be used as reliable sources here (but for other topics than himself, except for non-controversial information). Also, when communicating with newbies, I always immediately explain that "notability" has a peculiar meaning here on WP and has nothing to do whatsoever with merit, good or bad. Using correct "wikispeak" and explaining the WP concept of notability immediately to a newbie might have avoided some of this drama. --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Please note that in this edit nd in subsequent edits on his talk page (and subsequent edits there) I did attempt to explain these matters to NickDranias in some detail and without depending on wiki-jargon. I think these posts did some good, but not right away and the user seemed to remain rather aggressive. Read the exchange for yourselves. DES ^(talk) 17:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with DGG. There is definitely a problem with beginning-editors not understanding wikipedia jargon. Our policies have 'colloquial' names but very exacting non-intuitive meanings. wikiReliable, wikiNotability, wikiWar, wikiThreat ... those names are metaphors that are intended to make the concepts easy to grok in a rough way, just from the name alone. But imprecise use of the lowercase names is bad: *your* source is not reliable, *you* are not notable, *you* are warring. Personally, I have started to try hard to always use caps when speaking of Notability/etc, and ideally to use camel-case and say wikiNotability and wikiReliable, especially when talking to someone that might be a beginner and/or proud of the article-topic. We have shorthand of saying WP:RS and WP:42, for speaking to experienced editors. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It does help, thank you. In the PROD process, I used the term "self-published" when I now believe I should have said "primary." I completely over reacted to the 6-8 charges of defamation aimed at me that resulted from that mistake - that's on me. I'm still new to Wikipedia, and I want to continue contributing. I also want to follow the example of DES and the other editors who have spent time helping me learn the rules and "good manners" of the best contributors here. Thanks & best regards - James Cage (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat by Nitin.mittal998

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.

---

Nitin.mittal998 (talk · contribs) left this clear legal threat on Sid Blue (talk · contribs)'s page: diff: you can do whtever you want.if you are a editor then i am also a editor.this movie is of our company.if wiki gives to power to edit and if you created this page it does'nt mean that you can take advantage of this.we are trying to premote the movie.If you do it again.you will be sued.this is a warning to you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2014 (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.

• Just as a note, following the block the user removed the block notice from their page; I have restored it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Doctothorpe as WP:SPA with WP:NPA and WP:AGF issues

User:Doctothorpe is apparently another brand new WP:SPA account related to the admin protect on 12th man (football), now in violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, see [54]. Unclear WP:SPI, as most of the edit warring was via IP.

• "It may be your clear hatred of TAMU, and it may just be a personal interest (my money is on the first option)"
• "I don't understand why you should ever be allowed to edit anything related to Texas A&M University." UW Dawgs (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks on TheRedPenOfDoom

Self-reporting myself here for "attacks" at Talk:Mr Whoppit. This is because a new IP editor user:79.70.66.86 is insistent that comments on that talk page are attacks per WP:NPA (and I would commend the IP editor for their broad knowledge of WP: space, despite this being their very first edit) and so insists on removing them, to the disruption of that page. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no personal attack there. Report back here or to AIV if the user continues to disrupt. -- John Reaves 17:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Not a personal attack; your comments were about the behaviour, not the person. Reyk _YO! 01:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And I disagree. Who appointed you two as judge, jury and executioner? But while you're at it, what's your fatwa on this? "Poor Werieth, still smarting over socking], and stalking anyone who spoke against you? Or was it for this? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2014" Would it be OK for me to delete that, or are snark, taunting, gloating, provocation and perpetuation of disputes permissible, even from someone who has been blocked for edit-warring and personal attack, and threatened with blocking for bad faith complaints? By the way this is not a comment on the individual, just on his behaviour. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.79.23 (talk)

• I will note that Andy has since taken a nasty turn and started making personal attacks directed at me in the same discussion. Werieth (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have had long-running disputes with Red Pen over his many deletions and section blankings at List of unusual deaths, more recently with you over other people's claims (which I then agreed with and supported) that you are a sockpuppet of Betacommand. The difference is that Red Pen has also edited this article, you have not. You jumped in on this article at ANI, which I can only credibly believe as being from watching my edits. Now you're back again. Obviously I disagree with Red Pen's edits on this article and his "All sources must meet RS or they should be removed" standpoint, but I do recognise that he has a point worthy of discussion (and even, of a possible change in policy). You though are just popping up because you think it's an opportunity to have a dig at someone you don't like. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You are making false claims of socking the SPI determined that I am not a sock, or I would have been blocked. Spreading the unfounded derogatory comments is a violation of WP:NPA. I dont monitor your edits at all, I do however watch WP:AN, WP:ANI WP:VPP, WP:VPT and several other notice boards. When your name popped up I decided to comment on that thread. As for this particular article I had no interest until an echo notification, when I decided to take a look. So please retract your personal attacks. Werieth (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blanking+redirect of sourced articles - I only happened to notice this because there are other things going on at ANI today - but the above seems triggered by the blanking-and-redirecting of a sourced article on 14 Jan. I am not familiar with User:TheRedPenOfDoom, but he/she has only recently come to attention for doing exactly this (unilaterally blanking a sourced article and leaving a redirect) to a substantially more important article, Bible translations into the languages of China (apparently unaware that "-s" is plural) and after restore of the article went silent when asked not to do it again, now blanking and redirecting a sourced article, with evident notability (Google Book 143 + 41 references). Whatever else comes out of this appearance on ANI, there should be guidance somewhere (is there?) that states that editors should not use blank-and-redirect for sourced articles where AFD, merge discussions, or at the bare minimum notability/source tagging are more constructive routes. I have no idea if this is common behaviour among editors as I have only seen 2 egregious examples. It also may be pure coincidence that both are by the same editor. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I note that you have been indef blocked within a minute of pasting this and Werieth has been similarly quick to blank your comments. No doubt your block is preventative of something or other.

If we're starting to be strict on socking and attacks, then will someone please address the frequently warned IP-sock, let alone Werieth's comments (I precis, "Final Warning – you're incompetent" at User_talk:Armbrust#Werieth. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WIll an administrator please close

For nine months there has been an open RFC about Centralia Mine fire, I removed as it is clear that there is no consensus and that there is not likely to be one anytime soon. Can we close and remove the tag as there is an editor not satisfied with the result. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you didn't even attempt to discuss this with me (or anywhere, for that matter) which is required in the instructions above, secondly I've added a new section with an actual RfC template (the previous "RfC" didn't have one) to try to get a consensus one way or the other, which hopefully resolves your "not likely to be [a consensus] anytime soon" concern. - Aoidh (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

FFS, that's not how it works. It's called no consensus, I'm sorry you don't like the result but if 9 months does not give us a consensus how long do we have to wait another 9 months? Reopening another RFC is fairly disruptive when there is no change. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone who can't follow the instructions when opening an AN/I discussion shouldn't try to correct someone on "how it works". Not using edit-summaries when you revert someone's edit is more disruptive than opening a new RfC to try to get a new consensus, especially when, as you noted, the previous discussion is five months old. - Aoidh (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice use of a red herring, it still doesn't address the fact that the RFC that I linked showed 04/13 . If my counting is correct that makes 9 months ago..Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly a red herring to point out that the issue with your own edit is what caused you to get offended and jump to AN/I without any sort of discussion first, since you're keen on educating others on "how things work" without following those things yourself. If the previous discussion is 9 months old, that's even more of a case for a new discussion to see if we can get some form of consensus there. - Aoidh (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment: Technically, the prior RfC tag was removed by RFC_bot from the earlier discussion in May 2013 - so that RfC hasn't actually been active nor listed at WP:Requests for comment/History and geography for nine months now (despite the tag remaining on the article itself). As part of full disclosure: I'm the person who opened the prior RfC. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that. I do think that nine months is enough time to see if a new consensus can be established. - Aoidh (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So you propose to wait another nine months? Maybe then you can list it again if it doesn't become the outcome you want? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CCC is policy. When the previous discussion didn't result in a consensus, I think it's hardly problematic to try to see if we can find a consensus after nine months have passed since the previous discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

By all means please enlighten us as how it includes "previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances" (this is HiaB) 24.9.243.108 (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CCC doesn't list that as a requirement. Honestly, at this point it just looks like you're upset that your edit (with no summary) got reverted, so now you're looking to stir up an issue to try to justify yourself, and it isn't very becoming. At this point it seems like you're either unable to read clearly for whatever reason (concerning the quote you gave above) or just grasping at straws. - Aoidh (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Holy shit really? It's the first fucking sentence! 24.9.243.108 (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a transplant of WP:CCC. please read it.

• "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive.

Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.243.108 (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's especially concerning that you copy-pasted that, since (1) you can just link to it at WP:CCC and (2) despite copy-pasting it, you still seem to have trouble understanding what it says. This is coming across as wikilawyering, and even that's not being done right. If this discussion did at any point have a purpose, it's now far past that point. I think it's time for you to drop the stick. Unless someone else comments and progresses any sort of discussion, I don't see a reason to respond further. - Aoidh (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It is very concerning I copy and pasted that I agree, I shouldn't have had to do that, and as far as wikilawyering I'm only responding to what you are poorly using to justify your rationale for ignoring that there was no consensus. 24.9.243.108 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at WP:STICK, Since September you have challenged every dissenting opinion, this is why I'm stating what you are doing is disruptive. It's clear there is no consensus, trying to bully multiple other editors and then trying to force continued discussion by relisting it is not a good way to obtain your goal.

[[55]]

[[56]]

[[57]]

[[58]]

24.9.243.108 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Will an administrator look into this please. 14:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Are you blind or just retarded?"

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.

---

Could somebody please review this comment on a Talk page by Chelsea-fan1 (talk · contribs), which is not very civil. JMHamo (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Comment reverted, editor blocked for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you JMHamo (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2014 (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.

108.49.183.32

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.

---

You guys need to know this. A user with this IP address had been editing some TV show, adding previously appeared roles for actresses, as seen on this diff. Someone should keep an eye on him, because I reverted that edit twice since I know you don't add previous roles for actors on TV shows. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2014 (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:Tigersuperman

Tigersuperman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I've been noticing some suspicious editing behaviour surrounding this user; he's been saying that "I am not wanted in the video game section according to the talk section in the video game crash article", and in violation of WP:TALK, outright removed all the talk page threads he has partook (including ones with others' contributions).

I'm not sure, but given that many of his discussions have involved apprehensive behaviour, continued assertions of a video game industry crash in 1977, unnecessary re-factoring of sources, and another editor believed he may be another sock of User:Jakandsig. I'd recommend you take a look at him... ViperSnake151  Talk  00:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:DagosNavy

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.

---

Extreme harassment [59], >10 reverts on [60]. 83.223.124.17 (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for reporting. Blocked both--two for the price of one--for extreme incivility, esp. in edit summaries, and edit warring on Moscow theater hostage crisis. Someone please tell me that these aren't adults. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to do, Drmies. What's it called? FRISBEE or something like that? -- John Reaves 01:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

His WP:BOOMERANG did come back. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bushranger, not just a boomerang, but also like a bad penny--they keep coming back. Look in the edit history of that article, the 190 IP: they were on ANI the other day, and I am sure I've been seeing them off and on for years now. Mostly very positive edits that sometimes get blindly reverted by those who don't much care for IP editors (at least, that's my suspicion), and then their relatively short fuse burns up--rightfully, maybe (as in this case--see my comment at DagosNavy's talk page), but still blockable. Hey, I temporarily no-wikied your close, since there's a question about the user name. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to harp on this, but the word "Dagos" is borderline racist, unless there is another context that I'm unaware of.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the user is from Argentina, so I figured there's something I don't know. Also, they've been here forever, so if there was something it would have been noticed by now. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2014 (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.

Mass article moves without discussion

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.

---

Jimthing (talk · contribs) has moved articles to ordinal names without discussion.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPad_%281st_generation%29&diff=prev&oldid=593852326
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPad_%283rd_generation%29&diff=prev&oldid=593852526
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPad_%284th_generation%29&diff=prev&oldid=593852601
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPad_Mini_2&diff=prev&oldid=593853282
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPod_Touch_%285th_generation%29&diff=prev&oldid=593854087

More can be found in the editor's edit history. I've had interactions with this editor before and I'm not going to try to discuss anything this time. If an admin could at the very least discuss this with the editor, it would be appreciated. Further action would be even more appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually get the facts correct please...you make accusations without looking at the facts, which is not the right thing to do. The pages were ORIGINALLY named 1st, 2nd, etc. before an editor has recently wrongly altered half of them to first, second, etc., which has then created issues on a great may other associated pages and templates. The said user should have discussed such edits first before making them unilaterally across many pages by opening an appropriate discussion — hence my manual reversion accordingly. Jimthing (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, OK, guys, calm down. There's no big deal in making bold page moves if it's felt to be uncontroversial - or reverting a bold move if you feel it needs to be discussed. I do see that the original(?) moves by Epicfailure 2 were challenged by Jimthing (here at least in December). Jdaloner seemed to have agreed with the moves here (also in December) - or at least standardized other articles in the same pattern.

It looks like it's worth a discussion. Rather than get into a revert war, I suggest opening a discussion now on where the pages should be. Might I suggest Talk:iPad as a suitable venue.

Please don't word the discussion in a he-moved-then-he-moved-without-discussion way. Just say there's uncertainty about where the articles should go and agree a consensus. Also, please notify any editors who has so far engaged in moving the pages (such as EpicFailure and Jdloner). --Tóraí (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2014 (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:DigDeep4Truth insists on maliciously accusing me of "lying"

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:DigDeep4Truth has been posting ranting tirades about the KKK on article talk pages where they're completely irrelevant ([61], [62], [63], etc.). Because I've removed some of these tirades from the article talk pages, and have also pointed out many factual errors of his -- concerning subjects which he is quite ignorant about, but seems to think of himself as some kind of deeply-knowledgeable authority figure -- User:DigDeep4Truth has chosen many times to accuse me of lying or deliberately uttering things which I know to be falsehoods ([64], [65], [66], [67] etc.).

I warned him about violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF as early as my edit summaries on these edits [68], [69], and also warned him on "Talk:Timeline of Palestine" ([70]), and left two pointed warnings on his user talk page: [71], [72].

This eventually pretty much stopped the nonsense for about two days, but today his spitefulness seemed to overflow again, and he accused me of "lying" two more times: [73], [74]. My patience with User:DigDeep4Truth has now officially expired, and I would greatly appreciate it if someone could remind him of Wikipedia policies in a way which I'm unable to do as a non-administrator... AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Block Proposal for this editor that has launched a personal attack here after a previous level 4 warning. Agree that this editor displays poor behaviour and a failure to assume good faith. An SPA that is interested in advocating personal beliefs rather than constructively contributing to the project. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:04, 4 February 2014 (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.

Disruptive user User:Bladesmulti: "Cambridge Uni fabricates sources"

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 this: [75] and [76] (you don't have to read all of it. Just the ending paragraphs on this links)

I'm getting really tired of this user on Wikipedia who seems to have an infinite supply of stupid arguments that are obviously bordering on trolling and disrupting Wikipedia's goals. He keeps trying to remove a reliable source. He keeps claiming Cambridge University sources are "fabricated" because they are "reprints" of journals. He's also blatantly claiming that historian Simon Digby is not a historian despite the Indian Express and numerous other sources and evidences saying that he is. I've had it up to here with him. Have a look at this discussion, where it beggars belief starting from line 409. Other editors have also claimed that this user is being deliberately disruptive [77] [78] [79] and making absurd claims on sources. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that he's attempted to WP:CANVASS twice, even after I gave him a warning not to [80] (warning) [81] (second warning). StuffandTruth (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I haven't looked into the whole situation yet, but I would like to suggest to you that referring to the person you're reporting as an "idiotic user" isn't the best way to start an ANI discussion. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, it has been struck. The user is very disruptive to the point of trolling people. And I can't tell whether he is trolling me or doesn't have the intelligence to know that Cambridge journals are reliable sources. I'll strike it out. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, now I've read it. Although I agree that Bladesmulti seems to be doing what s/he wants to do, you are also getting unnecessarily heated about this. I mean, look at this diff you posted yourself: "Who the fuck cares" is borderline, but "How is someone this stupid"? I'm not excusing Bladesmulti by any means, but you might be heading for a boomerang if you keep responding like that. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

He is also, on Talk:Voltaire refusing to accept direct translations of Voltaire as "too old" to be accepted, nor does he acknowledge scholars such as Bernard Lewis and Gilles Ventaine as good enough for counter-claims towards his own, or declares that what Voltaire wrote that goes against his own view is "not notable". At Death by burning, he has been actively mis-citing the reference which clearly says one VERSION is that widow-burning became widespread as a result of muslim invasions, into an UNQUALIFIED assertion by Bladesmulti that this practice became widespread. He must understand he is disruptive, and that he has totally misunderstood rules relative to Primary Sources. He is basically saying they are UN-reliable.Arildnordby (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't mis-cited any sources. Just because your suggestions are accepted by no body on Talk:Voltaire. Doesn't means you be following complain on this section. Remember this page is not a forum, at least not about me. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you did miscite Yang to vbegin with. Now you have removed Yang on VERSION. Furthermore, Lewis and Veinstein are PROMINENT historiansArildnordby (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly some topic ban sanctions are in order for this user. @Erpert I recognise what you're saying. Which is why I'm not saying anything heated again. But please understand that I've literally been at this ALL day and circular arguments by this user are very, very disruptive. It beggars belief why anyone would go to these lengths just to propagate his/her own view (for Christ's sake how can anyone say Cambridge Uni sources and journals are unreliable as well as fabricated as well as not existing?). If he's/she's doing this on other articles multiple times in a row as well as canvassing and not discussing anything then he/she deserves to get indefinitely blocked for misrepresenting sources. I can also attest to Arildnordby's words. One only has to look at the evidence of this user's history to know how disruptive he/she is. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• This was brought to my talk page, in addition to ANI. After looking over Bladesmulti's edits (I count something like seven reverts on the same page in less than 24 hours,) I've gone ahead and blocked Blades for 36 hours. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. Now all that's left to do is to indefinitely block him/her for numerous source misrepresentations here, arguing for the sake of arguing, canvassing others to edit on behalf of him, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and mass disruption involving editing, edit warring and vandalism. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Saying "good" is gravedancing, and likely to get you blocked as well - this isn't a competition, and nobody should ever be happy that someone got blocked. If you want to try and deal with other behaviours, let me introduce you to WP:RFC/U ES&L 20:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you. That's exactly what I need. I don't think of this as a competition. It seems an adequate measure against someone so disruptive. I take no pleasure in seeing users blocked. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Of the one of the three sources I can easily access, pg. 326 of 'The Police in India' does potentially support parts of the claims that Bladesmulti was using it for. I can see it being used to support the claim that "foreign invaders" commonly raped girls. I don't have easy access to the other two sources to verify what they say, but since the first source supported at least part of the claim, I'm not going to extend the block for source misrepresentation. If another admin can verify source misrepresentation and feels it appropriate to extend, they should feel free to do so. I'm going to go examine the other edits that took place on the persecution page now - the volume of them meant that so far I had only looked at Blades'. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I provided a link to them. It's odd you cannot access them (I could only partially access the one on the police but then how is a person who writes about the police an adequate historical source for foreign conquerors being rapists and thats why Sati happens? It's mandated in the Hindu religion). The one on page 611 was referring to nothing of the sort that he'd written and is easily accessible. Please try it again. You can click on the book to preview it's pages sometimes if it doesn't let you see it directly by link. StuffandTruth (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Google Books does not allow every viewer to view the same number of pages, or the same pages. I cannot view the relevant page on gbooks. Having reviewed the history at Persecution of Hindus, you made four reverts in less than two hours... editwarring isn't okay, even when you think the other editor is wrong. Since both you and blades engaged in a serious editwar, I've issued both of you the same block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• The user in question has been quite disrupting. Tendentious editing and persistent POV-pushing,[82], [83], [84], [85], [86], removal of sourced content.[87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Being both quite busy today and, er, relatively new to having the ability to block people, I'm going to let my blocks stand as they are and give the users involved some rope for when they fade. That said, if anyone has the time to comprehensively review that diff set or other behavioral evidence and feels that a longer or shorter block is warranted, please feel free to modify mine as you see fit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Tobby72, who provide no reason behind any of these edits. But let me do it for you.

1. diff = Part of on going edits. It wasnt a based edit.
2. diff = It is relevant, but right now discussed. See talk.
3. diff = Had it confirmed from RSN right after a few hours.
4. diff = Whole thing is added as per source.
5. diff = Editor wasn't reverting any of my version.
6. diff = Common sense that "parsi" has to do nothing with "zoroastrian" population, It was removed after Talk page.
7. diff = Non disputed, no removal of sourced material.
8. diff = Same as above. Population figure of a caste are irrelevant for that page, unless all of them are discriminated.
9. diff = Non disputed, no removal of sourced material either. See talk page of Doctorkubla.
10. diff = Repition of same figures, non disputed.
11. diff = Even you agreed that figures were not accurate.
12. diff = Copyvio and undue.
13. diff = half of information was unsourced, seeked update. User agreed to resume my changes 2 days later, no removal of sourced information involved, because it had no source.
14. diff = Had agreed with other editor to resume the similar information, while keeping former paragraph as 2nd. What is disruptive after all?
15. diff = Simply needed better source.

Now what is tendentious or disruptive, they all are? Since you dont even know what was being reverted, what was being discussed, or what was being reviewed. Dont complain because you couldn't back up some of these most common issues, or that they are against your wishes. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely a very disruptive Hindutva-pushing editor. I suspect a sock-puppet of User:Hkelkar. On Talk:Voltaire he has mentioned Helen Blavatsky as giving credence to a viewpoint. His method is to take a viewpoint he wishes to advocate, to go through Google Books to try and find snippets that support his viewpoint, and then to accuse others of POV-pushing, hypocrisy, etc. when they call him out on it. He also clearly has insufficient WP:COMPETENCE in the English language to understand the difficult philosophical texts that he advocates the use of (after finding them in Google Books). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Itsmejudith, It is interesting that one user is falsely complaining that i misrepresent source. Now itsmejudith is bragging 3 things, one that I always get source of everything, has more backup than usually other users, 3rd that i ask people to verify sources if they are unreliable/unknown. Oh and not to forget I am also a sock puppet according to him. Despite he is no CU for claiming so.

And there are no "other editors", it is only you. Since you are pushing the tumblr/facebook propaganda(you cant find other sources than that). It seems like you are trying to getting away from that, by objecting me. In the sense that you blank pages for a single ref with "copy right issue", or that you present primary sources with no page number, and 3 years old dead links.. Who is disruptive POV pusher then? You or me. Betting a million, you can't find such circus from me, anywhere on whole Wikipedia. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Your analysis of his methodology looks good. I assumed that he doesn't understand the word 'fabricate', and he certainly has struggled with understanding our policies and guidelines. You'd need diffs to raise an SPI. Otherwise maybe a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at User talk:Hkelkar left me with the impression that Hkelkar's command of English is better than that of Bladesmulti, so maybe some sort of ban is the best answer. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me jump in (although it might be out of place in the nature of this discussion) and say my piece. Blademulti is a problem editor. Across wikipedia they engage in battles and enrage editors over tiny things. The HEAVY POV pro-Hindu or Anti-Abrahamic thing is starting to be a problem. And while we all have our politics, when it is so single focused that it will bend light to win for the cause I think it is a problem. All over Wikipedia [97]--Inayity (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

He can't comment here whilst blocked. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Inayity, nothing before these 3 days, about the rest, i won't even argue, since i have explained it above, already. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes they can, we have a process for that ES&L 09:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In any case, his block is up tomorrow morning. I'm thinking of formally proposing a site ban unless someone wants to mentor. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've now run across this fellow in at least two other places besides the Voltaire mess. First there was a long disruptive argument over pantheism in eastern religions, particularly Shinto (see most of the talk page), which was then forum-shopped around when I complained that books on urban planning an military operations weren't reliable for this, not to mention one source which said the opposite of what he wanted to write. There were also big problems with his writing there which again he resisted tooth and nail. Now I've found that he moved Caste system among Indian Christians and added a long and completely misguided section on Western Christians, particularly focusing on the Spanish American casta notion, which the very first book reference I came across said was nothing like its apparent Indian cognate. I don't know whether has trouble following the material or is on a crusade, but his intervention into a lot of subtle and difficult material has been quite disruptive. What mentoring I've tried hasn't taken. Mangoe (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

He has a history of declaring main establishment sources as fabrications. See for example his debacle on the stupid, long-forgotten Cox-Forbes theory on chess, of all things, when he declares the Oxford's Companion to the Game of Chess to be unreliable, because it goes against himself.Arildnordby (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, calm down, and stop defending. Try to understand what's bothering other editors. They are bothered. Just listen careful, hold back your initial responses for a while, think it over, and ask for further clarifications. Take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Site ban for Bladesmulti

After taking far too much time clicking on links, reading discussions and looking into this mess, I don't see any way out except to ban Bladesmulti from Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, but I crossed paths with him following an AfD over Criticism of Jainism, where there was no shortage of tendentious POV-pushing on either side, as it appears there inevitably is in content disputes about religions – and he was actually about as close as anyone could be to being on the "right side" of the dispute. I've been watching the discussion here at ANI, and looked at some of the article talk page and user talk page discussions, and, while I fully support the enforcement of 3RR, I'm not seeing a sufficiently thorough examination of the issues on both "sides". Yes, there has been a history of low-clue editing, but there has also been a history of editors with a variety of POVs trying to get the upper hand, and the discussion here has been overly slanted toward criticism of Bladesmulti. Open an RfC/U, certainly, if you want. But we are far from being at the point where a site ban is even remotely appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Question - I've also been wondering if Bladesmulti is a sock, given his sudden appearance and his high speed of editing at so many pages. I don't know. I've also been surprised several times about his edits, and his interpretations. And I didn't dare to look further into his caste-edits. But there is also another thing I noticed, and that is the combination of, indeed, a "traditional" point of view on India and Hinduism, but also a willingness to open his mind and to take in info that contradicts his point of view. That's my impression. I found (and find) it remarkable, given the familiair stance in India-related articles. He looks to me like a young, intelligent and very enthusiastic person, who's got to develop more balance in this enthusiasm. And yes, I was also thinking about a mentor for him - and not me; I don't have the time to track all his edits. I think it would be wise if he limits his range of topics, and spends more time reading good books (from Cambridge University Press, for example). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Other editors have raised concerns that he may in fact actually be a sock too. If I can recall User:Indiasummer95 was a lot like this user and had multiple accounts. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at why this user was blocked on Wikipedia. WP:NOTHERE [98] StuffandTruth (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Indiasummer was anti-Islamic. There the similarity ends. His/her style of writing was different. S/he appeared to be pro-Christian, not pro-Hindu. The word "india" in the username refers to a porn actress, not to the country. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh that's hilarious. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• ban nothing personal and far worse have visited Wikipedia but we need to remember the effects on more senior editors. I was so worn down after engaging him I just stopped editing and bringing my expertise to the article. Look at him, 5 sec after coming back Look at him this is not someone who is here to learn, but ruthless push a fanatical traditional agenda. BTW ATR is not something I feel he knows anything about, but he is using it as a cloak push the POV. He cannot pause, will not stop, cannot hear. And what makes it worse is after all of this he pretends like there is no issue with his advocacy/POV pushing on wikipedia. --Inayity (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  Going from a 36-hour block to a site ban with no intervening edits is a bit excessive to me. Like major overkill excessive. Escalating blocks, yadda yadda. Site bans should always be a last resort. Doc talk 10:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  Can you see any change to his editing habits? The real issue why a ban is being discussed is because the user would not WP:LISTEN, in other words after all these reports and complaints he is still at it. Now I did not study psychology but if you look at what he does is THRIVE on conflict and agitation of users.You explain something in detail and he will write "you still have not explained it" --Inayity (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  An indefinite block, if needed, would be quite enough to handle this situation. A site ban is an overly extreme measure at this juncture. Doc talk 10:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry, I should have thought that through more. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dougweller, for acknowledgement. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• User:Bladesmulti does not understand what a reliable source is. He uses circular arguments and keeps on edit-warring. (See Talk:Jainism_and_Hinduism#Society_and_Culture.2C_and_dundas) He completely misrepresents the sources and uses them out of context. He does not listens, nor reads the sources he himself brings forward. (See: Talk:Criticism_of_Jainism#Removal_of_Dayananda.27s_views) Till now, he has shown no sign of improvement and continues his behavior. --Rahul (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue later went to DRN, and tell what had happened. Kindly update that too. And also on Criticism_of_Jainism#Removal_of_Dayananda.27s_views., no one had agreed with your statement that "Dayanand Saraswati has no right to criticize jainism." Also, I never had edit war with you. There are always 3-4 users who revert your edits. Which can be confirmed by number of users such as Tryptofish, Jethwarp, Abhishikt and others. Tell me one single source that i misrepresented? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is an WP:RFC/U on Bladesmulti a redlink or bluelink? ES&L 15:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support for Indefinite Block (as per several user suggestions above) - User has engaged in edit warring for the sake of edit warring. There is just too much evidence against him. An editor that claims reliable sources are NOT reliable sources deserves complete banning. Otherwise he's just dragging out the process for his pro-Hindutva bias. For goodness sake on Persecution of Hindus he argued Ali Sina (a racist and Islamophobe) was a respected scholar whilst at the same time declaring the work of Simon Digby false and fabricated. Now Sina isn't even a scholar of anything whereas Digby is an Oxbridge academic. His disruptions alone warrant banning from this site. It appears that conflicts for the sake of conflict. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Show me a diff where i said that Ali Sina is a "respected scholar". Bladesmulti (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've just noticed the user has started edit warring again. He's removing Digby's sources again whilst deliberately keeping in Lals in other sections of the article. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Response: Can you bring it to Discussion instead, where it was posted few hours ago? No way i had any edit war. But added as per consesus on RSN as seen here. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Bladesmulti is canvassing again to POV push (his third time within 48 hours). Also Blade, consensus was against you at RSN StuffandTruth (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Some more edit warring here (again), and adding POV (again) without any sources [99]. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Describe how it is disruptive canvassing? I am not spamming on unrelated user pages. But only seeking the opinion of involved editors. The RFC included that whole(on which there was edit war) are unrelated. Also I never did POV pushing or adding without sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:CANVASS (this is the 3rd time I've told you to read it). Your attempting to seletively notify users to support your position and influence consensus. Anyone who is normally interested would comment. But you're trying to get support for your causes again. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS doesn't say that you can't link involved users in the discussion/dispute. You are basically saying that there should be dispute+solution between only 2 people. Not anyone else.

Read the damn policy again. Whether by messaging them through email, texting them, or linking their names you are still canvassing selected editors in order to support your view to influence consensus. The article has hundreds of editors in the past and yet you deliberately select a few. You're blatantly engaging in POV pushing. If you full well know about dispute resolution then why are you canvassing for the approval of several editors? StuffandTruth (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Find me one from "Inappropriate notification" Wikipedia:Canvassing, where I am fitting? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Seen enough Alright - I have seen enough. Support Indef block for Bladesmulti - no to siteban. ES&L 15:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

EatsShootsAndLeaves Indef block only because some users disagree with the content? I am not stopping anyone to have their opinion, neither i am edit warring. Kindly, see the both sides. Indef block can't be made only because 2-3 editors disagrees with the edits. While making up falsely alleging too, such as WP:Canvass above. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Indef block because even when you're fully aware that your editing behaviour is 100% under the microscope, you're actually performing the EXACT same editing behaviours that people are complaining about. You're simply behaving like someone who WANTS to be blocked in front of hundreds of admins - so, you now should get your wish ES&L 16:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, I haven't edit war anywhere before my last block, or after. Neither any plan for doing so. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

See evidence above blade that you were engaging in edit warring again within 24 hours of your unblock. You reverted material on Digby as soon as you were unblocked and then again reverted edits on another page that I edited after engaging a recent edit war with me. The problem is you are initiating edit wars. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring is 3 reverts on same page. I haven't made even 2 reverts anywhere. I got posts on 3 O, and RSN too. No way i am disruptive. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti Edit warring is not a minimum of three reverts. It is a common misconception but it is not true; WP:3RR is a bright line that, when crossed, will result in a block 99% of the time, but a single revert can be edit warring, depending on the circumstances. I haven't looked into your case so I don't know the relevant details, but when you have other experienced users telling you that you're edit warring you may want to consider taking that advice to heart. N^oformation ^Talk 21:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

BladesMulti is engaging in some of the worst trolling behaviour, on the most bizarre issues I'ver ever seen. He has a weird, unsupported idea that Voltaire never said "anything positive" about Islam after 1762, and that he never said anything positive of islam in Candide. Now, he refuses to acknowledge statements from historians like Bernard Lewis and Gilles Veinstein, the latter saying expressly that Candide does, include such. When I post DIRECT TRANSLATIONS from Philophiocal Dictionary, he either declares the excerpt as "too old", "unclear source".

This has NOTHING to do with legitimate content dispute by BladesMulti, it is a trollish refusal to accept perfectly uncontroversial facts that goes against his weird ideologies. I append a typical snippet of how he actually argues here:

Don't think he wrote anything about Islam in Candide, or Philosophical Dictionary. It is only 1756 where he regarded it to be tolerant than Christianity. Other 2 books are simply unrelated. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Eeh, I have already given you Veinstein's assessment.Plus extractArildnordby (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I know, but it can't be verified. Since both of the mentioned books are unrelated with Islam. Now i got sources that says that he criticized Islam in Philosophical Dictionary and Candide. But still it is not really notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It is verified by at least by two of the most distinguished Orientilsts of our time, Bernard Lewis and Gilles Veinstein. Plus with the direct extract I gave you from Philosophical Dictionary.Arildnordby (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Bernard attributed it to Candide, Philosophical dictionary? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Is a 2013 published translation too old for you as well? I am starting to get annoyed now. And no, Bernard Lewis, in footnote 22 specifies Bosquet and HadidiPhil Dict.Arildnordby (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Source is unclear. Can you print a link to a source that says he was Praising Islam in Candide, Philosophical Dictionary, and what he wrote there. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Arildnordby (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: More edit warring here [100]. Bladesmulti, after his block, is back to his usual self (and now ironically claiming references are not reliable only because he's too lazy to look them up. He did this with the Digby piece until I made an easy search on Cambridge to show that he was lying, as he had claimed the source did not exist). He is deleting reliable sources claiming they are "not notable" and he's doing it above again with blatant POV pushing, refusing to let others edit and add differing opinions. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban. It is quite evident from the evidence presented that Bladesmulti is unable to restrain himself, and that he will continue to edit-war and POV-push for as long as he has the capacity to. I'd also add that his evident lack of fluency in the English language would make his editing problematic, and the reliability of his understanding of sources questionable, even without such behavioural issues. While we can and should make due allowance for such problems where an editor is acting in good faith, the combination of stubborn POV-pushing and sometimes almost unintelligible postings makes any attempt at meaningful dialogue almost impossible. He is a net liability to Wikipedia, and we can manage well enough without him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::You can be edit-warring without making 3 reverts on one page. Reverting the same material after being unblocked often leads to a block. And I'm beginning to think I've seen enough also. Today Bladesmulti writes at Talk:Persecution of Hindus "Removed Medieval. Because K.S. lal's figure were about population of Indians, not about Hindus, all historians, critics, regards them as "decrease of Indians", not "hindus". So it has been removed." At RSN on the 26th he wrote "As per Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, it has been cited, that the estimates by K.S. Lal refers to the 80 million death of Hindus though" (and this seems to be correct, see [101]. So his removal of the Medieval section from Persecution of Hindus which mentioned used Lal and Digby makes no sense. I still haven't seen an effort to justify his charges that the Digby source was fabricated despite asking him to explain what he meant. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, and Dougweller. It was agreed by 3 people already, including the latest revert by Darkness Shines, seen here who is not a disruptive user either. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My point was not about the removal but your varying comments on Lal. You didn't respond to that or my question about your claim of a "fabricated source". Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I regarded it as Mistake before too, and now. I should hadn't had suggested so. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

He removed it because of wording not because of you and your ridiculous arguments/behaviour (see here). This however, still doesn't excuse your blatant bullshit about how Cambridge University is not a reliable source. Or your CANVASSING. Or your POV-pushing. Or your lying. Or your removal of reliable sources for no apparent reason. Or your edit warring. Or your ignoring the advice of many users on this and other pages. Or your attempts at not discussing anything. Or your lack of understanding of the English language. Or your trolling and circular logic. Or your potential sockpuppetry. Or your inability to follow policy. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus#Medieval, and tell me how many people are against your proposal/edit Also, how many in favor?Bladesmulti (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, my support for the ban proposal was based on the evidence presented as a whole, not on one incident. That you appear not to understand this - or refuse to acknowledge it - merely serves to reinforce my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, there is certainly no other incident for now. Other guy cited a 4 days old edit, by acclaiming it to be "edit warring", "after he got unban" despite it was non-disputed single edit. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I gave three examples today that you edit warred. So stop blatantly lying because the proof is outlined above. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

None of them falls in Edit warring, 1 edit(not even revert, which was by everyone and implemented) is all what you had for claiming edit warring. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You continued the exact same edits that led to your block. As such, it was considered an extention of the original 3RR - you don't get a reset button. Once was enough ES&L 17:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you do realize that the more you talk, the evidence against you grows stronger. Don't you? --Rahul (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller told you twice now Bladesmulti: "You can be edit-warring without making 3 reverts on one page." Evidently this lack of acknowledging his warnings shows that you are incapable of understanding policy or those that want to help you. This gives further credence for you being indefinitely blocked. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:OccultZone is now massively reverting in favour of User:BladesMulti on Sati (practice), REMOVING, for example, scholarly material on limitedness of the explanatory power of Muslim invasions as principal drive behinmd increase in sati.Arildnordby (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rjwilmsi's version, is what I had reverted to. But since you have mentioned here. I would like to add that neither your version is any good, neither Rjwilmsi, or bladesmulti. Best one was from 7th January, like i had told on talk page, few minutes ago. OccultZone (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. It's always a serious thing to block an apparently well-meaning and enthusiastic editor, but I am seriously troubled by the evidence presented on this page, especially the discussions at Talk:Persecution of Hindus and Talk:Cox-Forbes_theory, where Bladesmulti makes inappropriate accusations against other editors, either due to his inability or unwillingness to understand the nature of the sources presented, which all appear to be first-rate. I don't know if this is a language barrier or a behavior issue, but whether it's a matter of WP:CIVIL or WP:COMPETENCE, I think this has gone on too long. Gamaliel (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel.. You know that Talk:Cox-Forbes_theory is irrelevant, it was one of my first edit here. And no one seems to be disagreeing with me on Talk:Persecution of Hindus. My suggestion has been implemented hours ago, by 3/3 users. It is over. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not your edits were correct, it is how you conduct yourself in these discussions. Accusing other editors of "fabricating" sources, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

About the implementation of the edit. It was for different reasons we have decided to exclude it for now. No one was listening to your silly arguments and no one took any heed to your concerns because they were bullshit ridden. So no. It's not over. It's your disgusting conduct and constant edit warring that's gotten you in trouble. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Again StuffandTruth.. I am not edit warring anywhere, anymore, and you have finally agreed with the edit as well. What is left now? Bladesmulti (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose site-ban but may support block. Suggest that because at least two people are willing to mentor Bladesmulti, but that the vast amount of edits Bladesmulti seems capable of are overwhelming the WP:CHOICE of the potential mentors, we offer Bladesmulti a deal: five edits per day maximum, and no editing outside the User:Bladesmulti login, until they learn the meaning of WP:RS and friends. The trouble is that their wikithusiasm is outstripping our capacity to temper their efforts with experience, methinks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User talk:74.192.84.101, I am 100% ready to lower all my edits to only 5. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm happy to help you and Joshua get you turned into a lean-mean-wikipedian-machine. Thanks for your good-faith response. The faster you learn, the faster you will be back up to full speed. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence above points that even if that happened his level of English is too poor and his constant edit warring such a problem there would be no point in wasting time/energy etc on him. He is just too incompetent to understand and frankly him ignoring all the people on here including the admins advice shows that mentoring is likely to achieve nothing. Especially as his behaviour and conduct are deliberate. And further, an IP commenting on this is rather strange, and so too is the quick response of Bladesmulti to your suggestion IP. I'm just sayin. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• My my my! Anxious to see a ban here, eh? Any conceivable WP:EW is *easily* controlled at 5 edits/day. English competence ain't all that crucial arond heer, plenty of WP:WikiGnomes to keep mainspace nice and grammarized. Outside mainspace, ideas and hard work at finding sources matter more than grammar. Bladessmulti works hard, and some of their ideas are good, from what I've seen Kevin and people at User_talk:Drmies say about it. Bladesmulti just needs some mentoring on how to communicate effectively, and how to avoid edit-wars. You, on the other hand, need some advice on WP:NICE. Best strike your accusation that the conduct is deliberate. Best strike your accusation that the human person is incompetent. And best withdraw your WP:ASPERSION that I am a sock. This is AN/I my friend, and unlike myself, you are WP:INVOLVED in a content-dispute with Bladesmulti. Better go read WP:AGF and WP:IMAGINE again, please. If you prefer policy to guidelines and essays, try WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTFACTIONS. You can call me 74. Don't call me IP, it is an insult in these here parts. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I apologise if I misconstrue Bladesmulti's ulterior motives for yours, however there is reason in my suspicion. I will however not apologise for the truth. He is incompetent as other users have said here and his actions are deliberate to the point of trolling (I need not repeat the evidence above), and he doesn't seem to have a good grasp of English (see the earliest links I posted and Dougwellers pieces above. Again it centres around simple understanding, or there lack of, of words such as "fabricate"). There is simply no one on this planet that can Cambridge does not fabricate sources. You are going waste your time mentoring this person as he refuses to acknowledge how bad his behaviour is. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

JJ - 74 asked me to co-mentor Bladesmulti diff. I'll have to think that over. You're all aware that I'm slightly in favor of Bladesmulti; that's because I've also seen him change his mind, and because he's sometimes like a little puppy-dog jumping around in his enthusiasm. But I'm also well aware that he's got a certain, let's say, preference for Hindutva-like points of view. That's his good right, but when it regards Wikipedia, I'm quite allergic for that, as some have also noticed. So I don't know if that makes me the best mentor - conduct and content may get mixed up. Or is it exactly the oppposite, and does this make me a (potentially) good mentor? I don't know. I'll have to think about this, at least one night. Best regards to everyone around here; I understand the frustrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti is very generous with thanking others, not just when it is directly supportive of his views, or when related to it. He has a few blind spots, and can be extremely annoying to argue against (refusal to acknowledge scholarly material going directly against seems to be main probl.), but if you, or other mentors, guide him onto understanding this, he will be a very valuable editor to keep on Wikipedia. Precisely BECAUSE of his strong engagement, but he mustn't let that engagement cloud his judgment.Arildnordby (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - This user is a POV pusher and a disruptive editor as indicated by the evidence above. It was only a matter of time. Good riddance. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Pursue SPI, give the mentoring a few days, and then see what happens. This situation is a real mess, I have to say, but I'm still uncomfortable with acting upon the accusations that are being made, because the more I look, the more I see editors with POV issues on both "sides" here. There's speculation in the subsection below, about sock or meatpuppetry, but absent an SPI case, it's just that, speculation. Open the SPI, get a checkuser involved, and find out, one way or the other. And let's give the proposed mentoring a few days. Not a long leash, but a little time to see where it goes. If it proves unproductive, then go with the block, not the ban. But before we decide to block, we need to discount a significant percentage of the wall-of-text here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Suggest that *if* the SPI does turn up other names/IPs that are the same human, we indef all but the "main" one, and transfer the mentorship to that "main" user-talkpage. Bladesmulti has made two good edits since the mentor-clock started, and a third person has potentially offered to assist. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose a hands on mentor, already in action now, can do loads of good for this user.Arildnordby (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Mentorship may work for Bladesmulti; perhaps some time should be allotted to see if that works. The seriousness of the site ban suggestion appears to have convinced Bladesmulti to change his ways. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• More Support for Indefinite Block - This user goes too far in pushing fringe POVs. In my experience, Bladesmulti tacked on countless references to articles that did not contain any material supporting the edits and as a result wasted countless hours of my and others' time with his non-stop disruptive editing and edit warring. This user is unconcerned with reality, makes false accusations, makes circular nonsense arguments, and plays Wikipedia like it is a game. NaturaNaturans (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Seems strange. You might have problem with the edits. Having a look at your edit history, you just removed the sourced content[102], "fringe paragraph", without gaining any consensus. On that whole page you seem to be making red edits for months. Have you read.. "While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time." When you edit years old edit, you should not certainly remove them, and follow WP:DNRNC. But you seem to be edit warring, and not adhering WP:NPOV. Noteswork (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually that paragraph was removed months ago for failing to receive any credible citations for something like a year and recently added back by this user, Bladesmulti, who added a bunch of sources that did not at all support the paragraph content. I was reminded of it here and proceeded to remove it again. Granted, I should have better explained that. NaturaNaturans (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mentorship -- About 2 or 3 mentors now. One of them willing to comment everyday. No need of anything else. Bladesmulti probably forgot WP:NPOV and WP:NOTABILITY for which he was blocked. But he doesn't seem to be desperate. And willing to cooperate like Binksternet has pointed. Noting his agreement of "5 edits" on article pages, a day. Noteswork (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mentorship I've butted heads with Bladesmulti a number of times. The user can be a bit annoying in deleting sources for odd reasons, and a little argumentative, however I found Bladesmulti quite able to change opinion. If the urge to edit the article rather than the talk page first could be countered I believe Bladesmulti could be an asset. FMMonty (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Mentorship - I hesitated before to say anything about this, but also I found Bladesmulti quite able to change opinion, and this mentorship- well, it can can work. Hafspajen (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC).
• Mentorship I don't mind co-mentoring him if needed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  Comment Interesting to note that quite a lot of the people supporting a ban/block here have a red link to their userpages. I don't think this guy deserves a ban or a block. I have worked on a few articles with him, observed his edits. He just needs some guidance, polishing and he'd be as good as any of us out here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

I have been, at Sati (practice) been exposed to mass removal of all my material, by User:OccultZone, ALL of it well referenced. I am falsely charged of what I have said, which, even it had been correct, should not be removed since it is a SCHOLAR I have cited here. But, in addition to experiencing mass removal of well-referenced content, OccultZone lays FALSE charges against me on content included. I strongly believe this is a revenge action, made through a SockPuppetry tactic.Arildnordby (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence: similar circular arguing and source removal. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If not a sockpuppet, I would highly suspect OZ being a meatpuppet. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Kindly decide. I am a sock of User:Indiasummer95, or User:OccultZone or User:Hkelkar. Been alleged with about 3 by 3 different users. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Meatpuppet/Sockpuppet is most likely User:OccultZone. We've already established you can't be the other two since your level of English is amusingly poor. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a sock, and you had best stop with the personal attacks lest the boomerang smack you one. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks. We have already established his level of English is massively poor. Others have even pointed this out. His bizarre assertions Cambridge University has "fabricated" sources has still not been justified. He refuses to even answer why he has made claims such as these. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines. This user, seems to be repeating same wheel over and over. While making series of false allegations as well. And StuffandTruth, I NEVER SAID that "Cambridge University has "fabricated".." How many times you will present FALSE information about me? You still haven't even backed up that I called "ali sina is great scholar" either, like you claimed previously. I only said that you fabricate source, when you had presented nothing. While you had claimed that I "Misrepresent source" or "Make fantasy claims", yet there was already a source. And I presented 3 more. So? Bladesmulti (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Removed by mentor. Do not respond to StuffAndTruth please. Go read WP:CGTW instead. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Temporary resolution

I'm not asking to close this discussion, but I am suggesting that we take a pause while the mentoring is being given a try. 74 seems to be making some good progress with it, and I hope that we can wait and see how it works out. As for the SPI, I suggest that someone start it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Mentoring should go its course here, before anything else is considered.Arildnordby (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, with the obvious caveat that if it doesn't work out then we reconsider. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I fully agree with you; I just didn't make that clear enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Enthusiasm for one's own cultural history is a really good thing in order to bring others to notice of the diversity and richness of that history. As long as that becomes coupled with a care not to stringently oppose other views, such enthusiasm is a very valuable asset in an editor like Bladesmulti.Arildnordby (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, especially with doug. And Bladesmulti, politely, I advise you to adhere the guidelines i had mentioned above. WP:Be thoughtful and kind, and also WP:Be nice to the vandals if you assume any. The test is temporary, you will learn a lot. Noteswork (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bladesmulti. --Rahul (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• The SPI is closed, more or less inconclusively. I gather that no CU was run. I have something of an opinion, but it's very general: Bladesmulti's behavior throughout this thread is difficult, esp. on the edit warring bit, where their remonstrations border on tonedeafness and a total lack of understanding of what edit warring is--or they're just not listening. Part of the disruption is caused by the large number of pages and talk pages where they're active (and restricting their number of edits could be very beneficial, maybe via a 1R restriction or something like that); another part is caused by shall we say a lack of proper syntax, which makes reading and responding to comments difficult. For now, I am happy to accept their good faith, and perhaps the combination of an editing restriction, a stern imperative to proofread and grammatize, and some mentoring will alleviate this situation. So maybe this thread should be closed for now, if enough editors/admins agree that Bladesmulti is not being disruptive anymore. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Following up on that, I want to draw attention to the fact that, despite a lot of heated talk here at ANI, a more thoughtful examination at SPI concluded that the behavioral evidence of socking was too weak to justify a checkuser investigation. In other words, the evidence of socking, when viewed dispassionately, really was not that compelling. So let me make some editors who have commented here aware of WP:BOOMERANG, for future reference. That said, I also think that Drmies' assessment of the editing problems is correct, and that it's important that the mentorship lead to improvements, lest we find ourselves back here again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• This thread went into the archives. I have brought it back because I think it should be formally closed by an administrator. --Rahul (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2014 (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.

fact that are treated as agenda

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.

---

hi, admin in a politician page will not let me post fact about a negative conduct that the politician did.

talk page here

under section: פועלה של גרמן בנושאים פוליטיים

diff link: https://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%9F&diff=15096898&oldid=15095908

admin user: Ldorfman

the text entered is: ב-20 בינואר 2014 החליטה יעל גרמן, שרת הבריאות בתקופה זו, שורת החלטות שקוממו{{הערה|1=הכתבה שעוררה סערה ציבורית}} אלפי זוגות בישראל. החלטות אלו לא איפשרו לזוגות שמתקשים להביא ילדים יותר מ-8 נסיונות להרות מטיפולי הפריה חוץ-גופית ולהתנות את המשך הטיפול רק לאחר אישור ועדה חיצונית. {{הערה|1=ההגבלות כפי שפורסמו ב ynet}} נכון לרגע זה החלטות אלו, שעוררו ביקורת ציבורית, נותרו בעיניהן.

Lior3790 (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You are in the wrong place - this is the English Wikipedia. You need to raise your concerns on he.wikipedia, not here. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2014 (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.

File:Godzilla2014Poster.jpg

Can an admin please review the conduct of the last few days on this file? Someone has been uploading fan art, another has been reverting, who seems only to not know how to do it properly? Heck, I've been around here for 7 years and I don't know how when it comes to image files. I think it needs protection of some sort until the film is released? And the fan art version deleted? Please and advance thanks! Alaney2k (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

PLNR - Request for formal notification of the WP:ARBPIA sanctions

Given a breach of the 1RR restriction placed on the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine article (diffs: 1, 2), I'd like to request that PLNR is given a formal WP:ARBPIA notification.     ←   ZScarpia   17:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• PLNR: Hi, I have indeed violated WP:1RR, however, I have no way to self revert, since by the time it was noted, following edits made such action impossible. Also my revert was made in light of an active discussion concerning that change taking place on talk( which Dlv999 disregarded ) and was made to restore the currently discussed variant, pending the discussion outcome. Hopefully my edit history on that particular talk page and in general will show that I work to resolve issues through discussion even at length e.g. #1947-1948 thread where I spent considerable amount of time to addressing objections thrown by ZScarpia/dlv99/etc, which should indicate that no edit warring was intended on my part.

On this note, I would like to request whatever may be tacked in the Administrators toolbox to address ZScarpia edit[103] which I find to be disruptive. He was fully aware of the unresolved discussion taking place on talk(since he started it), but instead of exercising patience, and exhausting like the rest, he deiced to take it to the mainspace and impose his desired version there, also providing no edit summary.--PLNR (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

[EC] In response to PLNR's comment of 18:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC) please note:

• The issue is about whether PLNR should be given a formal WP:ARBPIA notification not about issues such as what action he or she should have taken in light of the 1RR violation.
• PLNR refers to a discussion in which he or she showed much patience in dealing with other editors including me. However, that discussion wasn't one in which I actually participated (possibly PLNR is confusing me with Zero).
• I find PLNR to be quite an aggressive editor in terms of imposing changes on articles and making rude-ish personal comments about other editors (and whose English and logic I have a problem following). The sequence of events related to the edits under discussion was: PLNR changed some text; I opened a discussion about the change, pointing out that it altered the article in such a way as to misrepresent the cited source, though didn't revert PLNR at that point; based on what I'd written, Dlv999 reverted PLNR; PLNR quickly reverted Dlv999's revert, breaching the 1RR restriction on the article; based on seeing Dlv999's revert as very justified and also judging that PLNR had again acted on a trigger reflex I, for the first time, reverted PLNR.
• What PLNR refers to as disruptive editing by me amounts to one revert, that being a revert of a breach of a 1RR by him or her.
• The discussion is continuing on the article's talkpage, now with other editor's involved and the article currently reading, while discussion continues, as it did originally.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As for your turn of events, it seem to imply that your reverted a WP:1RR violation, though WP:1RR was mention much later and you said your revert was per WP:BRD, even though we already were in the middle of discussion and your revert forced your variant without concluding that discussion. I like to judge people by their action, people who committed to discuss, discuss and explain. While people who just want to imposing a desired version, find Wiki policy to support a short cut. Although you are correct in one thing, I did confused you with Zero in that particular example( sorry ), good thing I used a broader terms of reference --PLNR (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Above, I described my reasons for reverting you thus: "based on seeing Dlv999's revert as very justified and also judging that PLNR had again acted on a trigger reflex I, for the first time, reverted PLNR." That does not say that I reverted you for a breach of the 1RR restriction, but it does say that part of my reasoning was based on what to me looks like a tendency of yours to hit the revert button quickly. In my opinion, Dlv999 was justified in reverting the article to its original form (which you describe as 'your variant' - actually, if you read my talkpage comments you'll see that the original is not the final variant I would support at all) while and if discussion continued and I think that you should have left it. As it happens, you reverted so quickly that you violated the 1RR rule and I think that is sufficient reason to request that you be formally WP:ARBPIA notified. Added to that could go carelessness about representing sources adequately.     ←   ZScarpia   22:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That pretty much it. Even though you knew that we were discussing the manner and my edit restored the discussed variant, you decided to go edit war in main space to address what your perceived as "trigger reflex" or enforce the justified edit.

Like I said, I didn't noticed it was a WP:1RR violation(watch list has daily cycle and I make a lot of edit to track them individually) once it was noted, I couldn't address the oversight, but overall my edit was to facilities discussion over partisan editing. Also dlv999 revert wasn't restoring any "original form", but his own recent addition[104] that I just got around to tackle, hopping we can reach a compromise using a tested neutral language from the main article lead on that subject.--PLNR (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Generally, your assumptions about what I did or didn't know are wide of the mark, though I hadn't realised that most or all the of the text at the heart of the dispute had been added so recently. Had I realised, I probably would have let things ride rather than reverting. That version of the text does have the advantage of faithfully reflecting the given source, though. Although not perfect, I don't think it has the POV issues ascribed to it by you. As explained on the talkpage, it doesn't look as though the "tested, neutral language" in the main article is supported by the given source, in which case it is not going to be the basis for anything unless an alternative source can be found. Now, I'd suggest that further discussion of the wording of the article is taken back to the talkpage and, if you want to pursue claims of edit warring by Dlv999 and me, you take it to Arbitration Enforcement, though I suspect they may not view a series of four reverts by three editors, with two of them, the first and third, by you, as particularly serious. You could take it to the 3RR noticeboard, but I suspect they'd be most interested in your 1RR violation. By the way, when it comes to commitment to discussing changes, my edit summary shows that I make almost two talkpage edits for every article one, whereas the situation is reversed in your case (apologies for the self-puffery).     ←   ZScarpia   00:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is a clear violation of the bright line 1rr rules on topics in the Israel/Palestine conflict. The article is clearly marked on the article's talk page as being part of the IP conflict, are the 1rr restrictions. Can someone please just issue a formal warning to this editor? Dlv999 (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II

User:Sepsis II is becoming increasingly difficult to cooperate with. The editor unfortunately seems interested in making accusations against others. His actions do not foster a professional or friendly environment. He largely avoids talk pages when he edits, but when he does, his comments are not only unhelpful but often detrimental to the collegial environment of the discussion.

• The editor has reverted several pages or added problematic edits. He may be WP:Wikistalking me and is not cooperative in talk pages. The editor does not engage in thoughtful discussion to try and resolve disputes.
• In reverting, the editor made rather unprofessional accusations and remarks in the space reserved for edit summaries. For example, he wrote in one edit summary, he wrote: "please stop the disruption whoever you are."
  • He has made similarly unprofessional remarks directed toward other editors in edit summaries, such as these ones:
    • Here: "look at that, another sock here to whitewash wikipedia in favour of Israel"
    • Here: "go away warrior"
    • Here: "extremists don't know what neutral is"
• On List of countries where Arabic is an official language, the editor reverted 5 times: here, here, here, here, and here. I had explained the edit in Talk:List of countries where Arabic is an official language#Palestinian Authority, and I was initially the only one to leave an explanation. Sepsis II reverted without discussing in talk. After his first RV, I kindly reminded the editors to see talk. The editor did not address my comments.
• Instead of addressing comments in talk, he made a personal attack and accusation of "Palestinian denialism": "Well of course the PA is not a state, but of course the highly recognized state of Palestine is one. Please stop this Palestinian denialism. Sepsis II (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC). After writing this "explanation," the editor continued to revert a total of 4 times. He made his last revert before consensus was reached in the talk pages.
  • Then, after I addressed comments and discussed other sources, he told me to "read" a Wikipedia article and attempted to end the discussion: "Please read about Palestine. You are currently edit warring, either revert to before your last edit or I will ask that you be blocked. Sepsis II (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)"
  • In Talk:Ariel University#West Bank, he appeared to mock the honest discussion and write: "Please, someone, I need an RS telling me what planet Ariel is on! Sepsis II (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)." This behavior is very disruptive when editors are involved in resolving a dispute.
  • In Talk:SodaStream#CS Monitor, he told editors to "ignore" a reliable source without giving any explanation: "Considering the large number of basic mistakes, bias, and conflicting reports with other sources, that Haaretz source should definitely be ignored. Sepsis II (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)."

His comments on talk pages too short to respond to editor's comment to but long enough to disrupt honest discussion. He does not address editor comments or cite Wikipedia rules. Such conduct is especially unhelpful when other editors are discussing sources, and it creates an uncomfortable environment for other editors. I kindly call this to your attention. --Precision123 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, it is possible that Sepsis II is a sock him/herself of a banned editor. I've repeatedly asked Sepsis II if s/he has ever edited under a different username, and I've gotten no response. As other editors have said, Sepsis II needs to come clean on his/her past user history, or we're going to keep having these same problems and outstanding concerns. Looking at Sepsis II's contribution history [105], it is clear that Sepsis II had previous experience before initiating this account. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It is possible (however unlikely) that the user edited as an IP and finally decided they wanted an account. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• This should be moved to WP:AE. Here it will just turn in the usual drama fest between the editors involved in editing in this highly controversial area. ArbCom didn't pass discretionary sanctions because ANI succeeds in solving such disputes, but rather because it usually doesn't. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision is right! I should be banned immediately for disagreeing with him and making reverts like [106] and [107] that he linked to above. AE is the place for this, it only took a few minutes before an editor banned from IP articles due to me jumped in, I don't care to see how many more will. Sepsis II (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis II, again, have you ever edited Wikipedia under another username? Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis II has repeated added material to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions that is either extremely POV, is inaccurate or taken from non-RS sources. I have pointed out several times and even offered alternative wordings, but he has simply reverted those as well. Furthermore, he has also removed properly sourced material without explanation.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC))

Everyone hates you when you edit articles in the IP area, haha. Hyperionsteel, I've looked at the talkpage for that article, I've left three messages this month, you haven't edited in years, please change that, I'm all ears for your alternative wordings. Sepsis II (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

So everyone hates me when I edit articles relating to the Israel/Palestine debate? That's a pretty big claim. If you could elaborate further, I'd be interested in hearing it. Unfortunately, making asinine accusations about me isn't going to help your case.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC))

"Everyone hates you when you edit articles in the IP area"? Clearly not the behavior of a constructive editor, but somebody that can't control their WP:battleground behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I forget some people aren't native English speakers, come from different nations, etc.. The statement "Everyone hates you when you edit articles in the IP area" refers to people hating me, exhibit, this section. Sepsis II (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What would make you think that anyone here isn't a native English speaker? You're making some pretty troubling insinuations, but again, you can't control your battleground behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd guess that half of en.wiki editors are non-native English speakers and only a few percent from my country, does this trouble you? Sepsis II (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, but the insinuation (intended or not) that Hyperion wasn't is troubling, since right on his userpage is the "This user is a native speaker of English" userbox. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, well considering everything I say is being misread in the worst ways not even imaginable and that I've done nothing against policy, I will comment here no longer. Sepsis II (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Looking closer, I agree your above comment (about being hated) could be also be interpreted as referring to yourself (although it's still not the best way to start a post on this noticeboard).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC))

Sepsis II is extremely anti-Semitic and is probably a sockpuppet of either Historylover4 or SupremeDeliciousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.29.112.174 (talk) 07:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• The topic area is rife with nationalist sockpuppet editors that create new accounts, make large volumes of POV pushing aggressive edits without consensus, agitate for sanctions against good faith editors, then get banned or disappear. Wash, rinse and repeat. I do not know if "Precision123" is a sock of a banned user, but they are certainly an editor that ignores core policies of the encyclopaedia like WP:NPOV and bright line rules like the 1rr restriction on topics related to the Israel Palestine conflict.[108][109] Dlv999 (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision123, could you explain why your assessments of the behavior of other editors in the WP:ARBPIA topic area should be regarded as a trustworthy and reliable when you have just made an edit like this, with an edit summary "mischaracterization of study, made no such conclusion" ? You removed

• However, a 2003 study in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics found that Haaretz reporting was more favorable to Israelis than Palestinians and more likely to report stories from the Israeli side.

The study itself says

• This study explores the biases, pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, by looking at quantitative indicators of news coverage in the New York Times and Ha'aretz. Several time periods were examined (1987-88, 2000-01, and post-September 11, 2001), using multiple indicators. By these measures, the New York Times is more favorable toward the Israelis than the Palestinians, and the partiality has become more pronounced with time. Ha'aretz is also more favorable toward the Israelis, but less so than the Times.

Sean.hoyland - talk 10:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, this seems like an appropriate matter for Talk:Haaretz or even my talk page. To respond briefly to what I thought was an uncontroversial edit: (1) citable references are made to the article's text, not the abstract; (2) I merely changed the sentence to reflect what is stated in the article's text; and (3) this sentence has serious problems with WP:Editorializing. Perhaps you could assume good faith raise this issue in the appropriate place next time. --Precision123 (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Your edit pattern in inconsistent with core policies of the encyclopaedia and you persistently ignore bright line rules like the 1rr restriction on Israel/Palestine related topics. You contend that Sepsis II has been making accusations against you. Unfortunately your problematic edit pattern is liable to generate those kinds of accusations by good faith editors because it is not compliant with policy. Dlv999 (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that depends on whether your explanation is true or false. If it's the former, fine. If it's the latter it would be indicative of a lack of integrity in which case it would belong here since it would be relevant to this thread and provide context for admins. So, could you quote, here at ANI, what is stated in the article's text that led you to conclude that the abstract is inconsistent with the article itself ? Regarding assuming good faith, I assume nothing and I don't use any faith-based systems to make decisions. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your discussion has been moved to Talk:Haaretz. This is not the place to start interrogating over a common one-sentence edit that you concede may be reasonable, or to make a sweeping accusation of untrustworthiness based on it. I have full confidence in the admins and I trust that they have been and will be provided with enough context. -Precision123 (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the discussion is here because it is pertinent here. Like I said, I assume nothing, so there will be no sweeping accusations. I asked you a question. Have the common decency to answer it. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Complaint about Swedish Wikipedia Admin.

Nothing to see here from what seems to be another Technoquat sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I am a new contributor to the Swedish Wikipedia Användare:Anösteratter, and I tried to ask an admin (as well as a few other users) for editing tips, but Användare:Tegel has blocked me, calling me a troll, and a vandal. Unless he has got the wrong person, I am very annoyed. I made a different account to try and edit properly and Tegel blocked me again. I appealed against the block but he rejected it. I am frustrated. What can I do about this admin on the Swedish Wikipedia? --Bästkerring (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Here? Nothing. Hafspajen, do you know where this editor might turn to? Drmies (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (ec) We have absolutely no authority over Swedish Wikipedia. Best thing to do is look up there how you can appeal your block by email. — Edokter (talk) — 20:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC) This is a question for the Swedish Wikipeida equivalent of WP:HELP or WP:TEAHOUSE not for english wikipedia. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Umm.. Someone closed the discussion when I was not even finished with it. Ok, well I can't ask on the Swedish help page as I am blocked, can someone do it for me? Most there understand English so it should not be a language barrier. --Bästkerring (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC) This is the English Wikipedia which has no control over actions taken on other language Wikipedias. We are all independent communities. If you feel you have been improperly treated and cannot solve this issue on your local project, you may try meta:Wikimedia Forum.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Someone should block User:Bästkerring see [110] specificaly [111] and [112] CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Tegel seems to note that this was just Technoquat socking.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:39, 4 February 2014 (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.

POV non-communicative editor at articles related to the Constitution Party (United States)

Mteberle (talk · contribs) is adding pov material to affiliates of the Constitution Party as well as the Constitution Party itself. This includes text such as "Whether you are able to help spread the word, work on a campaign, or run for office we invite you to VOLUNTEER with us!"[113] Attempts to communicate with him has failed. He is also creating stubs for non-notable state affiliates. Yesterday he changed Constitutionist, an article he created and was turned into a redirect back into what was a party political statement. It's a redirect again, but this is the version he created yesterday. He added a link to it to a lot of related articles. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

I've gone through the edits of Dillkid95 (talk · contribs) and I'm sure the account is being used primarily for vandalism. Removes large sections of articles, introduces errors, deliberately breaks disambiguated links, ignores all attempts at discussion. MRSC (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Having only looked at a few articles, I see an editor interested in transport, attempting to improve articles, while not having a clue about dab pages. I do not see this as a vandalism only account, but someone who could use some help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no participation on user's talk page, but some new editors are not aware that the talk page exists. The user has email established, perhaps a note via email might help?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I sent an email.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I also see a clueless newcomer who could just use some assistance to grow. That was all of us at one stage. Plus, WP:AIV would surely be the way to go with a vandal-only account? No need for an ANI thread for every one. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been involved with Dillkid95's edits in the past. At many times I have left messages regarding disambiguation but these have been ignored. I do think they need help. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 19:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Indecent language used by User:Dlv999

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.

---

Note the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SodaStream&diff=594072913&oldid=594072812

I request that the editor be issued a warning. Tkuvho (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I will be happy to remove the offending word if the complainant agrees. Dlv999 (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the military term clusterfuck ? Editors can use the word fuck. If you are offended by it you can simply ignore it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed fuck is not a problem. if it was addressed to you ie you fucker, motherfucker or stupid fuck we would have problems. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2014 (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.

Wiki-star

Wiki-star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was originally blocked in July 2006. Since then, he has been harassing Zarbon by stalking him with multiple accounts, not only on the English Wikipedia but on the English Wikiquote, and in the past couple of months he has decided I am his new target, as is Kalki, when he began editing as Dragonron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In 2008, Zarbon created this list based on his experience with Wiki-star on both en.wp and en.wq. The history of his talk page locally and at Wikiquote is full of sockpuppet accounts and IPs that very obviously are him sending taunting messages to Zarbon.

In his actions towards me, he constantly informs users who I appear to be arguing with that I am not to be trusted ([114], [115], [116], [117]) and blindly reverts edits I have made ([118], [119]). And then there are just taunts he makes towards editors he is in disputes with ([120], [121]).

Due to the fact that this abuse has been going on for 8 years and he certainly shows no signs of stopping (I've attempted to contact his most recent ISP, but I've been informed that as it is a mobile internet service there may be no action taken), and no one in their right mind would even contemplate unblocking him, can we formally consider him banned such that any edits he makes can be reverted on sight?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Has anything been opened at WP:SPI about this? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There have been old checkusers done as well as a few recent SPI cases with his recent incarnation but it was only today that I found the connection between old and new accounts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

and what makes u think Dragonball1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is not behind the recient attacks?! OR maybe Zarbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) himself is doing this for all the attention?! One things for sure, Sesshomaru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) isnt the one responsible! Not, Recoome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) either — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkRave728 (talk • contribs)

New account Jesus! Im famous! posted at User talk:Zarbon trying to impersonate Kalki. Looks like more socking related to this thread. Ishdarian 10:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's something! highly doubt the troll-impersonator is related to this case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Well, that's something! (talk • contribs) 10:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And he's now disrupting this discussion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He also continues to harass X96lee15 but he will not allow his user talk page to be semiprotected, or apparently allow me to edit it, even if it's just a null edit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Obvious sock RangeRoverOver (talk · contribs) blocked. Acroterion (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Still have issues with X96lee15 restoring content by this user against the tenets of WP:BAN, and he still demands that his user talk not be protected despite the fact that the only activity it's gotten is because of Wiki-star/Dragonron and his socks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the only one that is harassing me is Ryulong. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I posted this same information on the English Wikiquote as I am trying to bring this to everyone's attention. I am very sick and tired of this person harassing me and following my contributions only to revert or vandalize much of my efforts. Additionally, this person attempts to impersonate my user name or generally pretend to come from my very inactive forum from about 7 years ago. This has been going on forever now, maybe over 10 years of pestering and gibberish and it's cross-wiki on all the sister projects. I have compiled a list of over 400 usernames attached to this person and apparently, this user has no intention of stopping. Any help halting this person's actions are greatly appreciated; please protect my talk page and the articles I contributed to and listed prior. If there is a way to track all IP's attached to this person; difficult as it may be, a permanent block is very useful. However, there is currently a discussion about this person and their multiple accounts on wikiquote and wikipedia and the attached information that may prove useful: Admin noticeboard for sock accounts. Any help halting this person's actions are greatly appreciated. - Zarbon (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User talk page protection

I have twice gone to WP:RFPP to request that X96lee15's user talk page be semi-protected because Wiki-star's socks keep going back to it and he has refused to allow anyone to remove posts from his user talk page. Both times I've made this request, he has gone to RFPP to ask me to withdraw the request, and an uninvolved editor has made a comment saying that regardless of the fact that I am the one being harassed by the sockpuppets, I have no right in requesting that another user's talk page be protected to prevent further disruption by a banned user. The first request was closed because there was not enough activity. The second time around it was closed because "policy [needs] to be examined". It's clear that Wiki-star has been de facto banned because he's been blocked since 2006 and no one in their right mind would perform an unblock. Now why is this protection so contentious?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Please name me as the "uninvolved editor", because I think I have a right to voice exactly why I'm making those statements. You've also misquoted me slightly, but crucially; my comment has been that you have no right to request the protection when it is evident said user does not want it. Recently, I can see that they have been moderating their talkpage, and reasonably well. It is exactly this response to the trolling that is what keeps this IP hopper coming back to attack you. The easiest thing to do is to take X96Lee15's talk page off your watch list, particularly as they've stated they want nothing more to do with you at the moment. Do that, and simply follow WP:DENY by ignoring any comments the IP makes; if they start coming to your talk page, or resume interfering with any of your edits, then you have a case for protecting those areas. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  If I'm the one being attacked why do I not have a say in what happens on the user talk page of someone who has had no activity on his talk page in the past month except due to this guy? And it's not IPs. It's sockpuppet accounts. I'm not allowed to request protection? I'm not allowed to remove the content per WP:BAN? He should be allowed to make a special archive just for the three comments that I have voiced my opinion on how they should not be kept? It's nonsense. The best way to apply WP:DENY is to prevent him from doing what he's been doing and that's editing the user talks of X96lee15 and Zarbon. It should not matter if one of them does not want their talk page semi-protected. It should be done to prevent disruption.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is really pointless, as even if we did protect the page, per protection policy, we would then create an unprotected subpage so that IP editors could still contact the editor... User talk page protection is to be used only for severe vandalism, and for short durations, and its clear that your not looking for a short duration protection. If this was an editor requesting protection of their own talk page, perhaps an admin would be willing to stretch the rule a bit to do a somewhat long protection, but I don't see that happening over the objection of the editor. Perhaps someone could craft an edit filter for you? Monty₈₄₅ 19:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well something needs to be done because X96lee15 doesn't have the ability to determine that he's talking to an obvious sock. No one has had any talk page contact with him outside of this circus since December 6, and the last IP that was unrelated to this case was in October. There is no loss if we semi-protect his talk page for a month.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Somebody asks me a question and I will answer it. I'm not concerned with who's a "sockpuppet" or not. I do not want my talk page protected; it doesn't matter how long it's been since someone left me a message. Actually, I'd love it if you would never edit it again. I don't want anything do to with you. I'm caught up in your drama for no reason.

Please take my talk page off your watch list. If you did that and ignored any change to it, then your problem would go away. I've shown that I will revert any obvious trolling or any references to you from my talk page. The conversation you reverted was an innocent one that made no mention of you at all. I don't understand why you're so focused on removing every edit your "enemy" makes. Take a step back and breathe. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not on my watchlist. I discover a new sockpuppet today and he goes to your talk page impersonating another user and I remove it based on that. It does not matter if the conversation is innocent or not. Per WP:BAN no comment left by Wiki-star aka Dragonron is allowed to be left on the English Wikipedia. He has been disrupting this project for several years and been harassing multiple users across multiple sister projects. He has had several of his accounts globally blocked because of this. The scope of this issue is beyond you or I.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, then for every user contribution that says "User talk:X96lee15", just ignore it. Do that, and your troll will stop posting on my talk page and I will be left out of this (which is all I want). — X96lee15 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Because per WP:BAN it has to be removed. There are so many solutions to this issue but it seems you will not allow any of them. You do not remove conversations from your talk page if they are by a banned editor's sockpuppet. You do not want me to remove the content. And you do not want your user talk page to be semi-protected, even if for let's say a week, such that a solution for this issue that does not require you can be found.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

All YOU have to do is ignore my talk page and this all goes away. YOU'RE the only one that cares. YOU'RE the only one this "dragonron" is bothering. YOU'RE the only one reverting their edits. YOU'RE "feeding the troll". They are only coming back to WP because YOU will not take a step back and not worry about controlling everything. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No. I am not this guy's only target. As you can see above, he has been harassing Zarbon since 2004. You and I are collateral damage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, you are clearly in the wrong here. Stop going to somone else's talk page and editing it against thier permission. The best real world example I can think of is if someone had a bulletin board posted in their house and you were offended by something somene else posted on that buliten board so you went into thier house and ripped it down. If I were X96lee15, I would probably try to have you blocked on WP:HARASS grounds. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed. I have asked Ryulong to stop, on X96's talk page. If they don't, they will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

My removals are allowed under WP:BAN. I should not be blocked for enforcing a Wikipedia policy just because it's on someone else's user talk page. I'm genuinely sorry that things have degenerated to the state they're in now, but I don't see how any of these options solves anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You might be enforcing a Wikipedia policy but I bet that X96lee15 can also find a policy that says you should not be editing their Talk Page. Moreover, I think that you should lighten up on being a Wikipedia policeman. If some editor is problematic, bring it up on their Talk Page or here on ANI, don't stalk them. Even if your point is right and they are a sock puppet, it borders on harassment and could backfire on you, Ryūlóng. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no policy that says that, Liz. But there is a policy that says

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Policy also says that a user gets to choose how they manage their talk page, and they've categorically told you that your presence is no longer welcome there. Continuing to follow their talkpage, and editing it/reverting edits on it could lead to you being blocked - so it's best not to let the troll keep goading you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I gave him an alternate option involving the use of an edit filter that would minimize my presence but he refused it because I would still possibly edit the page if the edit filter was bypassed. I think the policy to forbid a banned editor's edits is higher up on the scale of importance than talk page editing etiquette.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Goodness Ryulong, you're even more stubborn than I am. The crux of the matter is that if you stop feeding that troll on that talk page, it won't bother you there. Now, I'm not suggesting they'll go away altogether, because that's obviously fake, but they're quite likely to just stop editing X96lee's talkpage if you do. And if the page is not on your watchlist, unless you get Echo-pinged, you wouldn't know about it anyway! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I would eventually find out because I will have discovered some new sockpuppet account elsewhere on the project and I will see that that sockpuppet had edited X96lee15's user talk page. That's how I discovered pretty much every edit that was made to his talk page. I've only added it to my watchlist recently because of the ongoing discussion I'm having with him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong, per your link here, the admin said "so that the community can make a judgement.", it seems pretty clear to me that the community considers you wrong here. I would stop and try a different approach (or even better Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls) before someone gets annoyed at you for disruptive editing. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but that doesn't mean there can't be any alternate solutions that solve both our problems, particularly because he can't ID socks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverting talk page edits

Over the past two months, I've somehow been included as collateral damage in a talk page edit war with Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and various sockpuppets of Dragonron (I believe – there may be more than one user involved on that end). Initially, Ryulong and I had a disagreement on whether or not a reference should be included on an article ([122]).

When Ryulong would revert my change to the article, the sock would post to my page informing me of the revision. Typically I ignore talk page messages such as those, but I do not delete them because I'm a firm believer in anti-censorship. Ryulong would notice those posts on my page (I assume by looking at all the sock's contributions) and revert them. I took offense to those revisions per WP:TPO, specifically "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." I have clearly objected to Ryulong editing my talk page and have told him so (via edit comments and through talk pages) but he continues to revert the original posts ([123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130]).

Discussed compromises

We've discussed this on my talk page and cannot come to a compromise. Ryulong initially tried (twice) to get my talk page semi-protected (first, second) which I don't agree to because of my views on anti-censorship and the fact that any IP or new user wouldn't be able to contact me.

My original compromise was to regularly archive my talk page (typically I do it once per year) to remove the posts. This lets me keep my anti-censorship views and doesn't make Ryulong have to see any sock posts. In response to that, Ryulong blanked by archive page and put it up to a WP:MFD (currently ongoing).

Ryulong's compromise was to semi-protect my talk page based on an IP range. I disagreed to this because I don't want my talk page protected PLUS he said he will still edit my talk page if the sock gets through.

My compromise currently is for me to moderate my talk page to remove any posts that reference him from a confirmed sockpuppet if he promises to not revert my talk page anymore (he's welcome to post there on new/existing topics). As good-faith gestures, I've already remove posts that were obviously trolling ([131]).

Conclusion

I'm kind of stuck here. I don't want to be stuck in an edit war, especially since Ryulong is saying he is backed by WP:BAN, which says he can revert without regards to the 3RR. There's really nothing I can do. Through no fault of my own, I'm stuck in the middle of this which has taken more time than I thought. IMO, if Ryulong would stop with his reverting of socks then this problem would have ended itself months ago. He continues to feed the trolls by reverting my talk page continuously. There really isn't any reason to revert my talk page (a tiny corner of Wikipedia that <1% of the Internet sees) except for Ryulong to spite the sock.

Note: Pardon me for the format of this ANI, I'm not sure the best way to present things. I also tried to find a different avenue for this discussion, but DR and RFC don't seem to apply to talk pages.

An WP:IBAN seems appropriate here. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

An IBAN? That would solve nothing, because Ryulong believes that his crusade overrides everything. (Unless you simply mean a ban on Ryulong editing that talk page.) I've asked him to stop and warned him that further actions on X96 talk page would lead to a block--I haven't blocked him yet because X96 is a pretty friendly person who keeps continuing to discuss things with Ruylong. The proposal to (semi-)protect the talk page is a bunch of nonsense: that's up to X96, and there is no need for someone's talk page to be protected just to satisfy Ryulong's desire to prevent one little troll from posting--unless this is what X96 wants. Well, X96 doesn't want it. So, as far as I'm concerned, Ryulong simply needs to stay the hell away from that talk page and let others deal with it. I could say more, more about what this persistent badgering of X96 says about Ryulong, and how all that crusading against a little dragon just feeds the troll, but I think this is pretty clear. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not policy supports Ryulong here or not his actions in this case have been totally inappropriate and very combative. Rather than continuing to do something they knew to be seriously irritating another user they should have stopped doing it and discussed it and if unable to reach an agreement sought an outside opinion on whether their actions were justified especially as the harm caused by leaving the edits is at most very minor. I strongly suggest Ryulong refrain from making any similar edits until a way forward is found else they are likely to find themselves blocked for disruption. Dpmuk (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Procedural comment I don't believe this should have been moved under an existing ANI. I took great care to explain the issue to ensure it stood on its own. I do not feel this ANI is related to any existing ANI. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, this is related to an existing thread on this page and I've moved it accordingly. It cannot stand on its own because there's already been discussion about this issue.

Second, this is not censorship. My removals are in line with WP:BAN, rather than WP:TPO. I suggested semi-protection. X96lee15 refuses. I suggest an edit filter. X96lee15 refuses because I mention that if the filter is ever bypassed I will revert the content added. He simply wants me to never edit his talk page again but Wiki-star/Dragonron keeps registering new accounts and X96lee15 keeps humoring him by responding. No one is dealing with the edits but me. It's unfortunate that X96lee15 and I got off on the wrong foot because of this user, but things should not have been exacerbated to this extent. Am I seriously expected that when I find a new sockpuppet of the banned user that I just ignore whatever he's done on X96lee15's user talk because of this souring? That's just ridiculous. In the past two months no one has edited X96lee15's talk page except for myself, Drmies, and the dozen or so sockpuppet accounts and IPs. And Dpmuk, the only way forward that X96lee15 has stated that he will accept is if I never go to his user talk again and essentially allow him to hold discussions with a banned user.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The main reason I'd like to keep this separate is that it's my goal to have this resolved as soon as possible. I'd rather not wait for the other aspects of this to be resolved before this can be resolved (although I don't know if that's necessarily the case). BUT moving this thread is another example of Ryulong changing things to fit the way he thinks things should be. In reality, there is no reason for my original ANI to be moved. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a related matter because it's all due to Wiki-star/Dragonron. And you don't call these things "ANIs". This whole page is WP:ANI. You made a new thread on WP:ANI.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Ryulong, Drmies is right and you should stop reverting on that talk page. Reverting edits of banned users is generally acceptable, but reverting any sort of edits is never mandatory except for specific types of BLP vios and I guess copyvios. And while people theoretically don't WP:OWN user/usertalk pages, they do get quite a bit of deference about them in practice nowadays, enough that if X96 says you should stop reverting there, then you should. Absolutism about anything on Wikipedia is generally unhelpful. X96 also doesn't appear to be "holding discussions" with the user (which when it comes down to it, they could do by email without your ever knowing, if that was what was really going on). The edits themselves look like low level nonsense and griping, not likely to provoke serious drama just by their content, and the page is of relatively low visibility (except for the temporary increased attention due to your setting off this ANI), so if the edits stay on the page, whoop de do. There are far more worthwhile things to worry about. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:Banning policy states "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." While it does go onto say "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." There has not been one message left on X96lee15's talk page that has fallen under this "obviously helpful changes" category and there is no exception made for comments left on user talk pages. And X96lee15 is indeed conversing with the editor ([132], [133]). He does not realize that this is the banned editor, but at this point he should expect that any brand new account or IP that comes to his page is a sockpuppet, particularly if the IP is in the same range as every one before it. He may want to assume good faith, but when it comes to someone who has apparently been harassing one of our users for 8 years there's no real good faith to have anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And still you need to leave that talk page alone, whether you like it or not. You are seriously getting on X96's nerves (that seems obvious to me, anyway), and that's a kind of harassment. No one is being harassed by X96 leaving those messages on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Half of them were to attack me. And we are supposed to collectively ignore policy and allow a banned user to edit simply because the act of removing those comments bothers a peripheral user? That's ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've said (and have) I will revert any talk page comment that references you on my talk page. I don't believe any of the talk page comments "attacked" you either (although I admit "attack" is a subjective term). — X96lee15 (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment FWIW, Ryulong continues to revert changes to my talk page ([134]), even while this discussion is going on. A WP:IBAN is the only thing that will keep him from reverting my talk page, I believe. Although I have my doubts even that will stop this behavior. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-star/Dragonron is not allowed on this website anymore. Why do you have such a problem with me enforcing WP:BAN on your user talk page? Why do you have a problem with measures I have proposed to stop it? For fucks sake, that IP was already blocked a week ago and I bet you actually believe that it's his schoolmates making him look bad. He's been at this for 8 years and everything that's been done in the past hasn't stopped him then and I doubt me being forbidden from editing your user talk page is going to stop him now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The only thing keeping him posting to my talk page is you reverting it every time. And please stop swearing during your arguments. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

He was doing that long before we identified him as a banned user's sock and before I removed the text.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's policy appropriate is irrelevant. X96 has asked asked you multiple times to stay off his talkpage and you should honor his request. KonveyorBelt 23:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Ryulong for 24 hours for continuing to revert on X96lee15's user talk despite several editors advising him here that he was going about this the wrong way and at least two admins advising him here that he was heading for a block for disruption if he continued to revert. Regardless of the right and wrong of the underlying situation - and what ever consensus develops here on that - to continue to do so after such advice is clearly disruptive.

On the issue of the underlying problem I note that policies, with the exception of a couple of legal or WMF mandated policies, are meant to reflect underlying community consensus. Given the discussion above it seems that consensus may not support Ryulong in their actions. Their interpretation of the policy was reasonable to begin with but having seen the above they should have been aware that the community may not support them and so relying on the policy was not within the spirit of our policies. The policy may need changing, or this may be considered a one of case of IAR, but Ryulong should not carry on reverting in such a situation based on their interpretation of policy. Dpmuk (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Policy is fine. An 8 year Wikipedia should understand the consensus model of operation. NE Ent 00:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ryulong is correct: WP:DENY is the only remedy against long-term abuse. What should happen is that people put their energy into explaining how DENY helps the encyclopedia to X96lee15, and any blocks should be for WP:POINT violations that encourage the banned user to keep going—the excitement that user has generated from the recent back-and-forth has given them momentum to continue for another few months, and they now know that if they ever get bored they can post at User talk:X96lee15 to poke anyone who cares about the effect of long term abusers. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Right principle, wrong conclusion. Totally ignoring edits, that is, not reverting them, is greater denial than reverting. Note the focus of WP:DENY is implicitly mainspace; if I user wants to deal with ban evading trolls by not reverting them on their user talk page that's greater denial than playing whack-a-mole reverting. NE Ent 02:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• But X96lee15 is doing the opposite of ignoring the edits—X96lee15 is choosing to revert the good editor while restoring the banned user, a classic WP:POINT problem. Ryulong may have overdone it because if X96lee15 did not understand the first time, they are unlikely to understand the second time, but the actual problem is that someone believes their talk page is sacrosanct and the owner can choose to provide a safe haven for banned users if they want. Wikipedia is not a place to promote even worthy campaigns such as anti-censorship. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This entire issue was caused by Ryulong. His reverting of the sock's edits on my talk page caused the sock to come by more often. Had he never reverted the sock, the sock would never continue posting, as I never responded to any of the posts. Once Ryulong got involved, I was seeing a "you have messages" notification every time I logged in. I'd have to look at my talk page history to see what in the world was going on. It was very annoying to myself. My only recourse at the time was revert him or that would have gone on forever, since Ryulong is hell-bent on reverting and banning every sock post within minutes of a post. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I was being affected. When you say Ryulong is the "good editor" and the sock is the "bad", I'm not so sure it's that black and white.

Had Ryulong heeded my initial request to let me moderate my talk page, the sock would have stopped posting because they were not getting a response from me. HE'S the one that was misapplying WP:DENY. I'm not trying to provide a safe-haven for trolls. I'm trying to edit Wikipedia without getting into all this drama. Only when Ryulong got involved did this situation escalate. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, it had to happen--disagreement. IMO, Ryulong's overzealous actions have the opposite effect that DENY aims for. Here we are at ANI, disagreeing over a couple of talk page messages, while we're trying to figure out, possibly, what weighs more heavily, policy or another policy. I don't really think X96 thinks their own talk page is sacrosanct, but given Ryulong's rather obnoxious behavior is enough to make anything they want to mess with sacrosanct. I do agree that "anti-censorship" is overreaching, but hey, I've also had the occasional contact with blocked/banned socks though, admittedly, they were of a slightly different caliber. But if Ryulong had just said "sure" a day or two ago, all of this would not have gotten top billing on the top dramahboard. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• We don't disagree as much as you might think because I participated in another case, much more difficult than this, where a good editor ran off the rails pursuing a banned editor with frequent reverts and sockpuppet tagging. I strongly advised that his involvement was exciting the banned user, and should stop.

  In this case, X96lee15 has explained the central issue: "I do not delete them because I'm a firm believer in anti-censorship" (diff). It's fine for people here to tell Ryulong to stop, but X96lee15 needs to be told that no page is owned or controlled by any user, and no page is available for the pursuit of noble causes, such as welcoming banned users in the name of anti-censorship. Ryulong is not taking advice, but X96lee15 has not been given any accurate advice that I can see. The first time that X96lee15 restored the banned user's comment was on 9 December 2013 (diff)—that set the tone for what followed because a completely useless comment attacking Ryulong was restored for no reason other than "Shouldn't remove user's talk page edits". An admin should semiprotect X96lee15's talk for a month and unblock Ryulong on condition that they leave X96lee15's talk alone. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I understand that I do not own my talk page. I think I have a pretty good grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (I've definitely read them much more this past week due to this issue). And I also know that had an admin or consensus told me to stop reverting Ryulong I would have. That's the difference between Ryulong and myself. In fact, I did stop reverting his reverts the past few days because I knew that tact wasn't working and Ryulong would not be stopped. Everything I did, I did in order to get my involvement in this situation to stop. Maybe "pursuit of anti-censorship" was a bit of hyperbole on my part...lol.

And for the record, I still disagree with semi-protection for my talk page. Censorship aside, I received messages from an IP and a new user yesterday that would not have been able to be posted concerning a potential BLP issue. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• The block is ok on general disruption and POINT grounds independently of the underlying issue with the edits and X96's possibly unwise restorations. Drmies's take on the talk page's sarcrosanctness is again astute. Talk pages aren't sarcrosanct and Johnuniq's points are well taken, but Ryulong's right to edit war on someone else's talk page isn't sarcrosanct either. I think the current situation (including the block, and the presence of some unreverted Wiki-star edits on X96's usertalk) reflects some reasonable judgment calls.

  I'm also uncomfortable with Ryulong's contacting Wiki-star's ISP about Wiki-star.[135] While that approach is sometimes legitimate for dealing with long-term or very serious abuse, Ryulong should not be the one doing it, as it's in some tension with (though maybe not directly violating) the spirit of his arbcom restriction against seeking users' real-life identities.[136] He also seems too WP:INVOLVED to be doing such actions in this particular case regardless. I'm not versed on current WP practices for that type of intervention but because of the hazard it creates for spreading battles off-wiki, my first reaction is it should probably be reserved for checkusers (maybe with some formal process, plus CU'ing for more socks) and/or the WMF. I'm fine with Ryulong suggesting such measures to others, but doing them himself doesn't seem wise.

  Admins and CU's might want to block the different known Wiki-star socks that have been active recently, if any are still loose.50.0.121.102 (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this but I agree with User:NE Ent, "Totally ignoring edits, that is, not reverting them ..." User:Ryulong has been feeding the troll exactly what it wants, attention, whereas as far as I can tell USer:X96lee15 was WP:AGF but once he realised what was happening took a more standofish approach (which I think is more valuble). Policy issues aside ignoring a troll or at least treating it like a new user is much better than trying to stop all of their actions in user space(WP:IMHO). CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So what? My block now sets an example that "Oh, if I piss off this editor, and I happen to be banned for several years, I should just post on someone else's talk page and hope that the first person gets blocked because they get on this neutral person's nerves". If material is removed because it is written by a banned editor, restoring it is proxying for that editor. We remove content in that fashion from this page all the time. In fact, there were instances of it on this page while I was blocked. I should heed a user's request to not edit his or her talk page, but at the same time if it's a banned editor who's been at this nonsense for 8 years should we allow him to be humored? Aside from the one IP editor/new user that approached X96lee15 in the past couple of days, there has been nothing but this banned user posting to his talk page and me reverting that editor, and X96lee15 reverting me. If this hadn't happened, then there would have been zero edits to his talk page between December 6 and February 5. I know X96lee15 is tired of me and I'm tired of having to clean up after Wiki-star. Someone helped code up an WP:edit filter for me and it's ready to be deployed, and it should block just Wiki-star from posting on several places on the project, not limited to X96lee15's user talk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your block should have set the example of how much you can get on the community's nerves before you get blocked. I mean, cheese, H, and rice, look at your name all over this page. Don't you ever stop? Your dramatics are funny to only one person--that dope you keep trying to revert, who's probably pissing in his panties watching you remonstrate here again and again and again. Let's hope someone sets up that filter, let's hope CensoredScribe finds better things to do, let's hope that all this gets closed up and boxed up and thrown into an archive. TLDNR and GMAFH. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That's because I started the two of them and I was highly involved with them. And all I need is someone to say "I'l make the filter" and I can give them the code I have, but we really need to stop CensoredScribe from making more categories. He means well, but holy cow is he ever wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, one way to look at it is that you yourself are also a banned editor, not from the whole site but just from X96lee15's talk page. So what happens if banned user A makes an edit, and banned user B reverts A's edit under WP:BAN? If you undo B's revert, you've let A's edit stand; but if you don't, you've let B's edit stand, an infinite regress. A completely inflexible "revert all banned edits" approach might even result in the whole site melting down, like the computers on Star Trek used to do when presented with illogical propositions. Here, instead of inflexible rules, there is human judgment to apply, with various people weighing in on the particulars.

In this case, based on a balancing of factors involving the content of the edits, the nature of the targeted page, the wishes of the user (X96lee15) associated with the page, the hassles caused by editor B's conduct, and the remedies (blocking) already being taken against editor A, a reasonable discussion resulted in action taken against editor B, and some of A's edits were left standing. I'd urge you to accept the outcome: you should stop editing X96lee15's talk page, and leave dealing with it to X96lee15. I'm sure that if serious disruption results from sock activity there and X96lee15 doesn't do anything about it, then others will intervene. For now, the issues don't seem to rise to that level and X96lee15's DNFTT approach is is a reasonable use of discretion. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Malfunctioning bot

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.

---

Resolved

Legobot is going bonkers, removing and re-adding a single GAN like clockwork every ten minutes since 9 this morning. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem appears to be at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. See also User talk:Legobot#Odd edits. Johnuniq (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So basically this happens whenever someone screws up the {{GA}} template. It can be easily fixed by fixing the template, like was done here. Legoktm (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Can someone link to where this got fixed? I'm not seeing what's preventing the bot from continuing to go, but it seems to have stopped. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

[137]. Legoktm (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2014 (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.

Ryulong's attempted cover-up of his edit warring reported by AKB48 fans

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.

---

Dear admins, Ryulong is edit warring at AKB48. Well he or she has been asked to stop many times by many users and refuses to and wants to do as he likes in everything and continues under false pretenses and annoys good people. Don't believe him. He will say he wants to improve the page, but he just reorders the list of AKB48 members over and over again. An online friend of mine who is a fan of AKB48 reported him for 3RR yesterday, but Ryulong deleted the request and blocked my friend in an attempt to cover up his actions and avoid a block. Ryulong must not be allowed to do that even though he is an admin of Wikipedia.

Yet again he raped the page and began on a new one.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:AKB48&diff=prev&oldid=593629968

Diffs of the cover-up:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=593626142

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=593627122

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&diff=593625760&oldid=593625729

Read yesterday's report at 3RR (cut and pasted for your convenience).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1 January

• 15:15 reorders personnel, deletes tables of personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=588668935&oldid=588657986

5 January

• 10:49 revert - reorders personnel, deletes tables of personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=589272563&oldid=589267624

13 January

• 11:31 revert - reorders personnel, deletes tables of personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=590495040&oldid=590488314
• 12:52 revert - reorders personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=590502324&oldid=590499058
• 19:50 revert - reorders personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=590550438&oldid=590549525

14 January

• 03:58 revert - reorders personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=590613944&oldid=590570070
• 16:54 revert - reorders personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=590664910&oldid=590664781

30 January

• 16:00 reorders sections https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=593132184&oldid=593104617
• 20:35 revert - reorders sections https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=593171255&oldid=593170355
• 21:15 revert - reorders sections https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=593176942&oldid=593175589

31 January

• 06:49 revert - reorders sections https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=593241445&oldid=593240455
• 06:55 revert - reorders sections, reorders personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=593241998&oldid=593241846
• 07:01 revert - reorders personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=593242553&oldid=593242348
• 07:57 revert - reorders sections https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=593247356&oldid=593247160
• 08:35 revert - reorders sections https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=593250043&oldid=593249914
• 08:55 deletes tables of personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=593251399&oldid=593250709
• 14:55 revert - deletes tables of personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=593283858&oldid=593282027
• 23:56 again reorders personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=593359989&oldid=593354857

1 February

• 18:22 revert - reorders personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AKB48&diff=593461375&oldid=593413816

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&oldid=593249962

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AKB48#Member_list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AKB48#History_section

3RR on 13-14 January and 30-31 January. Ryulong's last edit war block was in December for 14 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miichan110 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

congrats on finding ANI on your first ever edit :-) DP 01:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Fairly easy actually. Just navigate our way through some 500 project pages and swim across a river of rabid admins. It is also interesting this user knew how to present diffs and know such policies as 3RR. KonveyorBelt 01:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. MercenaryHoplite (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Three steps NE Ent 10:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting, how this report has exactly the same structure as ANEW reports. Epicgenius (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That's because this looks to be word for word what Beautyfrisco (talk · contribs) posted to WP:AN3 the other day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• User:Dr.K., what's the name of that sock that keeps trying to keep those horrible K-pop article looking like fan pages? Drmies (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• There are a couple but I'm not sure which one fits best, if at all, in this case. Ryanjay1996 is not very talkative so I don't think it's him. It could be Vgleer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but it's hard to say from a single edit. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a fan of R right now but I can't take seriously someone who throws around "rape" so casually. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The only two editors in conflict with Ryulong at the article are Rka001 (talk · contribs) and Moscow Connection (talk · contribs). Rka001 is effectively a single-purpose account for that band, but other than potential OWN issues here not obviously abusive. Moscow Connection seems to have a broader base of interest. I am going to file a SPI to try and clear up if the editor who filed this is associated with either of the above or any other known troublemakers in the band article space. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

MoscowConnection's edits are, from my point of view, problematic enough (K-pop fan talk), but I have never seen them resort to sneaky tactics. An SPI is very welcome, but if we really want to tackle the ____ that is K-pop coverage on Wikipedia you'll need a meat grinder (rather than a sock detector) the size of, well, something big. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Rka001 is the only editor who referred to my actions on attempting to bring AKB48 up to standards as "rape" when it was removing a trivial table and re-ordering a couple of sections. I hope the SPI brings something up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:28, 4 February 2014 (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:Ram Charitra Dwivedi

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:Ram Charitra Dwivedi account has existed for two days. Of the 5 total edits that it has made, 4 were vandalism (two large scale) including [138]and the 5th was creating a user subpage which the Wikipedia software has put a warning on which I don't understand but which seems to say has malicious code. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, just want to say I know what that page is. User:Ram Charitra Dwivedi/EditCounterOptIn.js is that user opting in to the monthly edit count for the edit count tool at labs. I have one of these pages too. They can be created with any text, and creating it causes the month count bars to appear here. The warning was just added because there's Javascript on the page. So not malicious in and of itself, though the user's other edits are still problematic. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! So that that dials the concern a level back. That's still 4 of 4 edits outside of their user space being vandalism. "No action" would be fine but I wanted to do due diligence given that I don't plan to watch their activities after my review. They just happened to vandalize a page (Computer vision) that I edit and watch. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

They are now blocked for creating spam pages. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:23, 5 February 2014 (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.

Disruptive editing by User:AH999

Over the past couple of months, AH999 has been causing problems throughout the encyclopedia and has ignored repeated warnings to the contrary. This user first came to my attention through WP:SPER after having placed edit request templates on multiple non-protected pages. While that's a common mistake I've seen from new users, the behavior has continued despite repeated advice and warnings. In addition, this user has repeatedly attempted to create autobiographical and self-promotional articles (directly in mainspace, through AFC, and misplaced within a Wikiproject - see the numerous speedy tags throughout their talk page). A summary of some of the other issues that this user has caused and have had to be corrected can be found at User talk:AH999#Vandalism warning here (courtesy of User:Redrose64). More warnings from editors like me aren't going to do any good here. (Especially when this user's only two edits to their own talk page have been [139] and [140].) --ElHef (Meep?) 01:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Odd, I see some good edits mixed in with some subtle, unglamorous vandalism. Lots of WP: PROMO and WP: AUTOBIO, and their talkpage is a perfect example of WP: IDHT. Nevertheless, they seem like a net negative. MercenaryHoplite (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Concur with the above. User has been given numerous friendly, explanatory, warnings and guidance, as well as standard templates, but continued to add semi-protection templates e.g. this edit after 4 warnings on his Talk page and this one on his User page, as he doesn't seem to read his talk page. Tends to edit intermittently so any sanction would need to be about a week to ensure it is even noticed. - Arjayay (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a need for a WP:CLUE block. Also, they've posted up birthdates of themselves and their partner in "business". Unless that was explicitly permitted by the other part, that should be revdelled. Blackmane (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Personalizing by User:Heracletus

User:Heracletus has been providing a running commentary of his opinion of me as a person for over a year now ([141], [142]). I've requested that the user refrain from personalizing disputes and focus on the content many times ([143]), but that just seems to encourage the user. I try to be friendly and deal with the user in a professional manner, even when the user is condescending (ie the first paragraph here), but it's quite difficult when they invariably descend into these PA. It has gotten to the point were the user has recently suggested that I am "sick" (3 times!) and a "diva" due to a content dispute on Talk:European Fiscal Compact. I attempted to hat the personal attacks as per WP:RPA, but Heracletus reverted claiming it was "vandalism".

Note that the entire premise of the user's argument that I am attempting to "provoke [Heracletus] into repeating my position time after time" is quite ridiculous. Recently on the very same page I've more than once agreed with the user. User:L.tak shares my opinion on the content dispute, as do all the available sources. (Basically the dispute comes down to WP:NOR. Heracletus rejects the policy and criticizes me whenever I cite it. Heracletus' has come up with an alternative and dubious interpretation of the WP:PRIMARY source treaty text and claims that the official depositary source (who's professional responsibility includes interpreting treaties) is "failing" when they interpret it differently.)

This issue isn't restricted to me. See for example: "retarded", "vandalism", "get some common sense", "expert in illiteracy and bad spelling". Would some kind admin please hat the PA (feel free to hat any of my comments that may have crossed the line) and explain to Heracletus why suggesting that other good faith users are "sick" is not appropriate? TDL (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, other than WP:RFC/U territory, is there a RECENT one that would lead us to the conclusion that immediate protection is needed? DP 09:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I've got a better idea: TDL can knock off their own personalizing of the argument e.g. when one doesn't have an intelligent argument to make. "trolling". The talk page is whole bunch of content discussion mixed in with mudslinging between TDL & Heracletus (kudos to L.tak for staying on topic in the midst of all that). If you can't come to argreement on the content, try some of the content dispute resolution resources (e.g. WP:DRN). NE Ent 11:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@DP: One recent comments is "Again, you act the same. It's sick." Protection isn't necessary, I'm simply requesting that any personal attacks (including any that I'm deemed to have made) be removed to refocus the discussion, because when I attempted this I was reverted.

@NE Ent: Yes, I've suggested DR several times now. I certainly could have responded better to being called names, (and if you click some of the historic examples linked above you'll see that I've been ignoring the user's commentary for over a year) but that's why I hatted my own comments as well as those by Heracletus. And I'm not sure that stating that ad hominems are the "standard fallback when one doesn't have an intelligent argument to make" is quite the same as suggesting that someone has mental health issues. The former is a comment on the merits, or lack there of, of an argument, while the latter crosses the line into purely an attack of me as a person. TDL (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how calling someone's behaviour "sick" as being a personal attack? DP 20:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, where should one start? If any one wants to be serious, he/she would have to take a look at TDL's, mine, L.tak's and Danish Expert's contributions for over a year to really address the whole situation and what has happened exactly. There, one would find accusations of stalking, TDL accusing Danish Expert of original research, mentioning quite a few other wikipedia policies, then opening an AN/I on him, and more recently, TDL mentioning that my opinion is original research, mentioning another 1-2 wikipedia policies and opening an AN/I on me.

Apart from all this, this user claims to have been friendly, by thanking me for something L.tak asked me to do, i.e. fix the bare references on some EU treaties articles as I posted most of them, whereas in the recent -recent for him apparenty by his first comment here- past he had accused me of stalking him, because I intervened in some of his many debates -in again these EU-related articles- with Danish Expert and although I disagreed with Danish Expert, didn't take his side on how Danish Expert is posting original research and needs to get a mentor (at least at first). Then, he proceeded to actually stalk me, after looking up even my block log.

It is however not the only claim he has made: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AL.tak&diff=593993280&oldid=593968317

He apparently opened this AN/I to "try and make [me] calm down a bit". As far as I can tell, opening an AN/I on someone is not a friendly action or something that will not invoke bad feelings.

This user also states that he finds this paragraph:

"The reference data would be the same for all countries, though. I mean the reference values in the criteria. So, the reference values in Template:Euro convergence criteria (2013) should be the same as the ones in the general template... I mean, the reference values, i.e. criteria are the same for everyone, even if it was only checked if Latvia fulfills them. I think this is obvious."

patronising, condescending, even though my comment on whether this statement was obvious or not was not disputing what he had written or was disputed by him later on...

He also somehow kept being unable to understand my points on our last discussion here: Talk:European_Fiscal_Compact#Bulgaria, even though he accused me of writing walls of text, by writing: "PS: if you'd like to shorten debates I'd suggest looking in the mirror. You've generated more posts and almost twice the kb that everyone else in the discussion has combined. Epic walls of text don't help move the discussion along." He didn't merely disagree with my point, but went on to state: "So your interpretation is still not logically possible. I can't believe this has descended into a logic101 lesson..." and "That is inconsistent with Heracletus' interpretation and obviously doesn't make any sense.", which made me repeat and try to define better my position.

This user wrote more recently: "And I certainly was never "acting as you didn't understand my arguments". I understood your argument perfectly well from the very start, but your interpretation is illogical. You've repeatedly (whether intentionally or not) not comprehended what I've said."

I guess calling my interpretation illogical is not personal, it's just an objective comment.

Furthermore, he kept debating and saying these things, while he intended to open an AN/I on me, as can be clearly seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEuropean_Fiscal_Compact&diff=593991470&oldid=593962056 . He first debates what I wrote and then writes:

"As for the rest of your nonsense, keep an eye on ANI." I do understand this is not personal, he's just disengaging and after having the final word, he opens an AN/I. Then, of course, he wonders why I tell him he keeps doing the same thing (i.e. pretending he doesn't understand my point, by having written " If we write the article as [(all the provisions of Title III OR part of the provisions of Title III) AND (all the provisions of Title IV OR part of the provisions of Title IV)] the statement would be true if a state declared any PART of III AND PART of IV (ie Article 3 and Article 9), and hence the entire treaty (including the undeclared parts of Title III and Title IV) would necessarily apply. That is inconsistent with Heracletus' interpretation and obviously doesn't make any sense.",

even though I had explained just above "Obviously by opting in to certain articles in certain Titles, the rest of the articles in those Titles do not apply to this party. (Which is my reasoning as to why while the whole other treaty would apply, these articles, of these specific Titles, to which the state has not opted in wouldn't apply.)"

That of course is done despite having indicated I find the whole issue moot and that I do not wish to engage in further discussion with him and of course having indicated I don't want to feed the diva. But, why do I call him diva? Let's see, from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_feed_the_divas#Spotting_divas.

Argumentative in petty disputes

There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to bully their way over "inferior" editors with a panache that befits their status as a diva.

Rudeness to the helpers

Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely uncivil to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.

An entourage

A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally "the best" editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it.

Long memory

Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly. (also known as "User:Heracletus has been providing a running commentary of his opinion of me as a person for over a year now" and then includes the "bad boys" comment and completely "forgets" there's an apology below.)

Hypocrisy

A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: edit-warring, assuming bad faith, disruptive editing, battling, harassment, making personal attacks, or owning things. Only their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute. (TDL and hypocrisy?? No... Just, he writes "I've requested that the user refrain from personalizing disputes and focus on the content many times" and links to this: ([144]), where one may read "And I often wonder if you have ever managed to debate anything on wikipedia with personalizing and attacking." and then, in the same post in a completely objective and impersonal tone, always focusing on the content, "I understand you don't like hearing such criticism, but the solution is to either back up your arguments with reliable sources rather than personal opinions or go write a blog." and " Yes it can be frustrating to be involved in content disputes, but it is quite childish to resort to personalizing disputes just because people disagree with you.". Of course, then, he proceeds: " Back to the content:").

The same unprovocative friendly user commented that my opinion, on the wrinkles he wanted some input on (original: "So there are a couple wrinkles with Bulgaria's ratification that I'd like some input on:") is original research, even though he knows only too well that:

A. He is the one who first questioned the depositary in the very first post ("Could this be an error, as the declaration doesn't mention anything about applying the full treaty from 1 Jan 2014?")

B. That his position about provisional application is also unsourced.

C. That there is no source, other than the primary one, the depositary.

When I confronted him over the term original search, he just completely naturally started stating more wikipedia policies... Suddenly I was too personal and this was not a forum... The same person who questioned the depositary and asked for input, then, wrote this: "Perhaps you're right and I'm wrong, but I have read it over and over again and I just can't see how a reasonable person would interpret the text the way that you do. Even if you are correct, we still must follow what sources say (WP:VNT). Even if the depository is wrong, we still need to report what the depository says because the depository is reliable while you and I are not." Contradiction? Not when it is about stating that every input given (after he asked for it) is original research.

When I confronted him for stating more wikipedia policies and acting in the same fashion (as with Danish Expert, for example), we got into ad hominems and mirrors...

Of course, this contradiction and hypocrisy backed with what he has written is not personal or provocative. In the same fashion that opening an AN/I on some user is not an act against him or his actions. He after all stated that protection is not necessary AFTER the administrators didn't take any measures against me. Should I say I'm deeply moved by this?

Should I mention his hatting the section with the title of trolling? And, then, when confronted about this on his talk page, he turns to AN/I... and he states that he has agreed with me. As if I had accused him of acting when we agree as he does when we don't agree. Then, he accuses me of not accepting WP:OR, while I have always criticised HIS use of wikipedia policies, which usually belongs to this category:

Rudeness to the helpers

Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely uncivil to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.

because he just starts stating wikipedia policies in an attempt to suppress the opposite opinion as going against the rules. When this does not happen, the "less valuable members of the community" (per the essay) find themselves in AN/I. One needs to only search the archives to see this. And my issue is this, yes, a lot of users fail to follow wikipedia's rules, but, it's about the content, the quality of the content, it's not about the rules and just burying the editors into rules.

When someone asks for input and receives a personal opinion based on some arguments, this is not just OR and should not just be dismissed, especially by the same person who questioned the source and started the discussion. I never imposed my opinion on the article without consensus or said we should not follow the sources. But, for this very reason, I hate to be told by the person originally questioning the source and asking for input, that my input is OR. It's input for discussion. If this person wanted sources, he could provide them himself or ask for them. On the contrary, we were having a quite theoretical discussion, on which, even though his writings prove otherwise, he claims no provocation.

In the end, he uses a source I found and posted on the neutral entity of this discussion, L.tak's talk page, even though it invalidates my own argument, to continue the debate and provocation, by writing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEuropean_Fiscal_Compact&diff=593991470&oldid=593962056 .

Even though L.tak himself found that the new source follows the primary source, the depositary, and even though, I replied to L.tak that I was willing to accept it, despite this, TDL, used the depositary he had questioned in his very first post to initiate this discussion and the source I provided myself to state: "I provided a source (the depositary). Another source that is "dependent on written and/or electronic notifications supplied by the depositaries" doesn't change anything." Furthermore, sources are but a means to his ways, as clearly indicated in the score keeping attitude here: "We're at 1-2 sources for my interpretation, and 0 for yours, hence why I asked for a source." This very attitude proves my point on "Rudeness to the helpers".

All these are reasons why I wrote to him that I find his attitude sick.

Furthermore, based on what I have written, I believe that TDL is gaming the system. It is clear from his post that he intented to open this AN/I and yet, he kept posting in a provocative manner.

Finally, I feel I should address my stated incivility, even though, it considers completely irrelevant issues (apart from L.tak and retarded) and on which TDL had no involvement.

"Retarded" was referring to the format L.tak used to phrase that FAQ number 4 which states that the new source just follows verbatim the depositary, and is probably a really bad expression. "Completely unhelpful way of formatting" would have been a better one. If only all this hadn't happened, I would have probably used something milder.

"vandalism" was "vandalism", as L.tak had removed sources and changed the results of two votes, although by accident as he wrote. However, his edit summary read "spec on consent" which can be read as speculation on consent... He meant specification, probably.

"get some common sense" was about indeed getting some common sense and stop removing a vote's date, as it had been scheduled for that date. and well the German parliament keeps its schedule.

"expert in illiteracy and bad spelling" was when Figureskating after having reverted me twice wrote on my page "Heracletus, I understand that you're a Greek-language expert", which I never claimed myself and which of course I perceived as ironic... I think I pretty much explained this to her, as she also explained to me she didn't mean it that way.

Is there some term for users who keep constant track of even your edit summaries and log them (even when they read "get some common sense") to use them against you on an (irrelevant) AN/I? Isn't this wikistalking? Personally, I have already stated how I find it...

For example, my account is on the line here, and I still cannot be bothered to go through a year's discussions to identify exactly the order of what had happened. I like editing wikipedia on my free time. I like it. I also state my opinion on things I find interesting (sometimes, in a too open or uncivil way). However, I do not accuse people of not following the rules when we disagree and I also don't open AN/I's. This is why I ever got blocked by a certain administrator acting proactively... Even so, TDL has also felt free to use my having been blocked 6 years ago as an argument against me in the past... Heracletus (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Heracletus, all I want is for you to stop badgering with your personal opinions of me every time we get into a content dispute. I get it, you don't think very highly of me. You've made that point loud and clear, no need to repeat it because I really don't care what you think, and reiterating your narrative ad nauseum is neither going to make it true nor make me care. Trust me, I could make a very compelling case for you fitting the definition of WP:DIVA (starting with the hypocrisy of accusing another of being a diva when it was you who initiated this petty dispute by rudely attacking me due to your long memory of a year old grudge (I don't recall even mention NOR to you since last summer)) but aside from trying to score cheap WP:BATTLE points, what exactly is it that you're trying to accomplish with such an accusation?

I've asked you numerous times to stop personalizing things because it's unhelpful to building an encyclopedia and it just drives our discussions off a cliff, but as that hasn't worked I couldn't think of any other options than ANI. I fully admit that I often retaliate when you personalize things and have contributed to the escalation, but almost invariably it is you who initiates. The comment that caused the latest dispute was "I really do wonder if you have ever managed to debate anything on wikipedia without accusing the other person (and yourself) of original research." Prior to that, I was under the impression that, though we weren't agreeing on everything, we were having an amicable conversation. I hadn't said anything even mildly uncivil. Sure I should have just ignored this shot, but when the same sort of crap comes from the same person repeatedly, seemingly without any sort of provocation, and in spite of requests to stop, at some point a reaction is inevitable.

It seems based on your post above that "I don't see much benefit in continuing a conversation on our personal interpretations of the treaty, as this has ventured well into the realm of WP:OR" is what upset you. For the life of me I can't understand what it is about this that could possibly have set you off to the point of taking a personal shot at me. Can you explain what it was about this particular statement that upset you, so I can try to avoid it in the future? I certainly wasn't suggesting that your opinion was unimportant or trying dismiss or suppress your view, just that it's a waste of both of our time to debate things that can't impact the article. By that point we had spent five days discussing it, L.tak and I had tried in vain to explain why the official depositary source was correct, no one had found any secondary sources to clarify the situation, and there was no reasonable prospect of us agreeing. Thus, I didn't want to commit further time to a futile discussion when there was more productive things I could be doing to actually build the encyclopedia.

You keep saying things like "accusing me of original research". It isn't an accusation, nor is it a personal attack, to suggest that an unsourced argument is original research. That is a policy based reason and an entirely legitimate debating point. NOR is "a widely accepted standard that all editors must normally follow." I honestly don't understand what it is that upsets you so much about me citing it. You say it's about "the quality of the content, it's not about the rules", which I agree with 100%. But that is precisely my point: OR is never quality content. Likewise, if you try to make a formal logic based argument, and I prove a contradiction in your logic and hence conclude that it was a logically flawed argument, that's not provocative nor is it personalizing because it has nothing to do with you as a person. Just like if I said 1+1=3 and you replied that this was mathematically flawed addition, that isn't personalizing because it has to do with there being an error in the argument which has been put forward. Poking holes in the arguments of others is fundamental to a debate, but it seems every time I disagree with you, you take it very personally, get upset, and retaliate by making derogatory comments about me and I respond in kind.

Would you be willing to voluntarily agree to stop making personal comments about me during content disputes? If you think I've made a mistake in my argument then great, point it out! Like you, I'm trying to make the article as accurate as possible, so if I've made an error then I want to know. But unprovoked comments like "I really do wonder if you have ever managed..." or "...please don't argue again..." don't help make the article more accurate. They just inflame the discussion and lead us here. Of course, I'll commit myself to the same thing. I'm sure everyone (especially L.tak) would appreciate it if we could stay on the subject of improving the encyclopedia. TDL (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I see charges and counter-charges and I doubt many Admins want to weigh all of these arguments to come to some definitive solution (if one exists). It seems like a situation that is better handled at a Dispute Resolution or Mediation process than AN/I as that is a better forum where you can put forth all the nuances of your "case". That is, if you actually want to resolve this situation and not just try to get the other editor sanctioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Be aware Feminist Spam arriving soon in masses! Maybe you should block College IPs for that day.

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.

---

Feminism is as neutral as masculinism - that means BOTH ARE NOT NEUTRAL. Therefore such edits are not allowed since Wikipedia should be neutral. Unfortunately these feminists don't care and want to insert their ideology in Wikipedia. STOP IT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. Feminists announce edit flood --92.205.83.106 (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's hope they stick around and edit everyday. Sepsis II (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, hopefully some of them will enjoy it and stay (others probably will have different experiences). In any case we shouldn't get excited about it and aren't going to block anyone in advance (not that we could block them all anyway). 14:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

(Daily Caller is a satire site.) 172.56.19.115 (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, you were saying? Drmies (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Block them all, and let God sort them out. StAnselm (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering that something like 10% of WP editors are female, I don't think it's necessary to build barricades to prevent hordes of feminists from entering the sanctuary that is Wikipedia. Besides, you know, 92.205.83.106, there are some that are already here. I've spotted glimpses of them. So, it's far too late to totally prevent their unholy influence. But up against the bulwark of "masculinists" (is that a real word?) here, they are far outnumbered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the OED it was first attested to in English with your intended meaning in 1912. Reminds me of an old Wikipedia riddle that I just made up: Why is there no WP:WikiProject Masculinism?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2014 (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.

Flow needs to be stopped NOW!

I accidentally came across a major bug in Flow, which has caused the near-complete destruction of the "Echo" functionality of a large number of editors, despite the fact that they never have edited a Flow-enabled talk page. It would be very easy for vandals to duplicate and extend this, so that Echo is broken for most regular editors ("broken" meaning that neither the red numbers nor the "you've got messages" can be reset to zero/read).

There is for the moment no possibility I know of to either delete or protect the three pages Flow hsa been enabled on (Deletion was deemed unnecessary by the Flow devs, and Protection is believed by them to be enabled here, despite my assurances that it isn't), and there is also no possibility that I know of to disable Flow on these pages (despite it being opt-in on an individual page-base only).

Please raise this at the appropriate pages or with the people we need here. This is urgent. Fram (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's being trialled at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast. I'm concerned about not being able to see the history, to delete or rev/del (although someone did suppress something, see my comment on the page), etc. Obviously we have to be able to do all of this. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, there are general reasons why this isn't ready for even a limited rollout, but the argument was that it only could cause problems at these pages. Now it turns out that it causes bigger problems than expected by the Devs, and at totally unrelated places, and that there is nothing we can do about it (and I'll gladly be proven wrong here!). So instead of a principled stance against this deployment (for very valid reasons, like you say), this is now an actual and necessary plea to get it removed ASAP. I love being right, but I didn't want it to be in such a dramatic fashion ;-) Fram (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wait, does this mean that anyone can add any statement (say, Jack is a dull boy), and then no one can delete it per WP:CSD#G10, WP:CSD#G12 or whatever? This looks like a serious problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • No, individual posts can be deleted, but not whole pages. Fram (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    • So....? Do we expect to be deleting the Wikiproject Hampshire talk page? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
      • No, but if someone creates the "Wikipedia:The WMF are wankers" talkpage with Flow enabled, wouldn't you prefer that it got deleted completely? I certainly would. But we can't, and apparently you don't see the need for it. Fram (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• OMG! OMG! Beta software! Sky is falling! Since WMF is asking for feedback at Wikipedia talk:Flow, perhaps we should give it to them there instead of this here "Dramaboard"?? NE Ent 15:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • ? And your point is? I have raised the issue there as well, but this needs urgent intervention, which I am not certain to get there. Fram (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    • You raise a legitimate concern into what I understand is one day into a two to four week trial at 8 am and at 10:18 am open an ANI thread. Not urgent. Quiddity (WMF) said at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Breakfast Please remember that this is early-stage beta software, and the intent of this trial is to get your feedback on what's missing and what needs to be changed. We urge you to give Flow a good-faith try – it can only become as good as you help us make it! – but if you find things not working out, we can stop the trial and return your conversations to a talk page. We'll be asking directly in 2/4 weeks whether you're happy to continue testing, but will greatly appreciate all the feedback you can give in the meantime. Thanks again! (Apologies for not posting a diff, but that "Flow" software has some issues). NE Ent 16:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
      • So we should let a vulnerability remain open for weeks because it is only a trial? I really don't understand your objection here. This was not something that only affected users of these few pages, but every user of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
        • How is that? I didn't even know the trial had started until this thread was opened. NE Ent 20:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
          • If someone would have transcluded (not substituted) e.g. this page, WP:ANI, to one of the Flow pages, then you would have gotten a notification and Echo would have been broken for you (and many of our admins and experienced editors). So yes, this bug potentially affects every user now, and especially the most prolific (or at least the most talkative) ones. I am not supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, but it is tempting sometimes... Fram (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
            • So, in other words:
            • No editors were actually affected.
            • No mainspace articles could have been affected.
            • You found a glitch which could have affected many editors that no one on English Wikipedia could actually fix and thought it appropriate to post on a noticeboard with 6000 watchers, rather than the Wikipedia talk:Flow page that you knew was being monitored by the appropriate WMF folk or perhaps, even more discretely, just quietly email them?NE Ent 03:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
              • NE Ent, are you actually reading the same discussion? "No editors were actually affected."? And I posted here and at WT:FLOW, which I already said here and you could have checked for yourself. basically, the only thing correct in yuor statement is "no mainspace articles could have been affected", which I never claimed and is hardly the only reason something may be a problem. Please reread the actual discussions and my actual statements, instead of making things up. Fram (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • Fram, if you think asking the community to fix bugs will lead to faster action than asking the software engineers to fix bugs, you're mistaken. It's 8am PST; I'll be talking to people about the bug as soon as they're actually in the office. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Letting the WMF people know at MediaWiki that protection didn't work certainly didn't have the desired effect at all, on the contrary. I have not the best experiences with the speed that bugs are fixed. Many of the major bugs with Flow were noted before it was implemented here, that didn't speed up their fixing or delay the introduction here, did it? Fram (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
        • The one you're complaining about and bringing to AN/I certainly wasn't. The lack of response at mediawiki.org was probably linked to you being so rude to a fellow volunteer that you got blocked. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
          • If I had been clearly able to protect the three pages, I wouldn't have brought it to ANI. But that problem was and is roundly ignored by the WMF and my "fellow volunteer" who was being rather rude (if your response boils down to "I can't check what you claim, but I know it is wrong no matter what you say", it can hardly be considered civil or coöperative). Of course, being deliberately unhelpful and obstructive is not a problem at WMF / MediaWiki. And ignoring problems because the one bringing hem to light is rude? Yeah, that's a very productive approach. Fram (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused by the protection thing. Can't you just protect the pages the way you did for Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page [145] (which seems to be working)? Is there something special about the developer test page that makes it work there but not the other talk pages? Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Protection works. I am no longer able to add any comments to Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page. Unfortunately, I am not informed that I can't add comments to the page until after I have written a comment and clicked on "reply", when a red message appears: "An error occurred. The error message received was: Insufficient permissions to execute this action." Ideally, you should be informed in advance so that you won't waste time on writing a comment that you can't post in the end. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems sensible; I'll throw a bug in. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, did the Twinkle protection work? I have no way to see this, I don't get a protection log, no pink "you are editing a fully protected page", and so on. I'm glad that it worked after all, and that I had Twinkle enabled (standard protection implementation was not possible). Are the other two pages protected yet? I'll take a look... Fram (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

3 quick notes and 1 request: The Notifications bug-fix is now live (details below). The protection-warning message request, was submitted as bugzilla:60909. The protection log message is displaying correctly in my watchlist feed and the other relevant logs (eg). Please unprotect the Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page so that non-admins may resume testing there. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please provide the "delete - protect - move" dropdown menu (and functionalities) on Flow pages. Fram (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you state that you can see the protection in my log, so that I could know that it had worked. But please check my log now: yuo will see that I jave moved Wikipedia talk:Flow/Test over Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page (which I deleted through the move menu). I got no errors, the log claims I have moved the page, the source page is now a move-result redirect, but the target is unchanged (and doesn't display the redirect source when you follow the redirect). If move doesn't work dspite the log claiming it does, how could I know that protect did or didn't work despite the log claiming it did? Opens possibilities to delete pages beyond all chances of recovery though :-) Fram (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Again perhaps I'm missing something but I still don't get why this protection thing is such a big deal. If you wanted to test protection, can't you just do what me and Stefan2 and possibly others did to test it and try and edit the protected page? (In my case after I saw it in your edit log.) Since you're an admin, it won't work from your main account and perhaps you don't want to run the risk of exposing your IP in case the protection doesn't work but you're free to create a new account which be fully in line with WP:SOCK as a legitimate alternative account. With most modern browsers having a 'private window' or similar option, you probably don't even have to log out of your current account to do so and yet can stick to a single browser.

If you really don't want to spend the 20 or so seconds to create a new account which is always going to be useful for tests particularly when you're an admin, even if you're willing to spend than many minutes writing replies here and elsewhere complaining about the protection thing and otherstuff are also planning to run potentially risky tests which could cause major breakage; you're free to ask people here or elsewhere to help you test the protection.

In other words to be blunt, unless I'm missing some and given that it sounds like I wasn't above, I'm guessing I'm not here, the whole 'protection' saga seems to be a much ado over nothing. Yes there were mistakes in the interface but the protection worked, it was easy to test it worked and at least 2 people did so, so it was really no big deal.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks. The devs deployed some fixes for this. The problematic notification from the large Flow post is still there, it's just being hidden in Special:Notifications, so your Echo notification counter may stick at [1]. They're working on that too, and offer these comments:

To fix it, you can either: 1) Temporarily uncheck the Flow notifications (web) in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo (as Favre1fan93 explains above); or 2) Ignore the [1] for 9 days (a week from Thursday) when we'll get the next version of mediawiki code deployed to Enwiki;

or 3) Copy & paste this code to Special:MyPage/common.js:

importScript('User:Mlitn/MarkAllRead.js');

press 'save', and a dialog will pop-up asking if you want to mark all Notifications as read. Accept that, and it will be fixed. You can then remove the line of code from your common.js again.

Sorry again for the confusion and distraction. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As requested by Quiddity above, I have removed protection from. Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page. I have no idea or proof that it is related, but almost immediately, I got a red "1" in the Echo notifications, and when I use that, I receive the standard "Wikimedia Foundation Error: Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem." page. Coincidence? Flow / Echo combination problem not really solved?

Anyone else having trouble, and anyone with an idea of the cause and solution? Fram (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I was one of those whose notifications were screwed up by the consequences of Fram's test. I eventually worked around it by disabling Flow notifications, but it was a serious impediment to collaborative working. I don't know how many editors were effected in this way, but it is bad news that a software test can have such a wide impact on a live platform.

As noted on my talk page, I think that Fram's test was ill-conceived and should not have been done. However, there seems little good about Flow, and its hassles outweigh the benefits of testing it further. Please can it just be turned off here, and tested in some less critical environment? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean WMF's test, instead of Fram's, as Fram was just the messenger here. Unfortunatly as we've seen time and time again (I'm looking at you, VisualEditor), when the Newest, Brightest Idea gets prematurely rolled out, the WMF expects the community to hail it as the Best Idea Ever, and when the community pulls out the torches and pitchforks over the Wikipedia-breaking bugs, it's somehow the community's fault. (Nothing aimed at Quiddity here, who did his best ASAP to fix the problem! But it's the overall culture the WMF projects that is distressing.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: No, I meant Fram's test, which was ill-considered. See my comments on my talk page.

It was also an ill-considered test of software in a premature beta test, but two wrongs don't make a right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(For the record, Echo works again for me now, had gone up to "5" in the meantime: no idea what caused this or who or what solved this, if it was the WMF person I emailed, thanks!) Fram (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Fram at 11:22 on 6th Feb. Having seen such errors myself at 16:37 on 6th Feb, methinks these are unrelated and most likely coincidental. As an anon, I cannot get echo-stuff, and furthermore I have not visited any of the WP:FLOWie betatest pages. The error-messages are HTTP 503 Service Unavailable and have some Varnish cache networking-stuff attached; they are prolly server-sysadmin-stuff, not admin-stuff. Also worth noting, there were some similar proxy-caching-type errors back in December. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:APZ982 BLP vios

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.

---

APZ982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited Thom Loverro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) repeatedly to insert inappropriate commentary about the subject's own articles, despite repeated warnings to stop. The article's subject contacted OTRS to notify us about this. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Everything I posted on Thom Loverro's page was accurate and sourced. Every single thing came right from the articles I sourced. I wrote 5 lines with 5 sources that could all be very easily verified. How is it inappropriate to say exactly what he wrote and link a source to what he wrote. Every source goes directly to his own writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APZ982 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If an admin can look at this, I'd be grateful. I'm well over 3RR at this point, so I'm hoping that the BLP exceptions apply in this case. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is similar to actions that the editor took on Goldie Taylor, removing a lot of biographical information to focus the article on his criticism of one of her columns. These are the only two articles currently in the editor's record. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

APZ982 is still restoring that material, which is a clear BLP violation. They claim above that the material they added was sourced, but I don't see any source for edits like this. Concur with Freerangefrog that admin action is definitely needed there. Valenciano (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked APZ982 for one week based on the WP:BLP violations and the edit warring (report also filed at WP:AN3).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that I've revdel'd the revisions in question per RD2 as BLP violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:44, 6 February 2014 (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:Armbrust (talk · contribs) and disruptive WP:OWNing of WP:ANRFC

I have been updating a post at WP:ANRFC which provides a single concise list of WP:NFCR's that are long overdue for closing. Armbrust Has made it a point to disrupt that process, he has hidden the section, attempted to remove it, and blocked updates to it on several occasions. The user has demonstrated that he has a lack of understanding in regards to WP:NFCC and zero understanding of how WP:NFCR functions. Can we please stop him from interfering with NFCR? Werieth (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And he tends to hide discussions that are raised on his talk page that make him look bad. Werieth (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's nonsense. You disrupt the WP:ANRFC noticeboard by using it to report the WP:NFCR backlog, and you didn't even realise it. In this edit You undone the archiving of closed sections. If you don't know how ANRFC works, than you don't need to post there. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Again you make false statements, I did not revert any closed sections, rather I reverted your butchering of the NFCR section. Werieth (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The nonsense continues. I archived the closed sections; than ordered the requests the same way they are on WP:NFCR (makes checking whether they're closed easier), and than moved it to the bottom of the page (as essentially a new request). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You where told to stop editing my comments, and screwing with the WP:NFCR request, I would have removed the closed NFCRs myself, but last time I did that you complained about that. You need to stop editing my comments and leave the NFCR section alone. Werieth (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong again. That list is not part of your comment, that's just "is the current list". Also "removed the closed NFCRs" isn't the same as archiving them. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLANKING I could even remove them, so closing sections isn't an issue. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I didnt stay you couldnt, I just made a note of your behavior that hides your disruptive behavior. Werieth (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I didn't hide anything. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Two servings of trout. It's good that ya'll tried to discuss this on Armbrust's page, but at some point one (preferably both) of you should have figured out that you just weren't going to agree. (I've read the conversation but fell like Abbott in Who's on first? "I don't even know what I talking about!") Please go to Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure and try to neutrally frame the issue and get some additional opinions. NE Ent 19:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• First off, seeing two respectable Wikipedians bicker like this is a bit upsetting. Second, I'm not sure that this dispute warrants the level of heat you two are letting off. Now, down to the dispute. I'm not sure that WP:ANRFC is for things like NFCC. ANRFC is really for discussions which are not on any kind of centralized discussion board already. NFCC has it's own centralized discussions. The discussions on ANRFC are generally on talk pages or Wikiprojects where admins who patrol such discussions for closure wouldn't normally look. What we need is more NFCC admins (since Fastily was driven off) and so I think we need to look at some of the users in that area for possible RfA noms.--v/r - TP 21:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• As a regular contributor to both WP:NFCR and WP:ANRFC, and in working with both parties, I can see both sides of the argument. There is not enough administrator activity at WP:NFCR, and the hope is that by posting at WP:ANRFC (something that I have done before) would attract more closers. It is my current opinion that this doesn't actually work and that is why we consistently have over 100 open discussions. I would also like to point out that Armbrust does not show any symptoms of WP:OWN, but rather does a fantastic job of keeping WP:ANRFC clean through being an unofficial clerk on that board, doing the thankless job of maintaining that space. I would also further point out that there are also not enough admins willing to make closures listed at WP:ANRFC, although there has been some constant back and forth discussion about how many discussions should be listed there. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You meant to say editors will to make closures listed at WP:ANFRC, right? NE Ent 23:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That is mostly correct, there is not, in my opinion, enough editors (admins included) willing to make closures. Therefore the board is always heavily bogged down with closure requests. A good many discussions are not well defined enough for a Non-Admin Closure and therefore do require admins, of which there are not enough willing to make closures, in my opinion. Hope that helps. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I think that the problem is that there are too few admins who work with file issues. It's the same with WP:PUF and WP:FFD: there are plenty of discussions which are trivial to close but still remain open after several months. Check the FFD pages from November with hundreds of open discussions per page, for example. Many "DI" speedy categories also have a huge backlog. I'm not sure if listing the discussions at WP:ANRFC is going to help. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae

Hello. I'm here to ask for others to look into the recent edits of User:Tenebrae. He started an RFC regarding the selective inclusion of nominations for film awards at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Request for comment to which I objected as no clear proposal on how it was to be achieved was noted. I asked on several occasions how the selection criteria would be determined, but received considerable and increasing abuse for asking the same question. The same question, it's worth noting, that others asked also here and here. Now then, that's just a discussion about possible content issues, and sure, it can be heated. Tenebrae then prodded an article in an attempt to further his cause, which was rapidly removed and the discussion he had started moved to the talk page, another venue to discuss his RFC. I responded there that it was inappropriate to pointedly use this article to further his position at the RFC. But then the insults and lies started:

• "just as you'll keep trying to sabotage the process" [146]
• "snarky" [147]
• "obsessive eccentric short-circuited any serious discussion" [148]
• accused of demanding to "follow my orders" and bizarre and offensive references to Colonial England. [149]
• "he'll stalk you wherever you go" [150]
• "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "how crazy and ridiculous you look", "You don't have a job and you've nothing else to do all day but stalk me and misrepresent things.", " Go get a life, please." [151]
• "disingenuous baiting and needling", " deliberately inane questions designed to elicit an intemperate response" [152]
• "childish series of diatribes" [153]
• "you freakish obsessive" [154]
• " snarky belittling and non-constructive, arrogant, "I'm King of Wikipedia" attitude you started over there", "started slinging around your unasked-for advice and insulting comments. You're just a troll with no life. Am I going to be stuck with you like a wart for the rest of my days, Crazy?" [155]

I ask for nothing than an objective look at some of the terms used by this editor to describe me (e.g. "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric") and the false accusations ("keep trying to sabotage the process", "he'll stalk you wherever you go", "started slinging around your unasked-for advice and insulting comments") and determine the best course of action. I have asked him to qualify his accusations or to bring it here, and he has refused, hence my post. My interest in the original topic stems from my tenure as featured list director and active FLC participant, for what it's worth. Being accused of having no life, no job, a troll, Crazy, freakish, obsessive etc seemed to go beyond the normal parameters of lively discourse. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest a serious step back. Many editors have been blocked for far less then that. I"m not sure about the overall content and if it was provoked but the attacks are pretty overt. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man began a campaign of incessant needling and haranguing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Request for comment after he asked a question, I answered it, and he responded with an insult, calling the proposal "a waste of time" and spewing sarcastically, "Good luck with that." And rather than leaving it alone with a simple "Accept" or "Oppose," he kept repeating, "this is a waste of time" (19:39, 22 January 2014) and just continued to bully and dig in, saying, in essence, I didn't have the right to ask a question he disapproved of, because since he didn't like it, then it must have been "a waste of time."

When I explained my approach — common with project management — of first seeing if an issue even existed before trying to find solutions, he became insulting, saying this was a completely invalid approach because "every project manager I know gets paid to do whatever they do, generally ineffectively." Why would anyone attack a cautious approach that way, especially when the recommendations for changing guidelines says to do it cautiously?

He then began making fun of the RfC, asking deliberately inane questions about what my plans were about listing awards for "films like Titanic" as opposed to "films like Primer." And there's so much more, culminating in his following me to another, unrelated talk page and, with no provocation or cause, to start insulting my approach there even even though the point I brought up there was over and done with. He's been deliberately baiting me, and now he's hounding me and haranguing me for days without letup, and he's surprised now that someone calls him out on his obsessive, stalkerish behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. And was any of it a justification for calling using terms like "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric"? Nope. You need to stop, in fact you need to be blocked for so many deliberate and overt personal attacks. As for your introduction of yet another lie, "saying, in essence, I didn't have the right to ask a question he disapproved of, because since he didn't like it, then it must have been "a waste of time."", please prove this. I never said you had no right to ask anything of anyone. I simply said you needed more information on how you would implement it. As did other editors. Also note, the "talk page" which Tenebrae claims to be "unrelated" is in fact "directly" related, as I demonstrated above. The lies keep on rolling... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You've been the one following me around and refusing to stop baiting me and insulting the very question I asked. You think you can belittle and insult other people' suggestions over and over and then stalk them to another page and continue to do it, and that this is OK? That you should be allowed to behave this way with impunity? If anyone should be blocked, it's you. Go to my user page and see the many commendations other editors have given me for being collegial and constructive. Editors like you who attack and behave arrogantly are in no way, shape or form helpful to this encyclopedia. And following me around? That's the last straw. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You opened an RFC, I replied. You said you'd go off and prod/AFD things you thought were non-notable, I disagreed and commented. Where else? Come on, answer the question, where else? And you now feel completely happy with using terms like "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric"? I don't care what anyone else says about you, you should be blocked for personal attacks. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I see. You call me a liar, and that's OK. You bait me, you deliberately ask inane questions to sabotage a discussion you don't like, you follow me around to another talk page, and that's not attack behavior? There are other ways to attack than name-calling, and you are certainly guilty of instigating this exchange from your very first "oh you're wasting everyone's time" and your gratuitous, sarcastic remark. That's fine and proper behavior, eh? Not where I come from. You should be ashamed of yourself. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You lied, you accused me of stalking, not true. You accused me of asking "inane questions to sabotage a discussion I don't like", not true. Prove it. I edited one other page where you clearly were making a point, which failed. Secondly, it's all very well to whine about the fact you personally didn't like the questions I had asked (which other editors have also asked you) but there's simply no excuse, zero, none, NOT ONE, for calling me "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric", "wart" etc. See WP:NPA. And you're still quite proud of it by the looks of things. Last time I looked, WP:NPA was a policy. Disgusting behaviour. My last post here. Feel free to once again get the last word in, it would be instructive if others could comment on the gross personal attacks, including those passing judgement on my mental faculties, my personal life and any disability from which I may suffer. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Again with the demands, again with the relentless haranguing. Anyone can go to the discussions on the two talk pages and see for themselves your baiting and your needling. You actually believe what you're doing is perfectly normal — that calling someone's proposal "a waste of time" right out of the box is acceptable behavior. That calling project managers a blight because you, personally, don't get along with them, so a cautious, two-step approach is unacceptable to you. You can't just keep digging at other editors and belittling their very questions and pronouncing that because you wouldn't do something a certain way that anyone doing it that way is wrong. And that Titanic / Primer thing was inane. It made no sense. You attacked me with your attitudinal declarations and criticisms of the way I asked a question. No — it is not alright to keep going after and going after someone and following them to another page to criticize them there. Deliberately provoking someone you disagree with until you get them angry is wrong, wrong wrong. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Disability? Who brought up anyone's disability? That's completely out of left field — and a transparent attempt at smokescreening for sympathy. For the record, no one said anything about disabilities. This is part and parcel of the same tactics you used on the talk pages. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• "basement-dwelling brit-twit"?? "freakish obsessive"?? Wholly inappropriate, even if you do believe you're being stalked. You're NEVER permitted to make those kind of personal attacks, no matter what. Handle possible issues (which I cannot see stalking, by the way) on an appropriate noticeboard. As Tenebrae was given sufficient opportunity to retract their statements, but have continually expressed that they were somehow permitted to say these things, there's no choice but to protect the project and its editors for a wee 24 hours period of time. It's been a few years since Tenebrae has begged to be blocked - and they did it again DP 01:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• So, after days of being put down and belittled by TRM, with comments such as "while I'm certain you can read and understand English", and after both editors were told by another editor the best thing for both of you to do drop the stick and move on. You'll thank yourself later for being the bigger man., we block one editor? The editor, incidentally, as administrator is expected to follow the principle Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Decorum_and_civility Administrators and other experienced editors should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.? NE Ent 03:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I know that many of the people that lurk on these boards lack basic competence but could I ask you to at least post diffs correctly and post them with context? The first diff you post is entirely irrelevant, the second diff is all very well but entirely misses the point that the subsequent post at that talk page entirely backs up my position. Your third link (much better to pipe these, by the way) doesn't head to the section you (presumably) were intending. If you're going to hang around here and criticise, at least do it competently. I'm befuddled by your user page claim that you would prefer to be "known by the quality of my contributions" when it's taken you nearly two years to make your last 250 main space edits. I guess hanging around and chatting is what you'd prefer to be "known by"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Enough, TRM. What NE Ent is or isn't known by is irrelevant to the question at hand. Even if you were attacked before, that doesn't give you license to continue attacking other people now. Cut it out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I feel that I must defend myself, and that includes defending myself against bad links, out of context links and generally poorly behaved contributors at this noticeboard. You shouldn't try to censor that. This place needs a shake up and some of that starts with the purpose of some editors at this Wikipedia. I'm sick of being attacked one-sidedly by some here, allowing the "weak and needy" to continue to abuse bans and make multiple offensive personal attacks. Do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"This place needs a shake up" and a request for admins to "do something about it"? What exactly are you proposing, The Rambling Man? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• On occasion I've asked myself the last few weeks if TRM wasn't trying to figure how much incivility/condescension an admin needs to utter before getting blocked, and the very start of this thread seemed like it was going to be a test case. But this here, well, I have to agree with TRM (sorry Ent): the crucial "good luck with that" might be dismissive in a different context, but here it's not to dismiss the person, only the proposal, since an RfC without a proposal doesn't stand to gain much traction or be very useful. Now, TRM could have disengaged earlier, should have disengaged earlier, but I think Tenebrae has, unfortunately, gone way too far. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I am about 80% of the way to calling baiting on this incident and symmetrical blocking, but I have a large possibly 7-year-old ongoing copyvio sockpuppeteer pattern to follow up on, and need to go home soon anyways. I would strongly urge admins to review the degree to which TRM may have provoked Tenebrae. Even if Tenebrae was the one across the bright line, baiting behavior is in no way OK and is by both policy and precedent actionable, and in this case it seems like NOT acting may set a particularly bad example. That said, I am not in a position at the moment to finish following up to a complete conclusion due to factors above, so review and make up your own minds, please. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Well since you're trigger happy with blocks, and have blocked me erroneously before, I expect you'll go ahead without any justification. I really don't want to edit in your world where you think I'm provoking someone by asking them to answer some simple questions (and no, not "inane" ones, a very good example is this Titanic/Primer instance - all I wanted to know was where the line would be drawn in Titanic awards as it would no doubt have received dozens more than Primer) and that would equally justify a block when that person calls me "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric", "wart" etc. I fail to see how asking for simple questions to be answered is considered "baiting". Please also note that several other editors at the various venues this discussion has spilled over to have asked questions very similar to mine. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Drmies said it well, that one of you should have disengaged way earlier. I agree with Georgewilliamherbert about Tenebrae being "across the bright line", but WP:CIVIL is a policy as well as WP:NPA. Even if you think an editor's comments are ridiculous, we are all supposed to "participate in a respectful and considerate way". The personal attacks were over the top, but there was a shouting match that had led up to that point, when someone could have just walked away. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

TRM, if i wasn't clear enough, I agree that the question/comment was fair, and grounded both in experience and judgment--that's not the part that concerns me. This comes on the heels of a very bitey response on ANI to a comment on Philip Seymour Hoffman (closed here) where again you were right, sort of (editor could have checked for protection and ITN, maybe, but possibly the plaintiff was on the run and their good faith should not have been doubted), but the tone of the response clearly rubbed a bunch of people the wrong way. Just saying. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood Drmies. I still, somehow, fail to understand how some of those here equate me asking many pertinent questions about an RFC with me being personally attacked about a dozen times in a day. Perhaps those looking for a "symmetric" ban are quite happy to see me being called "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric", "wart" etc. In other news, I was unaware that ANI was a chat board for recent deaths (WP:AN would seem more appropriate), but the edit I made was based on the fact that I would have assumed a competent and experienced editor who knew of the existence of such a place would have looked to see the situation with the Hoffman article, it was already protected, maybe two hours earlier. I even went on to have a proper group virtual hug with Tryptofish. The fact that Wikipediocracy and Lord Brad (himself) got wind of it it is pure (and meaningless) trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for them. If you're anything like me you're also convinced that the rest of the world is wrong. Sure, AN is a better venue for the note, but hey, it's all in the phrasing. And I tell you what, next time I conceive of a problem and I'm at the YMCA, waiting for swim practice to be over, with spotty internet/phone access, I'll post on ANI too--it's the best place to quickly demand attention. It's not those kinds of notices that make this place a less-than-happy place: it's the interminable discussions by editors who write too much on topics that really aren't all that--wait, that's me. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but that has no relation to the ongoing personal attacks that this user is subjecting me to, including calling me "an abusive obsessive", even despite being blocked for personal attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing personal attacks

Despite the block, User:Tenebrae uses his talk page to continue the personal attacks here, calling me an "an abusive obsessive". Obviously after his previous insults, in the last 24 hours, including "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric", "wart", this is not unexpected, but it should be considered as this AN/I develops. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I left a note warning that continued poor behavior will lead to an extension of the block. -- John Reaves 19:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, can't you just leave it be? What do you care about what Tenebrae says on their talk page? Drmies (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, why would I not care if another editor who has been blocked for personal attacks calls me "an abusive obsessive"? What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussions frequently show that when the negativity is targeted at oneself, it is perceived as more serious than when someone else is the target. --Orlady (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

How useful. I thought being blocked for WP:NPA and then continuing to engage in personal attacks was pretty obvious to gauge, but maybe this is why an/i is a drop zone worth avoiding at all costs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Just an observation based on personal experience. For example, I have been informed that it was entirely reasonable for another user to go around Wikipedia labeling me with words like "evil" and "hateful" because I had the nerve to criticize that user's articles for things like "original research" and "excessive quotations of copyrighted text" -- and that it was unreasonable of me to object. That experience and others have left me with the impression that, for many members of the Wikipedia community, the key determinant of the seriousness of a personal attack is whether or not they were the target of the attack. --Orlady (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, you're talking about someone who went around and labeled you. I think that's much, much more blockable than someone saying some stuff on their own talk page while blocked. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but but a number of other users expressed the view that his statements were justified because I had criticized his articles, that I should just suck it up, and that blocking him would be an over-reaction. I've seen similar reactions when other users were the targets. I've come around to the opinion that we all should take a harder line against personal attacks, wherever and whenever they occur. Not so much a comment on this particular case (which seems like it may have satisfactorily concluded) as a comment on the larger context. --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal information about a subject has been added to an article

Tis gone. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The addition was here and should be deleted from history as this goes beyond any WP:BLP violation I've ever seen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Removed, and please don't post such issues here (as is advised in the large bold letters in the pink box at the top of the page when you hit edit). It only serves to ensure hundreds (thousands) of additional eyes can view the material before it's removed.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:03, 5 February 2014 (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.

Report on abuse of public space

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.

---

This is a subpage of a admin and this is clearly abuse of public space: "User:Kevin Gorman/Casino.org".
The page happened to be protected (by himself) and I would like to propose speedy deletion.
(The user has been notified and invited to participate on the discussion, on the respective talk page.) -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be a sandboxed version of an article and has been saved because it is an example of what was created by a paid editor and not an "abuse of public space" (there is no such thing).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

AlchemistOfJoy, have you discussed this with Kevin Gorman? I can't see any evidence of this in your contribution history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No, there was no dialogue. I just notified him of the discussion, bacause the page is protected and I wanted to edit it. Am I getting this wrong? Is this an example of a PR article to show others what not to do?! -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be an example of not bothering to ask a polite question before running off to ANI. Or even looking at the edit history of the page: [156] "Protected User:Kevin Gorman/Casino.org: demo of Wiki-PR's work ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))" AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2014 (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.

Lightbreather mass depopulating cat

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.

---

Sorry folks gun controversy again. Lightbreather is basically depopulating the entire "Gun Rights Advocates" category. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Lightbreather&action=view I happened to have 3 of these on my watchlist, and her edit summary is "No mention of gun rights" when in fact all 3 that I had (Glenn Reynolds Jeff Cooper James Wesley Rawles are rather famous for their involvement with guns and all three already have mention in their articles. Based on a quick scan of the rest of the list, many of them are well known gun rights advocates. She is not doing any research or reading, just blindly depopulating the cat. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin just told me about this. Before we get too far along in this process, could everyone please go read the discussion on my talk page with the head WP:GUNS honcho, Mike Searson? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with mike. Kudos on the creation of the new cat, and no objection to moving the people into the subcat. But removing everyone is very disruptive. There is now no way to know that they were in that cat except by looking at the article history of every article in wikipedia, and therefore no way to improve this aspect of the articles. Many of these are EXCEPTIONALLY easily sourceable, or ALREADY had the info in the article. doing mass removals with obviously minimal investigation is highly disruptive, particularly for something not covered by WP:BLPCAT. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I've become so accustomed to having my every move questioned, I did it as transparently as I could. FIRST, I added the category "American gun rights advocates" to every article that was ALREADY in the less explicit category "Gun rights advocates." THEN, I went back and examined each one to see if they should stay there. If it was obvious to me that they did not belong, my edit summary did not begin with the word "Bold." (I think I used "bold" three or four times.)

I should have preferred to do that in one step for each article, but as I said - I've gotten used to intense, unpleasant - and IMO, unwarranted - scrutiny. I did the same for "American gun control advocates."

Note each category says at the top: Articles about individuals who have actively worked for gun [control or rights]. This category is not intended for people who have merely espoused an opinion. Lightbreather (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If you were bold with one or two articles, and were wrong, its not a big deal. Doing that to a massive number of articles is disruptive. Clearly there was some consensus for this categorization since the categorization had been stable for months/years on these articles. This type of change needs more than a short conversation with one person.Gaijin42 (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I hear you. I think bringing this to ANI was hasty, that's all. Do you plan to keep this open? Lightbreather (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, to be fair, the "one person" (Mike Searson) I had the conversation with, as I stated earlier, is the sheriff (or whatever the WP equivalent is) at the WP firearms project. And he doesn't like me much, so I doubt he was going to let me do anything bad. If this were a paying job, my probationary period would be over by now. I sure would like to get the AGF everyone is supposed to get here. I am a good editor.

I dont think I have a choice. An admin needs to close it I think. But If you will slow down and build some more consensus, I won't push for any action. Also, it would be helpful to go back and do some review on the ones you have removed already. I perhaps was hasty. I went to you when I saw 3. When I saw 20+ it required a bit more drastic action. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There's not a way to say "Scratch that - I withdraw my complaint"? Lightbreather (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2014 (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.

• The root cause of this complaint was a technical flaw. "There is now no way to know that they were in that cat except by looking at the article history of every article in wikipedia...." I have personally run into the same missing feature, for AfC-related categories: you cannot tell which articles were in a category last month (the view-history button shows edits to the *template-code* not the insertions/removals).

  I realize that AN/I isn't the place to request new mediaWiki features, but in the interests of preventing future AN/I threads like this (which come up related to e.g. edit-wars over musical genre categories like "soul music" or which countries are in "eastern europe"), can somebody here suggest a place for this technical lack to be discussed? Feel free to use my talkpage rather than here, if that is preferable. Thanks for improving wikipedia, folks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

spam only account User:Veemalaysia

I previously reported this spam only account on the spam noticeboard weeks ago with no action taken. the Veemalaysia (talk · contribs) is back spamming Malaysian location articles with advertising links. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas and the BLP noticeboard

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.

---

Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has replaced a BLPN post in which they refer to me as being "like a rabid dog", after I removed it on WP:NPA grounds and asked them nicely not to do this. Would somebody uninvolved please have a word with them? Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the user's arguments, it should be possible to make whatever point they may have without making this objectionable comparison. Thanks for anything you can do. --John (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone needs a thicker skin. It's a metaphor… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC) okay, I suppose it's actually a simile -- but it functions like a metaphor...

Out of respect to John, I have removed it. I compared the "putting down" of John's argument to the "putting down" of a rabid dog, which is frankly, uncouth and not my style. So John is partly right, in the sense that it was not nice. The problem, however, was that John did not explain to me why he disliked it, he simply removed my comment from the noticeboard. In the future, it would help greatly if John would attempt to communicate about specific problems with my comments instead of blanket reverting me without an explanation. In any case, I've deleted it. I did not realize when I originally wrote it, then it could be perceived so negatively, but John is correct on that point. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2014 (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:Tbrambo

Is on a crusade to add material about an Irish performer calling others homophobic, where there is an ongoing discussion at WP:BLP/N at Wikipedia:BLP/N#Irish_homophobia_controversy.2C_3_biographies_that_need_oversight

This user specifically states:

The controversy, which is the entire purpose of the article, is that individuals who promote discrimination against homosexuals in Ireland were able to exploit Irelands anti-defamation laws in order to censor Rory O'Neill and get a cash settlement from RTÉ. THAT is the controversy!!! So please DO NOT change the article to read otherwise!!!!!!!. Whenever this issue has been documented in the press or discussed at a governmental level it has always been about the controversial decision of RTÉ to censor O'Neill and give money to the claimants. So we should all be able to see why it is that that is the controversy worth documenting here on wikipedia. If Collect is determined from keeping the article from reading as such, then Collect must have a personal agenda to keep the controversy away from John Waters. But unfortunately it is not up to Collect to decide something like that.

The issue is over homophobia so it should be addressed as such for all involved. Those involved are Panti, John Waters, and Breda O'Brien. If someone is trying to conceal the fact that this is an issue over homophobia accusations, it should be easy to see that person's agenda. If someone is trying to re-word articles to avoid the word homophobia, when the word homophobia is CENTRAL to the entire event, then it goes without saying, that that person is intent upon concealing information vital to the article. Homophobia is the central element of the entire events with which Panti, John Waters, and Breda O'Brien are concerned so it should be addressed as such

The edits at [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], etc. show a clear obsession and desire to label living persons as homophobic, viewing it as something of an obligation to so label living persons, and decrying WP:BLP as not applying to such accusations. Collect (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue of individuals being called homophobic is CENTRAL to the article. Tbrambo (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• No, it isn't, and there is no case where this is valid. I suggest that Tbrambo either stops this crusade right now, or gets indefinitely blocked, because they appear to be a very strong net-negative at the moment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lukeno94 have you not read any of the citations? Have you not taken the time to educate yourself on the fundamental nature of this controversy and why it is being written about in the first place? Of course they have to be called "homophobe" THAT'S WHAT THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY IS ABOUT!!! The controversy of Panti, John Waters, Breda O'Brien, and Iona Institute is about the fact that they were called homophobic, O'Neill was censored, they were paid money and then A LOT of people, including individuals in the Irish Government, European Government, and general public, though this was a really controversial thing. So tell me WHY should homophobia not be used in these articles, when the entire article is about them being called homophobic?? This is CRAZY!!!! Tbrambo (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This user is determined to avoid the word homophobia when concerning John Waters and Breda O'Brien. User seems to have a personal agenda to water-down the documentation even though the central theme of the controversy is about homophobia, censorship of comments about homophobia, and monetary payouts to individuals that are accused of homophobia. Tbrambo (Tbrambo) 18:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(response to original post by Tbrambo findable in history) I am damn well concerned that using any words which are considered to be a contentious claim about any living person in a Wikipedia article are subject to WP:BLP as policy. Where you have stated that your primary concern is drawing attention to homophobia from specific living persons, I damn well disagree with that interpretation of the policy stated at WP:BLP. Your edits show yur preternatural position thereon. That you feel the "monetary payments" to "homophobes" must be exposed in some way is further evidence for my post above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Read WP:BLP, Tbrambo, and then you will see how far out of line your ranting is. Either start editing in line with it, or risk being blocked indefinitely. No article should ever be entirely about someone being homophobic, and if it is, then it could qualify for speedy deletion as an attack page. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• And, considering that this user thinks that a YouTube reference needs to be added to a sentence that already has two references, they also need to read WP:BOMBARD/WP:REFSPAM and WP:RS... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• The material Collect is referring to is about an extremely large controversy in Ireland that has spilled into street protests, Debates in Parliament as well as the senate and mentions in the European parliament. Collect has been busy deleting all mentions of any protests about the payment, or otherwise blanking entire sections about the very highly covered incident. For example, collect blanked this section: [172] despite it being mostly well sourced and despite at least 200 sources dedicated to the topic here all of which are in depth: [173] and the text being easily sourced multiple times over if desired. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• What admin action is being requested here? I see a dispute about the content of the articles which has spilled onto BLPN, AN3 and now here. Why not hold an RfC and let the community decide? --John (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Reporting myself for possible 1RR violation on an Arab-Israeli conflict page

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 just made 4 deletions at Kahanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and only then sawa at Talk:Kahanism "All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR". I removed a blacklist url, some material sourced to a copy of a letter and an image of an envelope[174] that was clearly unacceptably sourced, some material with a citation needed dated March 2007 which mentioned a living person, and in my 4th revert the template about the blacklisted url. Have I thus violated the active arbitration remedies on that page and do I need to self-revert? And is the talk page template up to date? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're fine, as the edits were consecutive and thus count as only a single revert. From WP:3RR: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert..— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'd agree with Alf here, and particularly given that these were all sensible removals/changes. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:59, 6 February 2014 (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.

personal attacks on User:Drmies talk page

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.

---

An IP-hopping editor is making personal attacks at User talk:Drmies. Please semi-protect the page and consider a range-block for the IP. GabrielF (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2014 (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.

Inappropriate AFD bundling at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of pogrom (2nd nomination)

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.

---

Relevant page:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of pogrom (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Relevant user:

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

Summary:

Four days after Definitions of pogrom was nominated for deletion, and after a good deal of discussion, Oncenawhile bundled Definitions of fascism, Definitions of logic and Genocide definitions into the AFD.[175] While I personally believe this is a disruptive nomination per WP:POINT, my main concern is that having three unrelated articles in the original nomination is confusing and highly inappropriate this late into the discussion, especially given that the pogrom discussion centres in large part on whether it's a POV fork. I'm requesting that an admin move the other three pages to a separate AFD discussion so that the two discussions don't interfere with each other, or whatever other actions s/he feels appropriate to deal with the situation. Wieno (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really something for ANI. The closing admin (preferably) will decide what happens when the time comes. Might I also add this: Suggest this editor be investigated: Very suspicious editing history. Had made 77 edits in 7 years. Yet suddenly pops up to participate here and in another deletion discussion by the same nominator here. Then immedietaly after being accused at the other AfD, makes 100+ edits in seven hours (more than he had made in the preceding seven years) like some kind of pro editor. Something is very fishy. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Ansh666 08:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly NAC-closed the addition of articles to an AFD nomination roughly halfway through the standard discussion period, well after extensive discussion had occurred. Such additions were plainly inappropriate. It is telling that Oncenawhile dis not even properly log those "nominations", nor did they notify the article creators or those who had commented in the discussion previously. It appears their intent was to muddy the waters in a discussion where consensus against their position was emerging. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hullaballoo, I wrote clearly that i will "leave it to other editors to decide whether we are near enough to the start here", since the guidance at MULTIAFD is not specific as to how to interpret "near the start" (FYI I will propose an amendment at WP:MULTIAFD).

I am therefore fine with your interpretation as to it being too late, but i am not at all happy with your questioning of my motives. I explained my reasoning very clearly on the page.

How would you respond if i started questioning your motives here?

I can tell you how i feel, and that is that you have characterised my action in a grossly oversimplistic and negative fashion, when in practice I considered many angles to it which were intended to create a heathier debate. So I found your gratuitous speculation rude and disrespectful.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Questioning another user's motives? No, I'm sure you'd never do that. Wieno (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has closed the other bundled nominations and no one seems to be contesting it, I'm fine to have this discussion closed. Wieno (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2014 (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:Sitush plus a group is possibly trying to put communities in India to a fight

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 many edits on this page are without signatures from unknown people whose intentions are obviously provocative. Also User:Sitush is found editing posting comments here which has potentials to put people from Vishwakarma_(caste) and other communities into trouble. A clear example of this behavior can be seen over here Talk:Adi_Shankara where he has cited "That claim has been pushed tendentiously on Wikipedia by self-identified community members, usually by citing Roberts, and we really do need to put a stop to this." He is actually requesting people on the talk page to revolt against Visvakarmas? What was User:Sitush's intentions in writing this? How did he make up his mind on what was correct? And why is he provoking people who are editing that page? I have put a remark about the same so readers understand what is going on here if at all they reach the talk page. Request to check the same. [176] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Myself and MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs) have been trying to resolve some severe issues relating to WP:TE, WP:CIR and WP:POV for well over six months now. At the core of those issues has been the person reporting above, together with various other people who refer to the Vishwakarma (caste) as "we", "us" etc. Most of the dispute, which relates to sourcing and to the verifiability of a claim to Brahmin status that is made by the Vishwakarma community but not accepted by almost everyone else, has taken place at Talk:Vishwakarma (caste). Some people who are new to the dispute - Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs), JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) and DougWeller (talk · contribs) - have recently been commenting in this thread (which I have deliberately kept out of) but basically Ganesh and others who come and go simply fail to understand. This may in part by a language issue - Ganesh has certainly misunderstood me in the diff that he raises here, although generally he seems capable of communicating well in English ... and certainly, to my shame, 100% better than I can do in any of the Indic languages. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sitush I agree you have been very helpful trying to explain etc. Please explain what you did on Talk:Adi_Shankara's page. Was that a part of explaining me as well? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sitush wrote "and we really do need to put a stop to this." who are "we" here? why is he provoking? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

My point of 26 September was that the tendentious efforts of yourself and others who appear to be of the Vishwakarma community to effect the inclusion of unnecessary and/or unbalanced statements and sources needed to be curtailed. It had gone on long enough then and, if proof of tendentiousness is needed, it seems from this report that you are still pursuing it but by use of a different angle Why, five months on, have you suddenly mentioned this? You and Gopalan Acharya (talk · contribs) both saw it at the time.

Nowhere have I tried to set any community against another: that is a figment of your imagination, presumably based on the fact that such things, although still commonplace in India, are illegal there. I can't count the number of times I've seen people raise the issue when they've lost the real argument: Wikipedia is not censored and should reflect the sources with due weight, as has been explained to you on umpteen occasions. Your random claims of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, such as in the recent talk page thread that I link above, are a further demonstration of your lack of clue, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That is because Gopalan Acharya (talk · contribs) is also a possible meatpuppet of this same group. Even this account is under my current suspicion. Possibly you all planted it. But I don't know how to cross check these. So, as of now I do not know. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sitush I would want you to put some light on this--> Sitush wrote "and we really do need to put a stop to this." who are "we" here? why is he provoking? Why did you do this? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community need to put a stop you the tendentious attempts to include completely unsuitable sources and statements. I think that is clear if you read my entire message rather than cherrypicking. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"completely unsuitable sources and statements" how did you know they are "unsuitable sources" almost all of them? How do you know? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Also did I write to you in person about there being a danger to life?? You wrote that statement only after that? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you know Vishwakarmas were attacked? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this style of writing that Sitush adopts acceptable to the entire wiki community? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that you have failed to provide any actual evidence that Sitush has done anything wrong, why not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Ganesh, are you at all reading any of the answers to your questions and the explanations of the things you misunderstand, here and on Talk:Vishwakarma_(caste)? Perhaps it's time we had a separate noticeboard for clueless complaints about Sitush. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC).

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, Ganesh, but I've had enough of dealing with you. Your inability to understand how Wikipedia works long preceded the statement that you are now calling into question and which formed part of a detailed critique of a source favoured by you. I'll let others try to explain the behavioural issues, if they see fit. Frankly, I think you are heading towards a topic ban from Vishwakarma and Brahmin-related articles. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"and we really do need to put a stop to this." is not an evidence User:AndyTheGrump?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sitush I did not ask you to favor, but you were persistently removing sources and making me talk over the talk page. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Since it endangered lives I wrote to you in person... and asked you to get things clarified over emails instead? Didn't I? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

All wiki needed were sources which contained the references. You could have said "Acceptable", "Unacceptable" over email itself. But you insisted me to talk instead. Why was that? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A. You insisted me to come over talk page and discuss B. You are citing I have been tendentious? Please explain? I have been doing what you were asking me. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and now he's making you talk all over ANI. Unless someone would like to close this meritless grievance? Bishonen | talk 11:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC).

Sitush wrote to me the following "Ganesh, I would prefer it if you do not email me regarding the Vishwakarma Brahmin claim. You can say anything that you want to say on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ganesh_J._Acharya/Archive_1&oldid=593821898#Emailing_me Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not meatpuppet Sitush (talk · contribs) Ganesh J. Acharya (talk · contribs) both are two side of the coin, please edit article with independent view, i was born in vishwakarma community but i am left free thinker, first of Vishwakarma is not caste that history is explained well in JSTOR by gorge Vargese K and brahmin is not this bunch of priests castes brahmin means "Designer". they born in every caste and religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 11:25, 7 February 2014‎

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:GaelanClark – bad behaviour

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.

---

Resolved: Textbook NPA, blocked. m.o.p 13:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

GaelanClark is trying to edit-war some changes into Traditional Chinese medicine, accompanied by attacks on editors:

• To Roxy the dog, here: diff
• In an email to me just now (must have found the address following links from my User page). It contains "Read the fucking paper and find the fucking conclusions and with a straight fucking face continue to spread the fucking lies." Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Personal attacks are an issue, but this was also quite concerning. m.o.p 13:52, 7 February 2014 (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:Anji03 and Bank's IFSC codes

Special:Contributions/Anji03 is mainly using their account to add IFSC codes in Indian bank articles. I personally feel. the website should not be included. But if we need to revert it might be tedious. Can someone check and revert (if needed) these edits using admin tolls (if any)? Tito☸Dutta 20:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you explained to the user why adding these links is not a good thing? Have you attempted to engage in a discussion with them? -- John Reaves 22:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Request

There's been an ongoing issue with User:Smauritius. I will start off by saying that I believe that there is some sort of COI here but whether it's just extreme fandom or paid editing I don't know, otherwise the user is trying in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. Shraddha Kapoor has had problems with this user for some few months now . There have been blocks issued but I don't think that one is nec. in this case, however a topic or article restriction may be. We have issues that the information being added is slanted towards peacock coverage. a look over the last contribs [[177]] will show that multiple people have came in and fixed issues with the article or have tried to explain to the user but they just don't understand [[178]]. I've personally went through this article once already and did a source by source review and removed what wasn't there but a lot has re-snuck back in. I strongly suspect that a great deal of the issue is that English is not this user's first language but it raises the problem of WP:COMPETENCE because the amount of time other editors spend cleaning up is not really justifying itself here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think this user should be banned from editing in article space based on WP:CIR alone. Their grasp on the English language is not such that they should be editing anything. --Laser brain (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Relatively recent sockpuppetry is bad (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smauritius/Archive. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To give you background the sockpuppet was used to pass the article we are discussing to GA sts. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Before I knew this thread existed, I left a comment on the article talk page that I didn't think Smauritius was capable of editing the article neutrally. My experience with Smauritius is they push the envelope repeatedly until they finally cave on a particular narrow issue. Then, they repeat the same process on another issue. At the same time, the theme is the same, puffery, not that, unfortunately, that isn't typical on Indian entertainment-related articles. I have no problem supporting an article ban (including the talk page), but I'm not sure if there's enough cited evidence for users who are unfamiliar with Smauritius's MO, although the sock puppetry is almost enough standing by itself. Sure, we often give socks another opportunity to redeem themselves, but it makes little sense for them to go back to the article that triggered the socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I can understand, the problem I had when writing this thread is that there is SO MUCH to show I didn't really know how to proceed. I did look over their userpage and I didn't understand that this is a person that according to their userboxes is still in High School so that may be part of the issue too. I would encourage anyone to look over the last 500 contribs on the SK page if they have the time it will help them understand the scope of why it's difficult to manage due to the large amount of edits being made. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

So, you guys are actually discussing to ban me from editing in Wikipedia, may know why & for what reason?? --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 12:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are asking that question after reading the thread above, then there are indeed WP:COMPETENCE issues. And if you asked it without reading, then the WP:COMPETENCE issues are even more severe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not to ban you from wikipedia. This was to restrict you from writing at Shradda K. I will say again that I do not see that you are here for bad reasons but your [command] is causing a lot of problems here. It's pretty obvious that English isn't your first language, you may want to try and contribute on in your own language as it may have a better result. The problem as noted above is that you don't understand why the edits are the problem and we have explained it a few times. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

And what about who contribute to the article, what about i was the major contributor, who almost update half the content available. --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 13:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Somebody else would handle it; the article isn't yours - and regardless it's that content you've put in the article that is the problem here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, no one own Wikipedia here, this is what i am trying to say? OK, admitted if i got banned from article and simultaneously block from editing in Wiki, who take the guarantee the article will updated automatically and will reach from B-class to a Featured one, half of editors who are actually opposing to ban me, will disappear? Agree, English is not my first-language, but if you guys provide me creole Wikipedia, i will agree to ban from editing Kapoor. And BTW why ban me from Kapoor (highest edition i made so far), why not from wikipedia itself, if really i'm such a bad editor, why this discrimination stand for. --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 14:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're missing the main point here: Your English is not good enough to edit articles here. Please stop editing articles. --Laser brain (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree, i'm immature, agree, i had try show ownership on the page, agree, English is not my first language, agree, i had contributed with personal attribution. I am not denying it, i will never deny it also. What was the most shocking thing, is that no one came to help/guide me, rather prefer to ban me. --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 14:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that you can still offer decent input on the talkpages, the actual writing the article part is the issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is also one example where i personally tried to explain what some of the issues are [[179]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The lynch-mob never rests. The request contains a single diff, and it is a diff of a request for help made on a Talk page. No wonder Laser Brain wants to ban. Minorview (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That is my fault User:Minorview, it is a lot of small edits and the history of the situation why I requested it. This is not a lynch mob atmosphere you can read the English and a look at the talkpage of the article and the article history will show multiple attempts to clean this up. This isn't a situation where you have a really BAD vandal editor, quite the contrary we do have a motivated contributor but the mechanics behind it just aren't there yet. This is a great area where I still think that they can contribute here on the talkpage and give us good references. It also gives them a chance to practice their English (invaluable for ESL learners) writing and comprehension skills without causing readability issues for the article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Are we just going to wait this one out? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to make a comment as an unrelated editor: can we not water down the phrase "lynch mob"? I'm hardly an arbiter of Political Correctness, however there are still people alive whose family members were actually lynched, and I think it's highly insensitive to use it so casually. Ultra Venia (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Almarro619‎

User:Almarro619 ‎has had 4 IPs edit his user page. Assuming good faith that they are public places, why would he not just log in?

Here are my discoveries about these IP addresses:

173.219.38.155 Mixed account with some vandalism and some good edits and edits to User:Almarro619 's page. Probably Their Home IP.

24.121.26.127 User:Almarro619 page updating. I Don't See why he needs this IP...

72.199.184.4 User:Almarro619 ‎page updating. Another One!?

50.38.131.106 Mainly vandalism with two edits to User:Almarro619's page. Assuming Good Faith, probably a library.

Now, Taking this into Account that all of these made changes to his page, Could this be a sock puppet case, or am I going on the wrong trail? Regards, TitusFox 17:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The assumption of good faith should lead you to their talk page, not straight to AN/I. -- John Reaves 22:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this just be ignored? The user only has three edits anyway, the last edit was in 2012, and the user page has not been edited since December 2012. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• That user page was nothing more than a list of ways of getting into touch with the user, who appears to be looking for a job. They have no edits outside that user page. We're not Myspace etc, so I deleted the user page. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Mixed-martial artists

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.

---

SQGibbon posted the following request at WP:AIV:

24.186.49.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Marvin Eastman : vandalism after recent release of block. This editor just came off a block as a sock puppet of 24.186.54.234 and is making the exact same kinds of edits to MMA articles as before (ignoring WP:MMA consensus on style as well as the MOS). SQGibbon (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see any block-worthy problems in the edits; what I'm seeing is stuff like this, which warrants warnings in the {{uw-unsor1}} series, but not a block without warnings. On the other hand, I know that mixed-martial arts is a contentious field, and we've had trouble there in ways that I don't understand, so it might be best to get outside input here. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP that I mentioned at AIV is a sockpuppet of 24.186.54.234 who is currently blocked from editing Wikipedia. This IP, 49.59, was already blocked once for being a sockpuppet evading a block and the fact that within 24 hours of coming off of that block is at it again is sufficient reason for blocking them again. Now as for the sock master (and of their other socks -- see the link above) has spent a very long time editing against the guidelines established at WP:MMA (which, should be noted, is still under discretionary sanctions) and has been blocked several times for that behavior. The list is long, but the most recent activity is filling in the "style" parameter of the MMA infobox which is against community consensus "Do not use the style parameter from the {{Infobox martial artist}} in MMA biographical articles. Modern MMA requires training several fighting styles, which means that no mixed martial artist uses a single style when fighting...". The IP has been told this through many edit summaries and messages (especially see the user accounts they created). The editor has also been linking to fighting organizations in records tables which contradicts community consensus at WP:MMA "In the column Event, only wikify events that have an article at Wikipedia, not organizations. Organizations should only be wikified once within the body text of the article." Again, the IP and their socks have been told this is against the MMA community consensus. On top of that the editor also engages in massive overlinking: well-known geographic names (Japan, California, Miami Florida), well-known terms in general (like "gym"), and then linking all of those over and over again all of which is against WP:OVERLINK. Again, the IP has been informed of these things but refuses to engage in any discussion about any of this. There were other issues that the IP has ceased doing over the years.

The editor clearly has their own ideas about how MMA articles should be written and styled and does not care that their approach goes against not only the MMA project but Wikipedia as a whole. And given their refusal to communicate it is a problem. SQGibbon (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2014 (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.

Ban proposal for User:Kendite/يوسف حسين

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.

---

Moved to AN. Middayexpress (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ban proposals are typically entertained at AN rather than ANI.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Middayexpress (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2014 (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.

Incompetent editor who pushes fringe views

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.

---

This is a complaint about User:Ret.Prof.

He repeats ad nauseam that same information about the Gospel of Matthew having originally been written in Hebrew, which multiple editors repeatedly told him it is WP:FRINGE.

Misunderstanding of basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines: at [180] does not understand that primary sources cannot be used to establish facts for Wikipedia, since it means indulging in original research, and he said that even after I explained him this official Wikipedia policy.

A case of WP:COMPETENCE: his ability to find, evaluate and render the viewpoints of reliable sources make me think that he does not have great scholarly abilities. I do not want to be offensive, but this is my sincere impression when confronted with his edits. There are some things which scholars consider as poor academic performance and one of them is misquoting the viewpoints of other scholars. If one consequently fails to render the viewpoints of the sources he is quoting, it smells either like poor academic performance or as academic fraud (like in trying to game other editors, who are required to assume good faith in citing sources). Proof: at [181] he misrepresents several sources, which specifically affirm the following information which severely undermines his own case:

Hence the quite confused tradition that it was originally written in Aramaic or even in Hebrew.

— Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, 2010, p. 89

http://books.google.de/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA88&focus=viewport&dq=it+is+genuinely+true+that+the+apostle+Matthew+compiled

If this interpretation of Papias is correct, there are several historical problems. First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (see Chapter 15, "The Synoptic Problem," in this volume). This theory requires that the author of Matthew knew and used Greek versions of Mark and Greek Q as sources. Third, the gospel contains sayings and sayings collections, but is itself not a collection of sayings such as Proverbs or The Gospel of Thomas. In short, Papias' description does not correspond well with the New Testament.

— Dennis C. Duling, p. 302 in David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament, 2010

See http://books.google.de/books?id=ygcgn8h-jo4C&pg=PA302&lpg=PA301&focus=viewport&dq=%22Matthew+comes+from+Papias%22+Eusebius+trustworthy

In any event, Papias does not seem to provide us with the kind of information we can place a lot of confidence in. I should point out, in this connection, that scholars have almost uniformly rejected just about everything else that Papias is recorded to have said in the surviving references to his work.

...

If scholars are inclined to discount what Papias says in virtually every other instance, why is it that they sometimes appeal to his witness in order to show that we have an early tradition that links Matthew to one of our Gospels, and Mark to another? Why do these scholars accept some of what Papias said but not all of what he said? I suspect it is because they want to have support for their own points of view (Matthew really wrote Matthew) and have decided to trust Papias when he confirms their views, and not trust him when he does not.

The result of this quick examination of Papias is, I think, that he passes on stories that he has heard, and he attributes them to people who knew other people who said so. But when he can be checked, he appears to be wrong. Can he be trusted in the places that he cannot be checked? If you have a friend who is consistently wrong when he gives directions to places you are familiar with, do you trust him when he gives directions for someplace you’ve never been?

Papias is not recorded as having said anything about either Luke or John. I’m not sure why. But the bottom line is this: we do not have any solid reference to the authors of our four Gospels in which we can trust (for example, that the author is actually referring to our Matthew and our Mark) until closer to the end of the second century—nearly a full hundred years after these books had been anonymously placed in circulation.

— Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 107-110

He could have himself found out that these sources undermine his own case if he bothered to read more than one page shown by Google Books.

I wrote on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_36#Gospel of Matthew:

As far as Ehrman's book is concerned, the quote starts with "Many conservative Christian scholars use this statement to prove that what Papias says is historically accurate (especially about Mark and Matthew), but that is going beyond what the evidence gives us." So, Ehrman does not claim that Papias would be accurate in his reports, except for reporting the fact that he knew people who knew the apostles or their companions. As shown from another source, Ehrman believes that almost everything else Papias told is inaccurate and there is no indication that Ehrman has changed his mind about Papias's reliability. So, you cannot make Ehrman say that what Papias reports about a Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew would be a reliable report. What Ehrman stressed is that Papias is not a reliable source for the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew and it could be even be inferred that Ehrman affirms that Papias is historically inaccurate (with the exception of knowing those people). Just read the quote above ignoring the parenthesis and you will see what I mean. So, using Ehrman to establish the historical reliability of Papias's report fails verification, it is using partial quotations to justify an idea that Ehrman rejects. So, I was at least right about misrepresenting Ehrman's view. That's why I said that I cannot assume a fair rendering of the viewpoints of those sources, either you have failed to understand Ehrman's point or you have willfully misrepresented it. At least you could concede that you have misread what Ehrman has to say.

— User:Tgeorgescu

The above allegations are simply false. Yes I am an old guy who sometimes gets confused but if you read my sources in their context you will see my references are solid. If I do make a mistake, I promptly apologize and fix the mistake. I enjoy scholarly debate and enjoy it when I "learn" something new. My edit history will support me. I am not perfect but neither do I fit the caricature presented above! - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with:

It is important to note that these sources are NOT saying that "Matthew's collection sayings in a Hebrew dialect" and the Gospel of Matthew are the same work. Indeed there is clear evidence that "Matthew's Hebrew Gospel" was NOT translated into what we call the Gospel of Matthew.

— Ret.Prof

I have a problem with:

Now, it has to be admitted that not everyone agrees. There are still some Christian scholars who believe that the Gospel of Matthew is a direct translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.

— Ret.Prof

Namely, you did not say who disagrees and where. And, please, no sources older than 50 years.

I also have a problem with User_talk:Davidbena#Reliable Sources (there are sources from when my grandmother was a child or even before she was born). Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And I find it disturbing that after more than five years of editing you still don't acknowledge the meaning of {{religious text primary}}. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

E.g., you still seem to think that Jerome and Eusebius wrote reliable sources, which could be used by Wikipedia in order to establish historical facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Coming back to your sources, their authors either say that Papias was mostly unreliable (as Ehrman said) or that Papias didn't speak of what we now call the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore, his testimony about the Gospel of Matthew is either unreliable or inapplicable (irrelevant). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Some other users have already suggested a topic ban for this user, see Talk:Gospel of Matthew#Solicit a topic ban?. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The problem has been going on since 2010 on multiple related articles and is intractable. There are chronic issues with misunderstanding (or misuse) of sources and behavioral problems as well. I would like to ask for the guidance of the community as to whether this complex dispute belongs in arbitration. Ignocrates (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who has had nothing to do with that controversy, after reading the above, I would say yes, it sure sounds like a good candidate for arbitrating. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that arbitration is the way to go. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"As an uninvolved editor who has had nothing to do with that controversy," - other than that two threads about use of WP:FRINGE sources and WP:UNDUE content in Bible topics are happening on the same ANI page at the same time. One editor accuses the unanimity of New Testament textual scholars of German anti-Hebrew bias, another editor accuses the unanimity of Hebrew Bible palaeo-botanists of anti-cannabis bias. But these are exactly the issues WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are meant to cover. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Complaints about the FTN crowd pulling allegations of FRINGE out of their chutzpah to stigmatize entire bookshelves they don't like and "win" centuries-old debates the easy way has become a regularly recurring pattern, how many more instances will it take before FTN itself gets the scrutinizing case study it deserves? (especially in religion topics where FRINGE = a barely disguised euphemism for HERESY... For the first years of its existence, I remember when FTN would steer clear of asserting who the fringe and non-fringe was in religious debates, but lately it has been acquiring a new role for itself as the Arbiter of All Truth (TM)) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed century-old theological debates about some issues and we cannot claim that mainstream history would require that theologians revise their doctrines (while historical evidence may be important for apologetics, theology does not require historical evidence; all history books in the world cannot prove or disprove that Jesus is God, since that isn't a historical fact). But this does not imply that mainstream historians did not settle those issues as far as the secular academia cares. I don't deny that there are fundamentalist faculties who teach that "Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew", but for everyone else than fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals the debate has been definitively settled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's been "settled" with perfect "unanimity", because all those saying different aren't even allowed at the table - such is the nature of achieving "unanimity" these days. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

People who hold that historical criticism was birthed in hell and continues to be a Satanic plot are generally not allowed at the discussion table establishing the consensus in historical criticism. As User:Ian.thomson said, "If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case." Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as orthodoxy on all Biblical controversies hereafter being a matter to be ascertained only by "scientists" - so, exactly how many of the competing hypotheses have got past the experimentation phase in this case? Are we using real "scientific method" to determine which scholars are correct / incorrect, or just the same ol' same ol' "appeal to authority"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if this view isn't unanimous, history is regarded as a science. Affirming biblical inerrancy as historical scholarship is beyond ludicrous. The mass of evidence that the Bible has errors (from minor copying mistakes to big theological contradictions) is simply too vast for biblical inerrancy to be considered true by mainstream scholars. Besides, scientists/scholars don't decide upon theological orthodoxy, since theological orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder. So I do not say that Biblical inerrancy would be a problem theologically, I just say that history does not work that way. Wikipedia does not employ the scientific method, it is all the way for proper appeals to authority (i.e. reliable sources policy). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"history is regarded as science." Really? Funny, what I learned in school was that there are differing views of history. That different countries have differing views of history. That different scientists in the different countries are paid by their governments to research different hypotheses. And I learned that true "science" mainly applies to things where the "scientific method" is of any use to establish conclusions, although it is true that "science" in some eastern European countries has more taken the route of "appeal to authority" on other matters as well. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a red herring, I did not deny above that there are other views of history. East European scholarship is a red herring, too. Nothing of what you replied immediately above is germane to Ret.Prof's behavior. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to the POV Railroad

The "Anti-Fringe" POV Railroad is made up of two admins, six user accounts and an undetermined number of alternate accounts. (See WP:POV Railroad) It formed about 10 years ago and their stated purpose is to remove “fringe” (ie anything Hebrew or Jewish from Christianity). The most up to date reliable sources do not support their position. Nor does their definition of "fringe" line up with that of Wikipedia. They are in serious violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. See also Arbitration

Issue
I raised a concern that the following editas it was not properly sourced and explained edits at Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources. I referred them to the first 15 pages of Throckmorton's the Gospel Parallels (All editions from 1957 to present) which give an excellent overview along the following sources.

• William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602
• Rochus Zuurmond, Novum Testamentum Aethiopice: The Synoptic Gospels, Franz Steiner Pub., 1989. p 31
• Sabine Baring Gould, "The lost and hostile gospels" 1874, Oxford University, Digitized 2006. p 122

I offered to provide further references if required. This would be no problem as every Biblical scholar is aware of the attestations to the early MSS (ie Matthew "wrote his Gospel in Hebrew in Palestine"). NOTE I did not revert the unsourced edit for I have voluntarily stepped back from editing this article last year because of the edit warring. This request on the talk page for a reliable source has given rise to the allegations that I am a time waster who is an incompetent editor who pushes fringe views. However there is much more to this 10 year old conflict than meets the eye.

Abuse of this noticeboard

• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard for a POV Railroad to act as 1)Accuser, 2)Judge & 3) Executioner
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use it for the intimidation of other editors.
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use cherry pick edits from a good faith use's history and take these edits out of context in order to deceive or trick others into thinking he is a problem user.
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use it as a tool for POV pushing See User:Davidbena, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Requesting a topic ban for User:BruceGrubb etc
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use cherry pick edits from a good faith use's ancient history in order to deceive or trick others into thinking he is a problem user. Generally speaking accusations should be restricted to edits within the last twelve months.
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use it to facilitate false personal attacks against fellow editors.
• Finally when an admin warns an editor about some behavior and the editor complies, it is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to then use it as a basis for a ban.

WP:CBAN reads, "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, 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."

Arbitration
Because the POV Railroad has abused this notice board in the past I request that the conflict be taken to arbitration and the ban against User:CheeseDreams, User:-Ril-, User:Cheese -dreams and User:John Carter be extended to include all remaining User Accounts from the Anti-Hebrew POV Railroad. I also request that present bans be strictly enforced.

Re vague allegations against me

During my break I asked a number of Bureaucrats and Administers to review my edit history to see if I had done anything to warrant being banned from Wikipedia. None of them could find any edits to justify the allegations of rudeness etc brought against me over the past year. Michael Q Schmidt looked into the situation and his response was “Your only "sin" has been to be calm and reasonable in the face of negativity." And “your edits based upon existing policy and guidelines are sound. Your stepping back from areas of drama is to be applauded.” User:Liz went so far as to describe me as a "mild-mannered user". However the POV railroad has become so very powerful that being "innocent of any wrongdoing" does not make much difference. Many editors have let themselves be intimidated! (see my talk page) I will give the last word to User:llywrch who best summed up the situation:. "There are gangs of editors who protect themselves & their friends, & I don't know what can be done about them. I wish these groups didn't exist, but they do & there is little interest in controlling them." - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Blackwell source on natural theology has been evaluated at Talk:Gospel of Matthew#Clarification re Early Attestations. Otherwise, there is nothing anti-Semitic or anti-Judaizing about the sources used by the editors who challenge your views. The scholarly consensus is that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, and the contrary view does not even qualify for a minority view. The users who oppose such fringe view don't do that for ideological reasons. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Again that is not true. I never got a source to support your edit that the attestations did not exist! Also, the most basic right of every editor is to be able to a request a source to back up an edit. To respond to such a request with a T-Ban is soooooo wrong! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What isn't true? The early church writers got their information from Papias, and as you have yourself admitted, most reliable sources tell that Papias does not speak of our Gospel of Matthew, besides Ehrman tells that Papias is unreliable except for the statement that he knew people who knew people associated with the apostles. You should at least quote some sources saying that Matthew did write the Gospel of Matthew, I guess there are fundamentalists who make such claims. I do not say that such sources would be mainstream, but at least you would make clear where you got your information from. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It is easy to claim that a certain view is "fringe" when it does not agree with one's own hypothesis. My suggestion in this particular contentious issue and which might give the editors involved a greater propensity to be honest and impartial in their reporting, is for User:Tgeorgescu and User:Ret.Prof to go before one of the Administrator heads (bureaucrats) with their respective arguments outlined on paper using reliable secondary sources and showing why the Gospel of Matthew was or wasn't first penned in the Hebrew or Aramaic tongue. Clearly, the man observing these scholarly arguments will come to the conclusion that neither view should be considered a "fringe view," but each view has its own merits on which to stand, based on solid arguments. The end result of which being that Wikipedia will then be left with no other choice but to take a neutral stand in this particular issue, in accordance with its own policy WP:NPOV, rather than mislead its readership into thinking that there is some consensus amongst scholars as to the original work of Matthew. Davidbena (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I believe my references are strong and will stand the test of scholarly scrutiny. (See below) Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

(Note: I refactored the multitude of level-3 headings in Ret.Prof's response above, because they made it difficult to tell that they were all part of a single comment. BMK (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC))

No problem. You just made an old guy run and get his glasses. LOL Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I am very concerned that User:Ret.Prof wants topics bans to be "extended to include all remaining User Accounts from the Anti-Hebrew POV Railroad" and mentions "two admins, six user accounts and an undetermined number of alternate accounts" without actually naming these users. These accusations should be properly documented, and the users in question named and notified of this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A good point. That is why I believe this case should be moved to arbitration. A lot of work and care is needed with serious accusations. One mistake and I could be banned as an incompetent time waster who is "Judaizing" the faith. I think we both know that this is not simply about my request for references to back up an unsourced edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me add one thing that is very important. I am mainly concerned about Wikipedia's accuracy and I apologize if such a concern inadvertently offended others... as offending or conflict was never my intention. My intention was only to ensure accuracy and better the reputation of Wikipedia. Also editors now working in groups or as some call them gangs can grow to be a real problem for Wikipedia. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

About that unsourced edit: it is common knowledge for everyone who has read anything recent in historical scholarship about the Gospel of Matthew. Besides at the WP:FTN discussion which I have previously mentioned here I had offered a list of sources which support that viewpoint. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• If RFAR is going to be filed, then this thread needs to be closed as it won't get anything done. (But I don't want to do that without further input.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any WP:RFAR - Ret.Prof wants "arbitration" but that is asking a lot/too much of the half dozen exhausted editors who have been reverting these additions and fork article creations at roughly six-month intervals since 2010. A particular problem with a WP:RFAR for other editors is the enormous number of bytes - often reposts of same material can be seen today - which Ret.Prof posts. WP:RFC/U might be more appropriate, but all that is really needed is a simple small targeted topic ban - simply please stop adding lost Hebrew Matthew theories to New Testament articles. WP:FRINGE theories can still be added in pages on any notable individual author BLPs/churches which advocate the theory but is WP:UNDUE for major articles on the New Testament which need to be objective and represent the consensus of academic scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, you can surely advise ArbCom of your opinion, but whether they start a RFAR or not (once someone actually submits a request) is not something that can be voted down by the peanut gallery. I think the Igniocrates(sp?) vs. John Carter ArbCom was on narrow behavioral issues. Most areas of Wikipedia suffer from having fewer editors than some years bacj; at least that's my subjective impression. That's probably a good argument (in the opposite direction, i.e.) for not letting POV pushers own any area because one or two of them seem to have a much greater impact now than they had before. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Someone not using his real name then I am mistaken, I thought there was a point at the request for arbitration where others could voice an opinion against arbitration as too much hassle. Is there no way to prevent repeat insertion of a WP:FRINGE (see definition) view into articles without the drama of "arbitration"? Isn't WP:FRINGE sufficient to stop these edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure you want binding arbitration? The collateral damage is often serious. What other dispute resolution methods have the various editors attempted? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As said, there was a WP:FTN discussion about inserting fringe views. And editors tried to convince him (through using talk pages) to desist from inserting fringe views. The new research he means is mostly Dunn. While Dunn is not fringe, he does not represent the majority view either. And I doubt that Dunn goes so far as to say that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Other sources were simply misquoted to defend a view that the authors are known to have rejected it previously and no proof has been offered that they changed their mind. Also, quotations used by him were too selective and just quoting stuff at distance of some paragraphs or pages shows that those authors don't say what they are purported to say, therefore his synthesis fails verification. It's like people misquote Obama trying to show that he is a Socialist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This paragraph is typical of the problem. Although it is all over the place, (See WP:POV Railroad) it makes me sound really, really bad!

• I do not believe Obama is a Socialist for the 401(k) of the average person is doing well. I am a Christian but I am not a "Waco bird"! See the box on the top of my talk page.
• The statement (further above) about primary sources is also wrong and is not supported by my edit history. WP:SOURCES states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia." Also, it has been my policy to back up a primary source with a secondary source.
• The statement above that Dunn "does not represent the majority view" is also wrong. Indeed it can be fairly said that Dunn is one of the foremost scholars in the world today.

And so on, and so, and so on. Trying to answer all the allegations leaves one chasing ones tail and looking guilty of being an incompetent time wasting editor who pushes fringe views and therefore should be banned. (See WP:POV Railroad for more information.) The only fair way to deal with this problem this problem is at arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to your use of sources in order to show that Papias would be quite reliable (especially in respect to the Gospel of Matthew or whatever gospel he was referring to). Ehrman said that many scholars do not hold Papias to be very reliable. So, you were misquoting sources in order to boost Papias's reliability. Besides, judgment in respect to the relevance of what Eusebius and Jerome prove should be left to contemporary mainstream historians. You cannot cite some 1500 years old texts and expect them to pass for contemporary scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't think James Dunn has ever supported the idea of a Hebrew/Aramaic original behind Matthew - at least I can't find any such on making a quick search. When RetProf refers to Dunn it's in reference to Dunn's ideas on the oral tradition. RetProf's talk about "new research" sometimes means Dunn's work on oral tradition, but in this case he's talking about superscriptions to ancient mss of the Gospel of Matthew that say in essence that the Apostle Matthew wrote it. The superscriptions are real enough, but there's nothing "new" about scholarly knowledge of them. What RetProf is doing is ignoring the existing consensus, which is that the superscriptions aren't reliable. Note that what he calls "new scholarship" includes works from 1801!" PiCo (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Dunn definitely does not say that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew/Aramaic, he says explicitly that it was written in Greek (he even goes further, saying that Matthew only used Greek sources!), this is from his most recent book in 2013, strengthening his assertions from 2011 JP&G: "It will not do, for example, to argue that Matthew and Luke drew their non-Markan material from an Aramaic source, each making his own translation into Greek. That in such a case they would have ended up with more or less identical Greek for their independent translations is almost impossible to envisage. Much the more obvious solution is either that Matthew copied Luke, or Luke copied Matthew, or the source they drew on was already in Greek. Here the case for a Q document already in Greek becomes very strong" —Oral Gospel Tradition (Eerdmans, 2013), p. 295. The only "scholars" who say the sort of thing pushed here are those who teach at places like Wheaton College (Illinois) (where, for example, people who convert to Roman Catholicism are fired for not being Christian enough), although maybe someone could find an exception (no one has done that yet). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: A concern I have had about this long-running edit conflict is that not enough has been done to resolve the conduct issues. Rather than bring it to ANI in the past, Ret.Prof has simply been overwhelmed by a number of determined editors from WikiProject Christianity. Also, it's likely that the arbs would have rejected a RFAR as not ripe for arbitration. Now that this dispute has finally reached ANI, the community can weigh in with a recommendation. A targeted T-ban by the community assumes the problem is due to Ret.Prof alone and all the other parties have clean hands. I'll leave that to others to decide. I think the arbs would take the case if the community decides that is the best course of action. Ignocrates (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words. And let me be the first to acknowledge I have much to learn. But neither am I the caricature described above! I too think the arbs would take this case if the community decides that it is the best course of action. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, one's patience has limits. This user has been told lots of times that the Gospel of Matthew being originally written in Hebrew is a fringe idea (and he has himself recently quoted scholars who also imply this), but does not want to learn and still pushes such fringe views at [182]. This edit is not even one month old, let alone over an year old. When users are confronted with people who just do not want to desist and do not seem to get the point even after it has been patiently and repeatedly explained to them, they could get angry and lambaste the offender. It's comparable to a troll eliciting angry responses. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"has been told" - love it. The reason it's generally hard to find actual sources in scholarship calling something "fringe" is exactly because, true scholarship is rather hesitant to be reckless in tossing that pejorative around. If wikipedia reflected anything like true scholarship, it would not do so either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof said he was a professor whose main area of expertise is biblical scholarship. Any such professor would be expected to distinguish by himself between fringe and mainstream and to know when to stop making baseless claims. To this I add that he has employed quotes from Ehrman in order to defend viewpoints which Ehrman overtly rejects. His allegations that a superscript would prove that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew makes me wonder if he is capable of understanding how historical criticism works. If this isn't due to fideism, it is due to incompetence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Big Question: I think things have moved beyond the request I made in January at the talk page on the Gospel of Matthew for further references re an unsourced edit. Some have wondered why I just don't quit Wikipedia. I think the answer has to do with when I was researching the "POV railroad". Back in 2005 User:Melissadolbeer (a new user who left Wikipedia that year) said "This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia." It is still on her user page. I believe editors at Wikipedia should never be made to feel this way. I look at the way User:Davidbena was treated his first month at Wikipedia. It was so very wrong! In my heart and soul I feel something must be done. I will probably be banned from Wikipedia, but quit...never! And I believe that if this goes to arbitration, the Arbs will be shocked and outraged and take strong action. Wikipedia should be a safe place for us all! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone who does not agree with WP:VER, WP:SOURCES, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE is not welcome as a Wikipedia editor. This isn't a personal attack, it's just saying that Wikipedians aren't going to like such editor and such editors ain't going to like Wikipedians. This explains Davidbena's experience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Again what you say is not true! User:Davidbena was new to Wikipedia. He joined Wikipedia Aug 22 2013 and you brought proceedings to ban him at ANI Aug 27! I believe this is an abuse of this notice board. I also reviewed your comments about him. WOW If you were not protected by the POV Railroad you would have a T-Ban by now. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

He submitted some articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, but some independent editors (unrelated to your accusations of cabal-forming) rejected his attempts to create articles because of his overindulgence in using primary sources. And this was the very reason he was reported here. In fact, I have nothing against a newbie who did not know the rules, made a mistake, was told what the rules are, learned the rules and obeyed them and the same applies to his own case. I do not hate him, I just insisted that the policy on original research isn't optional. If he wants to edit Wikipedia he has to obey this policy, if he does not obey this policy he should not edit Wikipedia. I don't force him to leave, he has to make his own choice, but he cannot eat his cake and still have it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Fringe:This ANI is all over the place now! Once again I sound really really bad:

• "NPOV means keeping fringe material out of a major article like Gospel Matthew - none of your material has any place in this article. Yourself and previous advocates of "Original Matthew" theories have tried repeatedly to insert the theory into this article and it has been repeatedly removed. And yet here you are filling the Talk page with more advocacy for this theory. What will it take to stop this? Are you ever going to accept that this fringe theory does not deserve a prominent place in major New Testament articles on en.wp?" In ictu oculi (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• "So we're back at this game are we? What has changed since the last time we reviewed the question at hand (see the archive for relevant discussion? Are we doing the old, look at all these wonderful WP:RS which exempts the material from the WP:FRINGE requirement again? That dog won't hunt and since we have been over this extensively before, rehashing old arguments is a variant of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which is in turn a form of WP:DISRUPT, which leads us all traipsing over to WP:ANI to ask for a topic or article ban. OTOH, if there has been a shift in the scholarly consensus that now accepts the Hebrew hypothesis (of which I am unaware), then the article should incorporate the theory." Eusebeus (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment re POV Railroad:"User:Eusebeus, exactly. Unfortunately with User:PiCo semi-retired, User:History2007 retired, User:DougWeller on leave, I'm not sure how we can do this. One thing is clear, RetProf's firm conviction that the WP:TRUTH is that the "real" Gospel of the "real" Matthew is lurking in Hebrew fragments is just not going to go away. This is more than adequately covered in the article on the fringe theory, a single link is sufficient, but will RetProf accept not making a case for the theory in Gospel of Matthew article itself?" In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• "So let me say this. Wasting editors time with this kind of cavilling nonsense is disruptive and uncivil. If you would like to craft a nice paragraph that notes how scholars have come to reject Papias' claims of a Hebrew original while mentioning that there is some scholarship that has tried to maintain the theory is fine. Statements like "Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect" is, however, FRINGE-laden OR."

"Do we really need an RfC to determine that scholarly consensus rejects the idea of an original Hebrew Matthew gospel? No, because we can read. What we do need is a way to prevent disruptive editing from consuming the time of editors who, having committed to engage in good faith, are forced to take time to note that citing material that explicitly rejects the idea an editor is trying to promote, and having this advanced as a "shift in consensus", is nonsensical to the point of incomprehensibility.

In other words: you're being rude. So stop." Eusebeus (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC

• More recently (see above) "Well, one's patience has limits. This user has been told lots of times that the Gospel of Matthew being originally written in Hebrew is a fringe idea (and he has himself recently quoted scholars who also imply this), but does not want to learn and still pushes such fringe views at [1]. This edit is not even one month old, let alone over an year old. When users are confronted with people who just do not want to desist and do not seem to get the point even after it has been patiently and repeatedly explained to them, they could get angry and lambaste the offender. It's comparable to a troll eliciting angry responses." Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This bashing re fringe went on and on! It was both abusive and dishonest for it did not conform to WP:FRINGE. The WP:FTN was quite actually quite supportive of my position re fringe. I have found the discussion very helpful. I agreed with User:Shii that a "fringe theory" is one that is outside of the responsible literature entirely. If Ehrman et al. cover it, that is at least grounds to mention it, as the question is one of WEIGHT, not FRINGE. (See PiCo, and IRWolfie ) Secondly, we I have come to the conclusion that Ehrman is a reliable source per User:Smeat75. Indeed Ehrman is a leading source. Although it looked to me as though Papias' statement that Matthew wrote his Gospel in a Hebrew was not fringe, I have volontarily chosen not to bring up Papias or edit the Gospel of Matthew. (Note * I did not surrender my right to make comments on the talk page re the "attestations".) The POV Railroad saw this good faith gesture as a weakness and "Here I am". I now request that this be brought to arbitration.

Consensus I have just read through all this verbiage. WOW!!! The consensus seems to be that even a dim witted old man has the right to 'waste' people's time by requesting a reliable source for an unsourced edit without fearing a T ban. As to my request for arbitration re the POV Railroad close but not quite there yet! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've checked the first five results from the link you made you think that it wouldn't be fringe. The results are:

"We must concede," he wrote, "that the report that Mt was written by Matthew 'in the Hebrew language' is utterly false, however it may have arisen." W.G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., trans. Howard Clark Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975) 49, 120-21.

But Papias' statement involves more problems than it resolves. ... At any rate, the canonical text of Matthew is and always has been the Greek version. Our commentary proceeds on the assumption that the Gospel was composed in Greek. ... But no responsible scholar claims that we now have access to the original Hebrew of Matthew's Gospel.

It is questionable, however, whether Papias is to be interpreted in this way and, even if so, whether Papias can be trusted regarding this information. ... (1) our Greek Gospel of Matthew is not the translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original;

Thus even for the most of the more conservative scholarly commentators, while varying in their views of Matthean authorship or influence, acknowledge that the matter is uncertain (Carson 1984b: 19; France, 1985: 34; Blomberg 1992a: 43-44; McKnight 1992: 528). Likewise, some scholars who reject Matthean authorship are troubled by the antiquity of the Gospel titles and the tradition of authorship; Luz complains that too many scholars simply ignore these difficulties (1989: 94-95).

The fathers, from Papias to Eusebius, who perpetuated the old tradition regarding the Hebrew Gospel, themselves rest their assertion on tradition, i.e., on reports that they had heard. And none of these fathers, not even Papias himself, was able to name a single person who had seen — not to say handled — this alleged Hebrew Matthew. The reports of the fathers regarding a Hebrew "Gospel" must be considered as hearsay, unsupported by a tangible fact and contradicted by all the probabilities involved as well as by several uncontested facts.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to quote me out of context, please inform me of it. I was asking a question in the diff because I am not informed on these issues. I was not asserting there was no fringe element. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Next step: mediation, arbitration, or what?

• (Introduced a new subsubsection to try to focus attention on getting an outcome: Just to keep minds concentrated, Ret.Prof says he wants arbitration. PiCo (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC))

I haven't read every single comment but from past familiarity with this dispute, this seems like a content dispute, about reliable sources and interpretation of sources. This isn't a disciplinary matter that should involve the big admin stick. It is complex, involves a variety of editors and viewpoints, it should head to mediation (preferably) or arbitration, not ANI.

Bottom line: I don't see "blockable" behavior here and most actions coming out of ANI cases result in blocks, editing restrictions or are a stalemate with no consensus. The charges brought up against Ret.Prof by Tgeorgescu are layered and complex and I don't think the blunt tools of administrators is the best solution for this impasse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. So that means mediation I guess, either informal or formal. Maybe I should take the initiative, since RetProf began by objecting to a specific reversion I made of one of his edits. Before I do, any other views? (If you agree with the idea of mediation, do you tink it shld be formal or informal?) PiCo (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking for venues to carry this forward, came across the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It's apparently for deciding on questions of due weight, which is what I personally think is at stake here. The step after that is formal mediation: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. This involves a formal committee with binding results, and is the last stage of content dispute resolution, when all else fails - so I think the time for this has not yet come. If there aren't any persuasive arguments to the contrary by tomorrow my time (AEST), I'll start a mediation process. That gives RetProf in particular time to respond here. PiCo (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

All this time, and I never realised you were in my time zone... StAnselm (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Us old guys sleep all the time. Keeps us from being Incompetent ! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Leave it to Liz to come to our rescue. I think what she says makes a lot of sense. I would prefer formal mediation for three reasons:

1. This dispute has been going on for a very long time
2. Besides this notice board, our dispute has gone to several other notice boards (See excerpt from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard above)
3. The result shall be binding and will bring this to an end.

Finally I would prefer LIZ to oversee the start of the mediation process. No offense to PiCo but she is neutral. She also has a great intellect and a kind heart! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The discussion at FTN brought out some important points. One of them was a suggestion made by Til Eulenspiegel to create a new article on the historiography of scholarship on the Gospel of Matthew. Such an article would be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia, and it might satisfy both sides of the dispute. With respect to formal mediation, I think it's a great idea, and I suggest contacting Keilana to act as the mediator. She is one of the most accomplished mediators we have here, and if anyone can mediate this complex dispute, it is her. Ignocrates (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation is preferable to informal mediation in a complex case like this one because it is privileged communication. Therefore, it can't be used as a soapbox to pile up "points" that can be used later as evidence in arbitration. While formal mediation is technically non-binding, every participant is supposed to make a good-faith commitment to achieve a result as though it were binding. If it becomes obvious to the mediator that one or more of the parties are unable to do that, the mediator will simply stop the process. Declaring that one of the parties is incapable of or unwilling to accept a mediated solution before even trying is a statement of bad faith. Ignocrates (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment I object to the statement that this is a content dispute. It is not. One determined editor who consistently appears promoting the same discredited viewpoint is not engaged in a content dispute. One determined editor who uses walls of text to obfuscate and prevaricate is not a content dispute. One determined editor who engages repeatedly in ICANTHEARTHAT and similar kinds of behaviour when presented with overwhelming evidence to refute his contentions and whose capacity for passive-aggressive querulousness is apparently tireless is not a content dispute. This is disruptive editing of the kind that makes it difficult for other editors to continue. Ret. Prof. has been repeatedly engaged in good faith on the questions he has raised. You are not allowed to game the system by simply stating the same thing over and over again every six months by gussying it up as a content dispute. It is not. Repeated patterns of disruptive behaviour are exhausting for other editors and detrimental to the aims of the project. This is clearly blockable behaviour and I suggest that as such, a topic ban with sanctions be enacted here at AN/I as a result. Eusebeus (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This simply is not true. Please look at:

1. Excerpt from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard above
2. My edit history
3. The WP:POV Railroad

But if you want to take this to arbitration, that is still ok with me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban Ret. Prof. as a POV pusher and cherry-picker of sources Ret. Prof usage of sources is truly disgusting, the cherry-picking is atrocious. In the RS/N thread above, he quotes only those paragraphs that support his POV. He "forgets" to include paragraphs that say the theory is a minority:

• The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament cites pages 301-303, but he forgets to quote from page 302 several sentences that contradict very strongly his position: "First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not hebrw or Aramain. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (...) This theory requires that the author of Matthew knew and used Greek version of Mark and Greek Q as sources. (...) In short, Papias' description does not correspond well with the New Testament. (...) [The author of Mathew] wrote very good Greek."
• The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology Ret. Prof. cites page 602 to support his theory, but on the same page it says that the opinion has a lot of problems and is held only by a minority of scholars.
• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3 states in the introduction that he is holding a minority opinion, and mentors told him that he could ruin his career by publishing his book
• Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching he cites pages 86 and 87, but in page 87 "When applied to our Gospel of Matthew, this tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognized. Our Gospel is not only written in perfectly decent Greek, it was partly written by an author who was revising our Greek Mark into better Greek (...) It was therefore written in Greek. (...) How could such a grossly confunsed view of our Gospel of Matthew have arisen"

formal mediation is not binding and doesn't address editor's behaviour. This is no longer a content dispute, Ret Prof has failed many times to make a content-based argument. He is just resorting to WP:ICANTHEARTHAT, refusing to read sources provided by others, cherry-picking sources, cherry-picking new sources when the old ones are debunked, incorrectly claiming that his position is clearly supported by sources, eroding other editors' patience, and re-inserting his edits again and again until everyone gets tired of reverting his incorrect edits. This tendentious editing is a blockable behaviour, and worthy of a topic-ban.

After this disgusting show of cherry-picking, I wouldn't trust Ret. Prof with interpretation of any source. If he is a good-faith editor, then he is completely unable to read sources without filtering everything through his bias. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That simply is not true. My interpretation of the sources is solid. Look at them as a whole! In any event I have little doubt that I would prevail at either mediation or arbitration. I suspect that is why the POV Railroad wants me banned NOW. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The facts speak by themselves. You imply refuse to accept what sources say. Count me as part of that mythical "POV railroad" that wants you banned from wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Confused: If you feel strongly that "your interpretation" of the sources is the only right one, why are you so concerned about going to mediation or arbitration. If my understanding of the reliable sources (or lack there of) is as bad as you say, then you will prevail... and I can leave Wikipedia secure in the knowledge that I was fairly judged an "incompetent" who used "fringe". Seems reasonable??? - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And please bring Ret. Prof. to arbitration. He has filled this thread with such walls of text and excuses that we are unlikely to get anything done here. It's obvious that the community can't handle this guy. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems we had an edit conflict. (Both writing at the same time). I am glad you support arbitration. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Mediation would be good if you agree to respect the decision. (i.e. if the mediator said that the Hebrew version of Matthew is held by a minority of scholars, would you respect that decision?) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: With respect to editor conduct, I would like to ask a rhetorical question, as a thought-starter. Is it appropriate conduct for a small group of editors to follow an editor around Wikipedia and delete everything they write? Just wondering. Maybe some of the arbs reading this would like to ponder that question as well. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the WPC crowd to engage in arbitration, and I think I can understand why. If one of the hard-asses on the committee becomes the drafting arb and chooses to dig into the root causes of this dispute, very few of them will be left standing. Ignocrates (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose closure

• I proposed this be closed as it's a majority of the same editors arguing their content POV to be correct and the other to be fringe. Don't care if it goes to Mediation or Arbitration, it just doesn't belong here. This is a content dispute and administrator's do not have any authority to determine content beyond what any regular editor might. This dispute takes a deep understanding and knowledge of thousands of years of historical and theological issues that need structure. Attempts by the subject of the thread to argue their point are unfairly criticized as "walls of text" despite them only being a few short paragraphs. Not sure when a pony wall started counting for 'walls'. Arbitration rarely decided who is 'right' and more often decides who behaved 'wrong'. By my count, Ret.Prof. wouldn't be singled out by Arbcom. With all of that in mind, and with consideration for the 0 progress this thread has made so far, I propose this simply be closed.--v/r - TP 20:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose closure, propose topic ban for 12 months for User Ret.Prof on content related to a supposed lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. It's clearly WP:FRINGE as the above shows. This has been going on for 4 years now and now it is finally here at ANI can easily be dealt with. The only reason for prolonging this is if someone actually wants fringe views in Gospel of Matthew and related articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the box below proves that this is not "clearly fringe". It proves the allegations against me ie "I am an Incompetent ignoring the overwhelming consensus that Papias was fringe" are false. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"The only reason for prolonging this is if someone actually wants fringe views in Gospel of Matthew and related articles." These types of comments are the problem and not the solution. Please do not infer the motivations of others. Content disputes cannot be solved by admins. Therefore, ANI cannot solve this 'easily' nor at all. This needs mediation for the content dispute or arbitration for the behavioral issues. If your method of arguing is exactly the sentence I've quoted, then I'm positive you will not want this to go to Arbitration because the quoted sentence is the very definition of what a battleground mentality is. This needs to close before you make anymore comments which might boomerang. Bottom line: WP:AGF.--v/r - TP 02:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that statement was intended to be merely predictive not to infer motivations, it's merely fatigue - the content issue, the weighing of WP:RS/WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE has been gone over again and again and again and again by multiple editors over 4 years. But whatever... In ictu oculi (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support closure: Tom, formal mediation is the best opportunity to reach an agreement where all parties can feel they contributed something positive to improve the encyclopedia; as such, it represents the carrot in this dispute. Failing that, the stick is arbitration, where "breaking the back" of this dispute won't be a pleasant experience. Ignocrates (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support closure and everything else Ignocrates just said, which is very sensible and I can't improve on. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support closure and formal mediation. One element of the formal mediation agreement should be that mediator has discretion to issue a binding directive on the behaviour of all parties and that the parties agree to go to arbitration if it isn't abided by. (This is an expansion of Ignicrates' comment above - frankly I don't think Arbcom would accept this case at the present stage). PiCo (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree; however, if this ANI report is closed without an action and formal mediation is rejected or fails, the arbs will take the request for arbitration. Ignocrates (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support closure As previously stated, I think this should go to Mediation. While I'm flattered to be asked and be considered a neutral party, I'm comfortable offering my editor's opinion but I don't have the experience to guide a formal mediation.

I also recommend against relying on the Fringe Noticeboard. From what I've seen, there is a zealousness there by a small group of editors in labeling points of view and specific editors as representing "fringe" which then leads to them being targeted and driven from Wikipedia. While I agree that pseudoscience should not masquerade as science, I don't believe every minority viewpoint is fringe and needs to be eliminated from WP. IMO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support closure and mediation. I always thought the Apocalypse was a Hebrew book. I asked Dr. Elaine Pagles about this and she said one of her students wrote a dissertation, which is now a book, entitled, "Parables of War: Reading John's Jewish Apocalypse," John W. Marshall, 2001. On page 2 of that book, Marshall writes, "Putting it bluntly, I argue that the Apocalypse is a Jewish and not a Christian document." Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support closure: The sooner the better per Tom P above. Then we all take some time to heal from the wounds we inflicted on each other. Finally, we work through the mediation, not with a view of "winning", but with the goal of doing what is best for Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Note I've asked RetProf (on his talk page) to pick a mediator from the list. This will avoid him feeling that he's being railroaded (an expression he's used above). I've also asked him to collaborate with myself and Ignocrates on the wording of the approach. PiCo (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Or he can simply request mediation and the mediators will select someone from among themselves. I'm happy to assist with the details (saw your note), and I agree that Ret.Prof should be the one to initiate the request for mediation. Ignocrates (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support closure and mediation, however I think that Ret.Prof should receive a warning about misrepresenting the sources he quotes. If the Hebrew Matthew isn't fringe, why was Edwards warned of putting his own career in danger? This would not happen if he was advocating just another minority view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is actually a very good point! The Hebrew Gospel is seen as trap in some circles. I have received a simular warning, which nearly came true this week here at Wikipedia!!! Yet it also landed Edwards a generous invitation to pursue the project as a Member at the Center of Theological Inquiry in Princeton. Many scholars have now bravely come out in support of Edwards, including Markus Brockmuehl of Oxford and Loren T Stuckenbruck of Princeton. Then in 2010 for the world's leading non Christian Biblical scholar made this Statement! At that point the existence of the Hebrew Gospel ceased to be the minority position. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The rest of the Story

Now you have seen how the POV Railroad works. I have been accused over and over and over again of being Incompetent and ignoring the overwhelming consensus that Papias was fringe. Now please take a few minutes to open the box below. Please note this is just an excerpt. Going to the source ie Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard would be good - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Excerpt from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Gospel of Matthew Re the Gospel of Matthew, most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Google Books However there is a dispute as to whether this is fringe? The views of Papias were preserved by the early Christian historian, "Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." Blackwell (2010) p 301 Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect, (Casey 2010. pp 87-88) and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.” (Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101) & (Edwards 2009 pp 2-3) The historical data is both "striking and incontestable". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117) See most up to date sources: David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303 William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602 Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101 Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88 James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3 See also older sources Issue Does the aforementioned scholarship on the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew fall under the category of WP:Fringe theories? Importance Although most scholars no longer believe that the Gospel of Matthew was a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, many do believe the Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead or source of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew (hence the name). (See composite authorship) - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC) What are the grounds given by those suggesting that this is fringe? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Hmmmm My honest answer is there are not any. A NPOV discussion of the topic should have both those who support the Papias tradition and those who oppose. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC) If nobody has suggested that this is fringe, why are you asking here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) The above material was deleted from the Gospel of Matthew and on the talk page it was said to be fringe. Best you look at it directly for I would hate to be accused of misrepresenting their position. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC) So, in a nutshell, the question is: is the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis fringe, or not? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I think that would be off topic. The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead! Most most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section in their article devoted to the Papias tradition in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Ret.Prof, please do not edit your posts after people have responded to them. It makes understanding the flow of discussion difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry I forgot the link and to sign - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Looking at the Gospel of Matthew talk page it appears that grounds have been given for the suggestion that this is fringe. As to whether this is correct or not, I am in no position to respond, and I suspect that few other WP:FTN regulars are likely to be able to either - Biblical scholarship is rather outside the scope of the sort of issues usually raised here. Evaluating sources regarding a specialist subject such as this may well be beyond most of us, and I suspect that you might do better to take this to dispute resolution, rather than expecting any sort of 'yes' or 'no' answer here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC) You are correct. They seem to agree the matter is clear, has been resolved and is a dog that won't hunt! I remember Casey, Ehrman etc being debated "as fringe" in Oral Gospel traditions, the heated discussion on the talk page as well as the fringe notice board discussion (consensus Ehrman not fringe) and I even remember some discussion with User:Smeat75, User:Paul Barlow User:Salimfadhley, User:IRWolfie-, User:Eric Kvaalen, User:Shii and User:Stephan Schulz, BUT I have no recollection of a "Fringe debate" on Ehrman, Casey, Blackwell etc re the Gospel of Matthew?? Nor was it ever brought to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ?? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC) After a somewhat confused start due to my typing skills, we must look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories and see if they apply here. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Allow me to jump in here and offer an independent perspective. There needs to be a call by neutral third party observers on whether the topic Ret.Prof describes, i.e. the content, is fringe. Taking this to dispute resolution implies there is a conduct problem. That is beside the point here. I believe an RfC was tried previously, but it was dominated by the very same people arguing strenuously for removal of the material. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Well said and thanks for getting us back on track! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC) WP:DRN deals with issues where there is no conduct problem. Someone should probably notify wikiproject Christianity, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC) This is a complex textual problem with a long history. It may well be beyond the scope of FTN. I agree that DRN would be a good next step to deal with the content part of this dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC) You are correct. I will notify wikiproject Christianity now. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC) On the Google Scholar search Ehrman states in Jesus Interrupted that Papias was rendering fourth-hand information and that there are multiple credibility issues with this information. The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis#20th century article states the 20th century consensus: there was no Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew. So, Ehrman isn't fringe, but he does not pretend that there were a Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, but what needs to be accounted for, speculative conjectures of modern scholars aside, is why Church Fathers from the earliest times right up to scholars at the end of the 19th century all thought there was a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. There is an abundance of primary literature attesting to that fact and many reliable secondary sources analyzing and summarizing that primary literature. Therefore, this should be discussed as a problem of WEIGHT rather than FRINGE. Ignocrates (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I agree, the term for that is historiography, and it is not only encyclopedic, but the stuff encyclopedias are made of: outlining the history of what people have thought, not only what some people say today. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC) There are multiple issues here. There is a difference between the claim that "there was a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" and the "canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew". No one has presented any relevant scholar who believes that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew; probably because no relevant scholar actually believes that. The problem is that the material that is sought to be added [183] is so misleading as to leave that impression. Even the different claim that the gospel to which Papias was referring existed and was written in Hebrew is a minority opinion (Casey's). Ask yourself: What is the Casey- and Edwards-sourced material even doing there? Is it illuminating the topic of the article (the canonical Hebrew of Gospel)? Or is it talking about the separate topic of the Hebrew gospel, and just muddying the waters? The view of McGrew and McGrew that all the early external evidence agrees that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew is completely fringe. Luckily, their view is not one of relevant scholars. They are not established critics of the New Testament. These remarks are merely incidental to their building of an Argument from Miracles (the subject of the paper). Neither are the editors of the volume (Craig and Moreland) established critics of the New Testament. And neither is the volume meant to be a source for New Testament criticism. The endeavour is metaphysical/theological in focus, not historical; and it is even one-sided at that (see Patrick Arnold's and Glenn M. Harden's reviews). What was said above that "The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead!" is just plain wrong. Only McGrew and McGrew are. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I agree. For something to be a fringe theory, it must be A) FRINGE and B) a THEORY A) FRINGE Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is not fringe as its existence is supported, not only by the above contested sources but also by older sources from Lessing to Ehrman. Davidson, (1848) p xii, Ebrard 1863 p 530, Baring-gould, 1874 p. 122 Nicholson 1879 p 26 Morison, 1902 p xxxvi Schoemaker 1902 p 199 Barnes, 1905 p 361 Cassels, 1905 p 420 Paralipomena by Pick 1908 Schonfield, 1937 p 246 Andrews, 1962 p 46 Harrison, 1971 p 152 Pritz 1988 p 83 Bütz 2009 p 176 Just a quick comment: Of all these books, only 3 date from the last half-century, which indicates that they're not quite the current state of play. The most recent is Jeffrey Butz, whose most recent book, The Secret Legacy of Jesus, "offers the thesis that the Judaistic teachings of Jesus were passed in underground fashion from groups such as the Nazarenes and Ebionites to the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, via the Cathars and Freemasons" (that's from his Wikipedia entry). I have doubts that Professor Butz is quite within the academic mainstream. PiCo (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC) How can you claim that a formerly standard theory is now fringe? I'd understand if it were geocentrism but this is literary theory, not hard science. It is at least a "former standard theory". Shii (tock) 06:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC) A theory is fringe if it has no significant backing by reliable sources. Many theories which were previously standard (or even still are in the sense that many people subscribe to them) now have no backing in reliable sources for New Testament scholarship. For example, it was a standard view that Matthew the disciple of Jesus wrote the Gospel of Matthew. Now no reliable source supports that theory; so how could it not be fringe? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC) I agree fully, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC) B) Theory Matthew's Hebrew gospel is not a theory but a "statement of fact". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117) This "statement of fact" may be contested. Scholars can debate whether or nor the "Gospel of Matthew" was a translation of the "Hebrew Gospel". They may argue that the Hebrew Gospel is the Fountainhead but they cannot say Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is theoretical. Therefore WP Fringe Theory cannot apply. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Well, not quite. The "fact" is not that the Hebrew Gospel existed; rather, it is that the Church believed it existed for 1700 years. Simply put, if the "mainstream" conjecture of modern scholarship is right, then 1700 years of Church history is wrong. Our job as an encyclopedia is not to elucidate the TRUTH of these two positions; it is to document the ongoing debate. Ignocrates (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I stand corrected. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC) There is a broad consensus that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew. So whether Matthew's Hebrew Gospel actually existed (as in minority view), or not (as in majority view) is irrelevant in an article about what is now called the Gospel of Matthew, since if it ever existed it has nothing to do with what is called the Gospel of Matthew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I agree that there is broad consensus that the Gospel of Matthew is not a a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. Casey, Ehrman & Edwards all state this. They further state that Matthew composed his Gospel in Hebrew and then Casey argues that Hebrew Matthew was the fountainhead or source for the Canonical Gospel of Matthew. Can you name any sources that disagree with Casey. Most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. They present both those who support and oppose Papias. We should follow the reliable sources and also write our article from NPOV Google Books - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC) That's not what Casey 2010 argues. Casey argues that Matthew the apostle collected sayings in either Hebrew or Aramaic to which Papias was referring and which were a fountainhead for some traditions, and these traditions were in turn sources for the canonical Gospel of Matthew. He is not saying that Matthew wrote a gospel or some such work in Hebrew and the author of the canonical Gospel of Matthew used this as a fountainhead or source. Such implies that what the apostle wrote was like Q or the Gospel of Mark, which is not what Casey is saying at all (in fact, he suggests that some of these traditions from Matthew the apostle made their way into Q [p. 89]!) But even this view of Casey has reliable sources that disagree with it, including sources which you have been citing: Duling 2010 (p. 302), Edwards 2009 (pp. 260–262). Try asking instead: What reliable sources agree with Casey on these points? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC) This discussion has become about SCOPE and WEIGHT, which can only be decided by consensus. Therefore, it should be ended here and continued on the article talk page or in DRN. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I agree that the question is WEIGHT, not FRINGE - the meaning of Papias' statement is indeed discussed by just about every important scholar who writes about the composition of this gospel, but the important thing is that the overwhelming majority (and it really is overwhelming) don't see an Aramaic or Hebrew original behind it. We do discuss this in our article - we have a whole paragraph about it - and that's enough. PiCo (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC) I see no specific editor that asserts any fringe content. Is that correct? Is the discussion over as far as this noticeboard is concerned? I'm not sure how much this noticeboard can help rather than wikiproject christianity/religion. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC) I too agree that the question is WEIGHT, not FRINGE and I see no specific editor that asserts any fringe content. Still, we should keep the discussion open a little longer to make sure nobody is left out and that everyone who is interested has been notified. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC) There is a simpler point to be made: you have quoted some reliable sources in order to prove exactly what these sources disagree with. So, you made a misleading summary of what these sources actually say. Do you expect such edits to pass as good faith edits? You were either unable or unwilling to render the actual viewpoints of the sources and posited your own view as if it were the view of the sources. So, this is not a case of weight vs. fringe, it is a case of something made up against something verifiable. The point which you have made up is not supported by the sources, except by the fundamentalist Christian apologist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC) In fairness to Ret.Prof, he brought this question to FTN because of a lot of loose talk on the article talk page about the fringiness of the topic of a Hebrew Gospel as a justification for the deletion of reliably-sourced content. I think we are in general agreement that this dispute is not, and never was, about FRINGE. The beginning of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith signals the end of rational discussion, so I propose this emotive dialogue stay on the article talk page and we finish up here. Ignocrates (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC) @ Tgeorgescu - I just finished reading your comments, and I think I found the problem. You were reading from an older version of Ehrman. Please look at the following quotes, but sure to follow the links to see their context! Feel free to point out any errors, add any important material you feel was left out and of course add more up to date sources. Thanks for taking the time to join our discussion. Taken from David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303 Author and Setting The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together [text variant “wrote”] the sayings [logia] in Matthew the Hebrew [Hebraiois] dialect [dialecto ̄] and each one translated [he ̄rme ̄neusen] them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302) Taken from William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed)' The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602 We encounter a striking and incontestable fact. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship and composition of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was the first written, that it was written in the Hebrew language...the widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. (quote from p 602) Taken from Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101 After quoting the Papias tradition which states "Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue" Still, on one point there can be no doubt. Papias may pass on some legendary traditions about Jesus, but he is quite speciflc—and there is no reason to think he is telling a bald-faced lie—that he knows people who knew the apostles (or the apostles' companions). This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101) Taken from James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3 This is corroborated in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.7 and 14, where Eusebius says that Papias confessed to having received the words of the apostles from their followers. Of course, if John the Elder was in fact John the Apostle — although this seems unlikely — then Papias's testimony comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead. It is in any case very early, within living memory of the apostolic age. Eusebius records Papias's relevant testimony: “Matthew organized the oracles (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he was able.”8 This testimony does not specifically identify the Hebrew work of Matthew as the Hebrew Gospel, but it is reasonable to equate the two.9 Papias's primary intent seems to have been to emphasize the Hebrew composition of the work. (quote from p 3) Taken from Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88 Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86) It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew.It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87) It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now I hope this clears up the confusion. Thanks for being patient with an old guy who was clearly overwhelmed! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC) @ Ignocrates Thanks for restoring sanity when needed! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

- Ret.Prof (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the box below containing the humongeous copypaste from another noticeboard, Prof. It appears above as well! (Also collapsed.) Did you really mean to add it twice? Bishonen | talk 22:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC).

You are right, we do not need it twice. I deleted the top one. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This lengthy excerpt shows why this dispute is complex and shouldn't be addressed in AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick overview of content issues in lay terms

This is actually sort of straightforward. That said, I hope this doesn't over-simplify things.

In the 2004 film The Passion of the Christ, the characters spoke in Aramaic (as was historically correct) and Latin (for artistic reasons). In that time and place, the vernacular language was Aramaic, but the lingua franca was actually Koine Greek. So:

• Jesus would have preached in Aramaic; but,
• Someone who wanted to write something that would be intelligible to the greatest number of people would have written in Greek.

Today some of works written at that time in that place are very well known to us: they include the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Of these four, the first three "include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar wording".

There is a tradition that Matthew was the first Gospel written. That's why in they are are in that order in the Christian bible. It is now broadly accepted that the Gospel of Mark was the first one written. (Mark was written first. The writers of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a starting point, a shared source of the sayings of Jesus that the writer of Mark did not have access to, and their own independent sources.)

There is a tradition that that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in Aramaic (or, even less plausibly, in Hebrew). There is nothing controversial about asserting that Q and the independent sources for Matthew included material in Aramaic. It is a huge step go from this and then to claim that Matthew was originally written in any language other than Greek. The scholarly consensus is that Matthew was written in Greek. There's also a common sense test. Why would the writer of Matthew
- read Mark in Greek;
- translate Mark into Aramaic;
- add their own independent and Q sources;
- write their Gospel in Aramaic; then,
- translate the text back into Greek?

To summarise the summary:

• There is a tradition that Matthew was written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek.
• The scholarly consensus is Matthew was written in Greek.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That is an accurate summary of the modern scholarly consensus. However, accepting that consensus also means that 1700 years of Church history and scholarship up to the end of the 19th century was a mistake. That is what Davidbena and Ret.Prof are reacting to. Nowhere in Wikipedia (that I know of) is this change in thinking documented. That is why Til suggested we need a new article describing the historiography of scholarship on this question. Does that make sense to everyone? Ignocrates (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see a section in the article Gospel of Matthew about it. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

But a contingent of WPC editors adamantly do not want that and have deleted every attempt to include that section in the article. That is the point of the dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Instead, it was decided by WPC localconsensus to restrict the WP:SCOPE of the Gospel of Matthew article to the modern consensus. Thus the need for a second article on the historiography of scholarship. However, several attempts have been made to create a second article on a Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and all of them have been merge-deleted (railroaded) by redirect. Ignocrates (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Some editors tried to add a section on Gospel of Matthew. Unfortunately, Davidbena's attempt seems to be unsourced original research, and Ret. Prof.'s attempt says "some modern scholars" instead of "a minority of scholars" (and it cherry-picks sources, as I showed in my comment above). Understandably, these attempts were nuked as soon as other editors saw them.

I think that Ret. Prof.'s intent is good, but his approach isn't likely to result in any improvement to the article.

I think that the efforts of editors should be oriented to a more productive approach: taking Ret. Prof.'s attempt and rewriting it. Make clear that it's held a minority of scholars, fix the selective quoting, explain it was the majority belief for many centuries, list the problems with Papia's version.

That could result in one or two rounded paragraphs. The history section would be greatly improved, I think. Readers would be informed about how the theories on the origin of the gospel have evolved over the centuries, and why. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric Kvaalen's contribution was also nuked, and therein lies the problem. The various efforts which included reliable sources (like Eric's) should have been retained and improved per WP:PRESERVE rather than being summarily deleted. I expressed my thoughts about this deletionism on the talk page at the time, so I won't do it again here. Anyway, mediation would be the perfect vehicle to implement what you are suggesting in a controlled environment. Ignocrates (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue is sufficiently complex (and requires familiarity with a rather technically recondite secondary literature) to warrant its own article. Once you start to get down to specifics in a short section of the Gospel of Matthew, those complexities, which go down to individual scholars challenging each other esp. over the last decades, get very subjective, and inevitably would flow over the natural limits. Just glance for example at one of the most recent surveys, Sang-Il Lee's, Jesus and Gospel Traditions in Bilingual Context: A Study in the Interdirectionality of Language, de Gruyter 2012, and you can get a quick idea of the fact that every position is contested, and has multiple angles. Ret. Prof. has perhaps his heart in the right place, but he works by indiscriminate aggregation, not by conceptual concision and winnowing. Barring fresh archeological/papyric/inscriptional evidence we will never know the truth, and must therefore limit ourselves to describing scholarly positions, as the various theories ebb and flow in popularity.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Indiscriminate aggregation? I like it! See Dunning–Kruger effect for insight into the tendency to weight all sources equally irrespective of age or quality of scholarship. (Please don't take this as a WP:PA; it's just background information.) Ignocrates (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(re PA) Of course not. It is, by the way, curious that so little attention in this context is paid to the implications of Paul's letters, written in Greek perhaps even 2 decades, and almost certainly at least ten years, before Mark. Whoever JC was, word about him was spreading through the Jewish diaspora and among gentiles via Greek long before the Gospel versions achieved literary form, and during Paul's early missions, much of the Aramaic-Galilean tradition must have circulated, given literacy was at 30%, via the usual form in such societies (which were, like Palestine, bilingual in Greek and Aramaic), oral transmission of memorized tales. Consider these two points and much of this fascinating niggling about what came first becomes moot (or indeterminate methodologically). The assumption is, first Hebrew hence a Jewish teaching (disliked by the millenial hermeneutic antisemitic tradition we are shrugging off). But since Jews in the diaspora were bilingual, getting at a 'Hebrew' original to prove the obvious (Christ was, like most if not all of the early leadership, born and died as a believing Jew) is, in my view, unnecessary. Blame Paul, then, he was an avatar of the JS-H, I suspect. CheersNishidani (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to digress with a brief example of Aramaic underlying the Greek text - consider the miracle story of Jesus cleansing a leper in the Gospel of Mark, where Jesus is either "compassionate" (Alexandrian/Byzantine text-types) or "angry" (Western text-type). (It's hard to be both.) These are very different words in Greek but very similar words in Aramaic, see diff. I contributed this bit of insight in Jan 2008, and of course it was rapidly deleted. Wouldn't want anyone getting upset. Ignocrates (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. We've identified the problem, and there are behavioral issues as well as content issues here. So now, lets look for a solution.

I propose that:

• The article Gospel of Matthew be kept as it is. It reflects the current scholarly consensus. It is simply a given that Wikipedia follows current scholarly consensus.
• The article Historical and alternative views of Gospel of Matthew (or a similar title) be written. "The issue is sufficiently complex (and requires familiarity with a rather technically recondite secondary literature) to warrant its own article" (per Nishidani)

This article would include:

- reliably sourced content about Matthew in "1700 years of Church history and scholarship up to the end of the 19th century" that was the previous scholarly view (per Ignocrates). "Readers would be informed about how the theories on the origin of the gospel have evolved over the centuries" (per Enric Naval)

- reliably sourced content about modern alternative views (Per Davidbena and Ret. Prof.,) with recognition that they do not reflect current scholarly consensus (per everyone else, including me)

How does that sound as a solution?--Shirt58 (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Support, not necessarily with that title, but those who wish for expansion should supply a title that explains exactly what they propose to do on the new page, since they will be working it. An indication of meta-sources that deal precisely with the genealogy of interpretations of Matthew with regard to the Hebrew theory would be useful, also, to assure everyone WP:OR is to be avoided.

To give an added reason for this split, to enable the technical issues to be addressed adequately in a proposed Historical and alternative views of Gospel of Matthew, let me illustrate by responding to my friend Ignocrates's slight digression above on Mark 1:41, where the manuscripts provide two readings (ὀργισθείς /σπλαγχνισθείς), and some argue this is evidence for an Aramaic substrate (strictly speaking, the evidence is not from Aramaic but a dialect of that, Syriac:ethraham/ethra'em). This is one of several hypotheses. Bart D. Ehrman, Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2006 pp.120-141, roundly dismisses what you take to be a fact ("a brief example of Aramaic underlying the Greek text.") and even then appears to slightly misreport Bruce Metzger by the way, unless his entry in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,2nd ed.1994 p.65, differs from his entry in the Ist edition 1971 p.76):'I have to say that arguments like this have always struck me as completely mystifying; I have never heard anyone explain how exctly they are supposed to work. Why, that is, would a Greek scribe proficient in Greek and copying a Greek text be confused by two words that look alike in Aramaic?' (p.128). That is one solid reason why the deletion of your edit here would be technically justified, whatever the original deleter's reason. In short, general overview articles simply cannot get bogged down in nittygritty details that provide ostensible factual evidence for what are disputed theories - they must stick to a general survey of the main conjectures and interpretations using high quality RS that deal with a synthesis of the state of the art for each argument. If complex controversies on details demand attention, a fork is required. Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I should have said "putative example". Sorry about that, I let my private POV slip there for a second. I try hard not to do that. Anyway, it's a moot point for me because I will never touch that article again. Ignocrates (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I got a notice that someone had mentioned me here, so I took a look. I see that Ignocrates mentioned the fact that my edit was "nuked" back in May. That's true, and I complained at the time that PiCo had simply reverted my whole edit just because he didn't like one particular thing – he thought I was givin' too much weight to the theories about earlier versions. But Ret_Prof came to my aid and restored my work. Later I put back some edits that had been done after mine, and the version is this: [184]. I think it does a decent job of presenting the theories about a Hebrew/Aramaic version. A little better than the present version. But I guess that's a topic for the Talk page of the article. By the way, Ignocrates, that's an interesting point you made about Mark 1:41. One of us should put it back in! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

At this point, the conversation has gone way beyond an argument for admin action and into the nuances of textual criticism which seems better placed in mediation or a WikiProject Talk Page discussion. Time to close this case before it doubles in length again? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Liz, since it appears that no action is going to be taken, it can just age off into the sunset. There is no reason to spend anymore time on this including admin time. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Preparation of a request for formal mediation has ground to a halt due to Ret.Prof "stepping back" again. Therefore, I have reopened the matter with Tom Paris. Ignocrates (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Tom has indicated that I start mediation right away. Therefore I will comply. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, we have identified the problem, so lets look for a solution. See: User:Shirt58/Historical and alternative views of Gospel of Matthew.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. Today I will be filing a Formal Request for Mediation. The draft can be found on the talk page of User:PiCo. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2014 (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.

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.

---

Woozle effect

Some eyes on this:

Woozle effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

would be appreciated, as it's been discussed on reddit and is attracting weirdness and an associated AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woozle effect. Thanks. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected: too much IP disruption. Perhaps someone can check to see if the current version is the best, or if perhaps some unverified content should be deemed trivial and not of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Eyes on this would be good.

What I want to say is that it is difficult if not impossible for any average Wikipedia user to navigate the enormous numbers of policies that guide Wiki adding. AND YET, I learned a long time ago, that Wikipedias were called to IMPROVE and ASSUME GOOD FAITH not just REVERT.

THE WORLD CANNOT BEGIN TO TELL WIKI how obnoxious your REVERT HAPPY editors are. OR HOW THEY VIOLATE "IMPROVE" and "ASSUME GOOD FAITH".

Nevertheless, the truth is that the page for Woozle Effect is FINE. Google Scholar lists 440 examples of it being used in academic papers. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=woozle&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C3

IT is on it's face notable in academia.

BUT the best exact specific precise accurate correct strict rigorous particular methodical categorical rigid way to express that to make every wikipedia editor happy is WAY BEYOND ME.

What I note is that long time wikipedia editors LOVELOVELOVE their revert skills, and then their threatening people with various bans who disagree with that.

So eyes on this page please, because it is clear that the AFD is feminist inspired reddit brigaded vandalism.

And yes, I assume that any edit I place at wiki anywhere imncluding this one will result in a deletions and a threatened ban. Because that's how wiki rolls.

184.101.115.101 (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• "feminist inspired reddit brigaded vandalism"? Whatever. This IP added this section, rightfully removed by Alf--now tell me that this was not an expert usage of the revert skill. Also, no one's threatening you with a ban; you're not being oppressed. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not whatever, and this is precisely why you were wrong to insert yourself into it. I documented the reddit feminist brigade of this page at the AFD discussion. You can see it for yourself here: http://www.reddit.com/r/againstmensrights/comments/1wxaoa/discovered_wikipedia_page_with_clear_mra_bias/?sort=confidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.115.101 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "This was not an expert use of the revert skill." Well, depends on the criteria -- it's a fine revert vis-a-vis maintaining content standards. If part of the goal in engaging potential new editors is to convert them into productive editors, not so much. I'm not saying Alf should have done anything different; while they could have left a more personal encouraging note on the IP's talk page, I'll be the first to admit the expected payoff is fairly low: (meaning that encouraging a random IP often won't be successful, which is not to say it couldn't / can be with 184). NE Ent 12:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• You know what ("you" in general, not the IP editor), perhaps semi-protection is too heavy-handed. If any admin thinks it so, please go ahead and change it or remove it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Also it should be noted that for all the all-caps about assuming good faith, the IP editor is not showing much of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's actually important. Bringing attention to the community of an off-wiki attempt at meatpuppetry is. NE Ent 13:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
      • That effort, taken by itself, is to be appreciated, of course. But I cringe when someone tells me that, again, the feminists are behind it, or some such thing. It's one reason I cancelled my memberships of the Hair Club For Men and the Men's Rights Movement. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SNOW on Woozle Effect AFD ?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woozle effect has had 8 straight Keeps & no Deletes so looks like WP:SNOW.--Penbat (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No. ES&L 12:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Close it Obvious unanimous support. ⛵ Admiral Caius ⛵ 17:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Why in the world would anyone want to close this AfD early? It was a good faith nomination and civil and productive conversation is ongoing. There's no need whatsoever to rush this process.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Because (as much as it might look like otherwise sometimes) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and when there is (as WP:SNOW is defined) not a snowball's chance in Hades of there being anything other than a Keep result (which, with everybody there !voting Keep is blatantly obvious) leaving the AfD open for the full week 'because it's supposed to run for a full week' is, in fact, following bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. At this point the 'civil and productive discussion', no matter how civil and productive it is, is in fact discussion about the article - which is not what AfD is for, it's what the article talk page is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• The woozle page is not without (NPOV) problems, mostly because the source selection is from a fairly narrow field and that's not easy to fix. In particular, the critics of the Duluth model (which itself is of feminist inspiration) do enjoy using the "woozle effect" accusation in their works. Some of the abusive language leveled at the AfD nominator (by experienced Wikipedians to boot) was really uncalled for. This isn't a slam dunk SNOW keep case. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2014 (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:AirportExpert and copyrighted images

User:AirportExpert has repeatedly uploaded third party images of airliners copied from websites, without any indication that such use is permissible, and indeed sometimes in the face of clear language claiming copyright. See File:Barq Aviation L-1011.jpg and File:Air Trust il62m.jpg for two current examples, if they have not been deleted; the latter is a repeat. I don't claim any great expertise in image copyright, fair use or non-free use matters, but a pretty serviceable rule of thumb for me has always been, "pictures taken by other people that you find on the internet are presumptively copyrighted and aren't fair game for uploads" (absent an appropriate license or fair use rationale). I've had a couple of exchanges with AE about his liberal re-use of third party images, see my Talk page, but he has continued to upload them. I raise the issue here because either 1) my understanding of these issues is incorrect and I'm overreacting or 2) AE is a repeat infringer and warrants a stronger warning than I seem to be able to supply. (NB: AirportExpert previously contributed under the name of Msloewengart, where additional copyright / licensing issues appear.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Their edit summaries (and edits) at Lockheed L-1011 TriStar also show a complete lack of understanding of how Wikipedia's attribution policies work. (For instance "There is no need to cite information that is received from other Wikipedia articles".) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I do a fair amount of copyright work and your rule is a good working rule. The parenthetical comment is important - I occasionally run across people over-reacting and missing that a site had a CC license for the text, or a Flickr image had an appropriate license, so I just want to emphasize (if others are ready it) that the parenthetical comment is important.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, crap. We had a long-term abuser from years ago who did this as a serial pattern, uploading dozens and dozens of aircraft images they scraped with false credits, across six or seven accounts I found. I can't recall the name... Moonriddengirl, is this ringing a bell? (poke) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Verybluesky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was one of them. I'm looking for the rest. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha. ANigg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ANigg/Archive, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ANigg, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ANigg. Account created in 2007 and commenced copyvios in 2008. Seven known socks, plus Verybluesky matched the pattern but the SPI data was too stale by then. Verybluesky was created just a few months after the block of Skyfox265, the last SPI confirmed sock, and duck test passed a match. Reviewing ANigg sock edit patterns, AirportExpert pops like a flashbulb... But is four years since Verybluesky was zapped, having been created in January 2014 ( Special:Log/AirportExpert ). Crap. Assuming it's him again, and not a false positive match, where has he been for the intervening four years, and what myriad damage has he left us from those four years? .... Aaarrrrgggghhhhh.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Msloewengart, now AirportExpert, was created in December 2013. It should be noted that AirportExpert seems to have no understanding of WP:V/WP:N/WP:RS, if that helps one way or the other. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

ANigg didn't either. I'm going to mail functionaries and ask to what extent SPI results from 2010 may still be accessable to see if there's any match that could be made, or if anyone remembers info that far back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

AE was himself a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Msloewengart/Archive. That being said, while I don't know a ton about image copyright rules, I do have a decent nose for socks and to me, AE and his predecessor edit with a different tone than the ANigg. Plus, while the subject matter is a bit arcane, it wouldn't altogether surprise me that Wikipedia might draw in more than one clueless / determined airplane anorak. Still a CU might be helpful, if possible - JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Verybluesky seems more like AE - not very communicative, lots of edits and tweaks to articles about charter operations. JohnInDC (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, did you get a response? Is this being pursued further? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Response was that records are not usefully kept past three months, so we are out of SPI luck. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• {{Checkuser needed}} to evaluate this thread. There is a prima facie case and a sock/sleeper check seems very well warranted.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bump to prevent archiving. MER-C 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• At this point in time, I don't see how a checkuser can help you. All but one of the accounts listed in this thread is stale, and beyond that there is no evidence of socking presented in this thread, just comments, concerns, and ideas. If you do have further info and/or evidence, I'd recommend you take it up at SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Block review

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 blocked both CensoredScribe and Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the totality of behavior over the last week above (ANI section on CensoredScribe's categories, now closed/hatted by me, with a community sanction enacted on CensoredScribe). In closing it up, based on the totality of the week's behavior, I blocked both users for 72 hours for disruptive editing.

Tparis on my talk page suggested this had been unfair to Ryulong. Another editor on R's talk page agreed with the block. I believe both parties were ultimately disruptive, enough to block. However, I would like to invite other admins and editors to comment, and any admin to overturn if you feel I was off base. I still believe the block was good and called for. But I could have misjudged. Input sought. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think they were disruptive in different ways. Ruy was way out of line deleting comments and wikipoodling, and CS was more obvious. Equal blocks for both was the only possible end to that, or else one would have "won" that ridiculous dramafest DP 10:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think it's way too mild. I don't see it mentioned elsewhere, but processing C:CSD this morning, I found Ryulong adding a bogus CSD tag to an article of CensoredScribe's, for instance. Perusing Ryulong's block log, it's not obvious that it's likely to discourage them from engaging in further harassment once the 72 hours is up, but 72 harassment free hours is better than zero. WilyD 10:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Harassment? Have a look at Talk:Lilith#Is Lilith Karina and is Karina a giantess? as just one recent example. Monitoring such obvious problematic editing should result in a barnstar. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That someone may have been on the right side of an edit war is not an excuse for harassment. WilyD 11:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I oppose Ryulong being blocked at this time. I think that while the block was meant well was just a little off target. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I also oppose the Ryulong block, as Ryulong wasn't as much in the wrong. This looks unpleasantly close to the Wikipedia equivalent of "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't happy about CensoredScribe adding Category:Mythological sword fighters to El Cid. His block was a good one, not sure about Ruy's block at all. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% with DP, they were disruptive in different ways. Ryulong focuses his/her behavior on individuals he/sher believes are sockpuppets or are habitually disruptive. Asking for an interaction ban when this goes too far, if effective, can get him/her back to productive editing. There is no clean-up. However, CensoredScribe was randomly creating new categories without paying much attention to other editor's concerns with them. Several people have asked CS to stop or slow down and it seemed to have little effect. Now, categories, once created, have to go through a sometimes lengthy and tedious CfD process to be deleted so there can be quite a lot of clean up involving many editors. I'm not saying that all of CS's new categories weren't good, it was more that he/she wasn't paying attention to other editor's asking him/her to be more circumspect, to make categories that fall in line with WP:Categorization guidelines.

I'm not sure that they deserved equally long blocks. I think Ryulong will respond to admins asking him/her not to edit war with CS but I'm not sure that CS even realizes his/her mistakes because he/she is so convinced that he/she is right and correct in their edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Both of them were out of control over this categorization madness. Neither looked like they had any willingness to stop and discuss. Hopefully the block got their attention. My suggestion would be drop the duration to 24 hours and but add some restrictions. CensoredScribe would be prohibited from adding categories unless they first getting clear consensus on the talk page. Ryulong would be prohibited from removing a category added by CensoredScribe unless they first getting clear consensus on the talk page. Both are futher limited to ONE post per day commenting on the other on any given page (so one post here, one post on article talk page A, one post on article talk page B). This would stop the stupidity but still allow some discussion. Then figure a longer-term solution. Ravensfire (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose Ryulong's block. This is a case of a user with a real competence problem and if I were Ryulong I'd be beating my head against a brick wall too. Here are some examples of CensoredScribe's edits:
  • [185] Implying gender discrimination and then canvassing support.
  • Then he goes around spamming talk pages with questions about categories: [186][187][188][189][190][191]
  • Then we start getting into the important stuff, is (read edit notices) Galdalf a SUPER soldier?What about Jedi's? They've got the force! And then clearly they've mislabeled Aragon as only a regular soldier because I think being an Elf makes him SUPER!
• I mean seriously, folks, we've got an editor who is certainly good intentioned but is just wasting our time. Sorry to say, but I think Ryulong would be justified to follow him around per WP:HARASS, "it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations (see above);"--v/r - TP 18:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any question that CensoredScribe is incredibly lacking in WP:COMPETENCE, but I don't think Ryulong is a good selection for someone to wander around cleaning up after them; their long history of getting into bickering is part of the reason, and another is that it is likely to generate more of the trolling puppets from the sockmaster that likes to harass him. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, there seems to be a pretty good rough consensus that Ryulong's block is unwarranted or at least needn't be that long. Are there any objections to reducing the block to time served at this point? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you get "a pretty good rough consensus that Ryulong's block is unwarranted" when so far here there are nearly twice as many people supporting it as opposing it? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Are we definitely reading the same discussion? I count 3 explicitly opposing Ryulong's block, 1 call to give Ryulong a barnstar (which I'll count as implictly opposing), a couple others expressing doubt in the block (Liz, Dougweller), 1 to reduce the block to 24 hours, some comments that neither explicitly oppose or endorse, and 1 strongly implicit endorse (WilyD). How did you get your count? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking only about whether the block was warranted, I count Georgewilliamherbert, DangerousPanda, WilyD, Liz, Ravensfire, Lukeno, and myself (the "another editor" referred to in the OP) as speaking in support; Johnuniq, Hell in a Bucket, TParis, and yourself as opposing, and Dougweller as "unsure". So that's 7 to 4, plus 1 undecided. Of users supporting the block, there's one here (plus another one not mentioned here but active on Georgewilliamherbert's talk page) who supports a reduction in the duration. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I'm the "another one" (that's kind of exciting): I support an unblock if such-and-such a request is made; see Gwh's talk page. Last time I looked, a couple of hours ago, I got no indication whatsoever that Ryulong was aware that their edits were deemed very problematic. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Truthfully, I have less concern over a three day block and more about post-block behavior. I read CensoredScribe's Talk Page and it looks like some editing restrictions are in place. If CS's errors decrease, I don't think that Ryulong will be stalking him/her. I should add that while most people have focused on CS's creation of new categories, categorization oversight should also include placing articles into and out of categories. Because a small proportion of editors focus on editing categories and with HotCat, one single-minded editor can do a lot of damage in a short period of time if they don't understand Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• In all fairness, Ryulong responded in the same manner as the last two blocks in December,[192] almost got him an ANI in January. I think the 24 hour and the 3 day block in lieu of a much harsher Arbitration Enforcement block is at this point a sign of amazing resistance because the time prior to that was also waived because he was blocked during that same exact period. Last I checked, going against explicit sanctions by Arb Com is not something dependent on being blocked for a different matter. The fact its so short on the back end of so many recent blocks shows mercy and that two wrongs do not make a right. And its almost over already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with what Psychonaut wrote here, i.e. the block was justified. And no, they did not receive the same "punishment". CensoredScribed also got an indefinite editing restriction. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) If I recall correctly, Ryulong should have known better in editing and wandering over the line for being disruptive. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong indicates that at one time they were an administrator, but were striped of the bits. I'm more inclined to leave Ryulong's block in place. They've been at the drama central many times for a great many reasons, having tweaked the right people to cause a full out fight at AN*. I'm tired of the perpetual drama machine. Hasteur (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as my block expired and no one bothered to unblock me early can we {{hat}} this thread?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:59, 9 February 2014 (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.

Corrector11744

Hi, I was hoping to get other eyes on this. While acting in a reviewer capacity, I reverted a religious demographics table submitted by editor Corrector11744 here to an article on Moradabad. I rejected the table for being improperly sourced--it uses another Wikipedia article as a reference. I learned that the table had been removed a few minutes earlier by Deor, also for being unsourced. A random IP 103.18.72.81 tried to revert my edit, but I took care of that. Assuming good faith, I looked at the Demographics of India article and couldn't find any mention of Moradabad. I even tried to find the religious distributions at the Census of India, for example here, but I couldn't track down those data. I left a note on the user's page, but then of course the user ignored the notice and added more unsourced religious demographic tables to articles. Again, I couldn't find these regions mentioned in the Demographics article. Deor reverted these tables, and Corector11744 re-reverted without explanation or improvement of sources. My primary purpose for this report is to ask admins to look into this and maybe offer the user some guidance, or if it's clear that the edits are disruptive, that the editor be discouraged from continuing. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(Responding to a post on my talk page by Cyphoidbomb.) People's adding unsourced information, usually in graphic form, about the religious demographics of Indian towns is a very common occurrence. I usually delete it when I see it, as I've never been able to find such information in authoritative sources (and specifically in Indian census data) and it seems to have the potential for contentiousness. Deor (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've undone a few of these. THe editor was also adding to a number of similar tables added by 101.218.185.95 (talk · contribs) last October. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. @Dougweller:! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted another such change on Hyderabad. This user changed the religious percentages by exactly 5% (skewing things toward Islam) and then inserted a bar chart with the unsourced numbers. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I considered an indef now (I view indefinite blocks as just that, blocks that can be lifted at any time if we are convinced they should be lifted) but gave a final warning instead. Ping me if this continues. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Noting the somewhat WP:DUCKy contributions of this IP user. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 14:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Richard Daft and serial evasion of community-wide WP: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.

---

The subject speaks for itself and I'm sure many admins are already familiar with the Daft saga and its impact on WP:CRIC and the site generally. Two things to be said first: one, if this is not the right forum, please direct me; secondly, I do not intend to keep this account open for long as I prefer the privacy of IP editing but I think an account is needed to fight a troll like Daft effectively.

Okay, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive for recent activity (cases 1.37 to 1.41 starting 27 Dec 2013). You will note if you care to look through the CDTPP contribs that Daft got away with that account for a long time because he behaved himself (for a while at least) and because some in CRIC decided to forgive him and make him welcome. However, leopards and their spots. In due course we were back to normality and especially so in the case of 86.138.166.244 where these diffs are totally unacceptable and show Daft for what he is: see abuse in this diff and this diff towards User:Nedrutland. Again in this diff and this diff and on User talk:86.138.166.244 where abuse to User:331dot continued.

Having seen those edits and realising that Daft is continuing to flaunt his ban and get away with it, I decided to act myself. I will point out that I have worked on CRIC as IP for a long time and have encountered Daft before so there is history and I am sick of his antics and his inflated view of himself. He makes grandiose claims to be the "most expert cricket writer on the site" and yet his "good edits" can be summarised at best as mere WP:TRIVIA or trite POV. Take this input for example. See how typically incompetent the edit is and then ask yourself if anyone really needs to know that the Earl of Winchilsea was 61 when he played in a minor cricket match in 1814!? As I say, that is Daft's idea of "good editing". Bad enough but what really annoyed me was his habitual condescending abuse towards Nedrutland and 331dot highlighted above. I decided to implement the terms of WP:BMB and remove all of Daft's input, "good" as well as bad, and reawaken the CRIC members to the problem. Users like Nedrutland and 331dot are not members of CRIC (at least, I don't think they are) and they should not be having to clear up a mess that is largely CRIC's doing. Why is it CRIC's doing? Because certain people in CRIC have failed to act against Daft in compliance with site policy and have even offered him sympathy and a safe haven.

While I was removing the Daft inputs, I found this diff and this diff where Daft had done his usual by running from WT:CRIC to user talk pages and, as usual, the person he ran to was User:Johnlp. Now see this diff] whereby Johnlp politely refused to have Daft removed from his talk page. This was, fair enough, before TYPGTTO was blocked by the Daft SPI but the posts are still there and so is this one, unsigned as usual, though Johnlp does expect "peremptory deletion". Checking his talk page, I see that has already happened per this action by User:Black Kite in Dec 2012 (the 2012 Daft posts and Black Kite's erasure of them were all, well, erased at the time). That sets a precedent where Johnlp is concerned.

Without wishing to annoy Johnlp who is a top class editor and a good writer, I believe the admins need to instruct him forcibly if necessary about WP:BAN and WP:BMB. Daft sees him as a sympathiser, with some reason it must be said, and his talk page as a safe haven. Take Johnlp out of the equation and Daft has nowhere to go. If he appears on WT:CRIC, someone will revert sooner or later. If he attacks an article, the chances are that it will be on someone's watchlist. I strongly recommend that the Daft edits now on Johnlp's page are removed and that the page is then protected, regardless of the owner's view on that. His only possible complaint could be that bona fide IPs will be unable to write to him but, his page history shows that he hasn't received any IP posts apart from Daft in the last three years, so protection will not impact him in the slightest while it does keep Daft away.

I would also ask that an admin places a notice on WT:CRIC asking members to be vigilant and to use WP:RBI whenever they spot anything that Daft has done, citing WP:BAN or WP:BMB as their reason for reverting.

Finally, there is one Daft edit I couldn't remove as the page is locked and the owner has gone. Could you please remove that one too to complete the job, especially as it insults two admins User:The Rambling Man (I think) and User: Dweller. Sorry this has been a long post. Thank you very much. HCCC14 (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify that I know nothing about what HCCC14 describes above other than my brief interaction with the IP address mentioned. As such I am unable to comment on any other aspect of this matter. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fair enough but as I have mentioned you, it was only polite to let you know. Thanks again. HCCC14 (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A notice seems to have been placed on WP:CRIC to watch for this guy, and the latest socks are blocked. Is further action needed here? As an aside, re: "the privacy of IP editing", how exactly is editing in a such a way that allows you to be geolocated more private than editing from a registered account? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I accept that as far as it goes except that I strongly recommend action on User talk:Johnlp to remove the Daft posts and then protect the page to prevent more being placed there. As I say, this will take away Daft's "safe house" and leave him with nowhere to go. By refusing to remove Daft posts, Johnlp is assisting Daft to evade his ban. I must remind you that User:Black Kite set a precedent here in December 2012 and it must be followed up to keep Daft off that page.

Re your aside, IP addresses can be very quickly changed and I don't care who knows I live in the Midlands. So do several million others. Just checked my current IP and it geolocates to a place that is over two hours drive away in another county! But if you have an account you're stuck with it and no escape from unwanted attention. Pros and cons but I like IP. And so does Mr Wales according to one of his public pronouncements. :-) HCCC14 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the throes of moving house and am not around much currently so I haven't been keeping up over the past couple of days. It's likely my internet connection will disappear over the weekend for up to two weeks (as UK broadband connections are slow to arrive, and then slow too when they get inside our houses). So I'll be brief. But I think I ought to respond to something that seems to have got suddenly rather hysterical. My pleasure on WP is to write my own articles and to improve others and you'll see from my edit count that that is what more than three-quarters of my work has been in the past eight-and-a-half years, a lot of it on cricket. I come on here for quiet enjoyment (I'm close to retirement, so work is no longer fun), and because I think WP is essentially a good thing. I don't get involved in fights or politics, and I try to stay polite to all other contributors: and much more important to me than who they are is the quality of the contribution they (and I) make. My over-riding rule around here is WP:AGF and that's stood me in pretty good stead. So if someone makes a remark on my talk page that strikes me as worth responding to, then I'll reply. If some of those people then turn out to be reprobates, or even "new users" with rather uncertain past affiliations and associations, or who ever, then I hope I'll treat them with the same courtesy. On "Banned" users, I presume the process by which they were declared unacceptable should sweep their contributions from all pages, my talk page included: I'm simply not interested enough in this process to spend my limited WP scouring articles to see who's now in the dock or who has already been summarily dispatched. Strangely, in eight-and-a-half years, AGF has worked for me, and I've had almost universal politeness back, even from now "Banned" characters: my talk page may well be one of the blandest in WP. Maybe because I'm not rude to them, and because I try to be careful my articles are at least competent and not careless, I don't attract insults and vandalism much at all.

If I have internet access over the next day or so, I may respond further if there are any points or questions anyone would want to raise with me... but if I don't respond, it'll be because the switch has been thrown on my current system. Sorry if that sounds discourteous, but housemoving is like that. One day you're here, the next you're... Johnlp (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, this response indicates you knew full well who TYPGTTO was : Daft. As for WP:AGF, your sarcastic reference to "past affiliations and associations" is anything but AGF. And wrong. Okay, I admit I was a little hasty in removing the TYPGTTO posts from your page TWO HOURS before the SPI was actually completed. I apologise for my haste. Now that both TYPGTTO and 31.50.133.173 have been officially confirmed and blocked as Daft socks, the offending and offensive posts must be removed in compliance with WP:BMB.

You say above that you "come on here for quiet enjoyment" and that WP gives you "pleasure". Fine, but doesn't that also apply to those members of CRIC who have been continually harrassed by Daft for several years? How about giving them a bit of understanding and help so that they too can enjoy "pleasure" and "edit quietly" without being harrassed and libelled and subject to sick taunts every few days? How would you like to routinely receive vile garbage like this? You wouldn't, would you, or else why did you write this and [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket&diff=prev&oldid=589622362 this] about someone who finally cracked under extreme provocation and retaliated against Daft? Not that I condone "vile" retaliation, as it must have been to warrant erasure, but it seems to me that double standards are operating here.

All you have to do if Daft posts on your talk page is revert and say "not interested" in the edit summary. If he persists, remove and cite WP:RBI or even WP:BMB. If he still persists, get one of the admins to protect your page. Get that done anyway. You have received no non-Daft IP posts in three years so what have you to lose?

The three posts any decent editor would object to are this one and this one by TYPGTTO (now blocked as Daft sock) and this one by SPI-confirmed Daft IP. All three posts are WP:PA against other CRIC editors who are not presently able to respond. All three posts breach WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and just about every other policy and guideline on the site which insists on respect towards other editors and all three are a continuation of everything you will find in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive. You know perfectly well who the author is and you are in direct breach of WP:BMB by effectively sheltering one of the worst trolls operating on the site.

You will have noticed, I hope, that I have not been here as a single-purpose account because I have also taken the time to improve two CRIC stubs. Nothing special. Just a consolidation of information that someone might find useful someday. However, even that little bit of positive effort has contributed kilobytes more to CRIC than Daft has "contributed" in several years. You might like to think about that too when you consider "quality of the contribution".

Finally, I wish you well with your removal. I had a nightmare move from Hampshire to Derbyshire three years ago but it was worth it in the end. It's over to you now. If you do not act or respond by tomorrow night, I will assume you have lost your connection and will remove the Daft posts (and my own!) citing WP:BMB in the case of Daft and WP:AGF in my own case. I shall then complete my retirement. HCCC14 (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. As I unexpectedly continue to have internet access, I’ve dealt with the offending the contributions to my talk page as I have no great wish to challenge or get into a debate about the WP:BAN policy as a whole. I am however very uncomfortable with the way you have pursued me in this way, and pretty uncomfortable with the continuing search for manifestations of Richard Daft, which borders on the obsessive.

You say you have not created this HCCC14 persona as a “single issue” account, yet you had done no other editing except on Daft issues before you put up the “retired” notice on your account, though you then returned to open this thread and after that did some other editing. You say you are not a renamed User:AssociateAffiliate and, by AGF, I am bound to accept that; yet let me reassure you that none of the insults that AA has had to endure at the hands of Daft approached the comment that AA himself made which resulted in the admin intervention; you, of course, will not have seen that comment since it was erased. Had the admin not intervened, my view is that AA and WP as a whole could have been looking at a libel case, and perhaps more, with Daft rightly as the plaintiff, which would be an extraordinary position. As I wrote at the time, I saw and deprecate the provocation by Daft, but that doesn’t excuse the response, which went some distance beyond.

You might also consider the interesting case of User:CDTPP, now banned as a Daft sock, but whose talk page indicates welcome and encouragement from User:BlackJack. Jack, if you remember, had four or five years of unpleasant attention from Daft far in excess of the criticisms that AA has endured, with his professional integrity continuously impugned. Yet it seems that they reached a rapprochement and even worked together in some areas.

No one could condone Daft’s outbursts against individual contributors and his sporadic vandalism, and of course they should be removed and reverted wherever they occur. But WP:BAN is patently very easy to circumvent, so, like one of those fairground games where you hit the rat with a mallet, no sooner have you dispatched one Daft manifestation than another one pops up. You can perhaps win individual battles here, but you’re not winning the war. And continuing to wage the war in an episodic way such as this is potentially just as irritating as the occasional Tourette-ish flurry of unpleasantness from Daft.

I think you need to change your strategy. If you concentrate on the disruptive edits rather than the person of the disruptor, then you’ll find that many of us already do that kind of work of reverting and removing anyway, as well as tidying up articles that contain wrong facts, bad links and verbosity... and trying to create some reasonable contributions of our own. Johnlp (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There was no "continuing search" by me. I was reading WT:CRIC one morning and followed the link to the Burley Park article where, lo and behold, was Daft. Couldn't miss him. I scanned the page history and soon came across the typical condescending insults and unnecessary aggression towards NedRutland and the other guy as mentioned above. Seeing that, I decided something must be done, given that so few others are prepared to do anything. I have only "pursued" you because you are not complying with WP:BMB and you are granting Daft a "safe haven" from which to sound off his stupid prejudices and harrass other users. I see the London-based IP below has named three of the main targets of Daft (there are two others he has overlooked) and it goes without saying that those five are all among the top ten contributors to CRIC and all of them have outdone even you in terms of quality and probably quantity of contribution, whereas Daft has contributed NOTHING.

As for the AA comment when he retaliated, I have already acknowledged that it must have been bad or he wouldn't have been blocked and the post wouldn't have been erased. But that is OUT OF SCOPE. This topic is about Daft, not about AA, and the bit about legal is entirely inappropriate here. Daft is subject to community-wide WP:BAN and you as an editor are bound to comply with that and deploy WP:BMB, though acting in accordance with WP:RBI, whenever and wherever you encounter him, even if he is only correcting a typo.

You say "concentrate on the disruptive edits". I have done. I removed a few dozen of them the other day! The point is that you and the other CRIC members have NOT been removing them and you have, until today, stedfastly refused to remove Daft posts which attack other editors from your talk page. This despite the precedent set by User:Black Kite in December 2012 when he was forced to erase posts from your page in what must have been similar circumstances. Given that BK erased those posts, they must have been extremely unpleasant too.

The bottom line here is that you have breached WP:BAN by deliberately refusing to deploy WP:BMB. If I were an admin, I would seriously consider blocking you, especially in the light of the Black Kite precedent. I would certainly issue a stern warning. It is all very well for you to advise me about what I should do, and I will take some of your better points on board, but the ball is deep in your court in terms of your, shall we say, accommodation of one of the worst trolls on the site.

As promised, I intend to effectively terminate this account today. I hope your removal goes smoothly and, finally, I would like to thank you for belatedly removing Daft from your talk page. HCCC14 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2014 (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:50.121.48.234

After User:50.121.48.234 was blocked for a period of one day, he has made an offensive edit on his talk page, insulting the administrator who initiated the block. If I am at the wrong page, please direct me. KJ ^{click here} 16:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, my approach would be to just revert it and move on. If they continue adding insults, we could revoke talk page access, but that seems a bit premature at this point. Monty₈₄₅ 17:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Arsten: might interest you. m.o.p 17:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've revoked talk page access. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I the interests of accuracy, the insult was to the admin (me) who responded to his question; clearly in a way he found unsatisfactory. The block was imposed by another admin is response to this. A short block is reasonable, and I suggest that his activity be watched, ideally by an uninvolved admin.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that at least one attack was directed to Mark Arsten: [193] wait, the IP editor is already blocked. Epicgenius (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The I.P. editor is back, making disruptive edits and insulting other users again. He has a dynamic I.P., as well as using proxies in talk pages. List of known I.P. addresses that he has used: ("50.159.28.153", "24.44.203.79", "67.43.136.166", "50.121.48.234"). I expressed concern that he would return after his block expired, and unfortunately, that appears to be the case. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Outrageous paid COI accusation by Wnt

I'm writing about this comment by Wnt on his/her user talk, and particularly the fifth (last) bullet in which he/she, clearly referring to me, suggested to a third editor in a most thinly veiled manner that I have engaged in paid COI editing at Wiki-PR and ALEC. What this has to do with the previous discussion is beyond me, except that in the last few days I've butted heads a bit with Wnt on mass surveillance issues. What I find so outrageous about this conduct is that Wnt is a very experienced editor but apparently hardly even lifted a finger before engaging in such wiki-libel against me. As I explained to him/her, the accusation was not only verifiably false but verifiably the exact opposite of the truth. For example, in December I even brought a WP:COIN report against another contributor to ALEC for paid COI editing.

The full discussion is here. I repeatedly demanded a retraction and an apology, but what I got was a refusal and then a whitewashing.

Unfortunately I don't think this can be written off as a one-time incident. It is part of a larger pattern. Several editors who have been working together on mass surveillance articles have been smearing other editors in similar fashion (examples here, here, here). One editor of this broader group was indeffed for related conduct in November. Advocacy editing is one thing, but repeated punches below the belt are another. I don't believe an indef is appropriate in this case, but a clear message should be sent that the community will not tolerate this sort of behavior. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like you are getting your feathers ruffeled over nothing. Nothing you or Wnt has done (that I can see) has ben egregious, or even bad. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it either. Can you (DrFleischman) quote what Wnt said that actually bothered you? That diff is pretty long and mostly not about you. If you have a beef that Wikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillance exists, then that's probably not actionable. (As a sort of disclaimer, I've created articles about such topics myself, but I didn't even know there was a related WikiProject until now. I don't see how that is any worse than, say, WP:WikiProject Socialism.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think from the context, the objection is to the appearance of great writers who make a habit of editing Wiki-PR and American Legislative Exchange Council, people who note on their userpages that their views don't represent those of their employer... I know nothing about this, but I suspect it all sounds expensive. That does sound like a rather oblique accusation of COI paid editing, but not at all clearly aimed at anyone in particular, at least not unless you chase down the references. DES ^(talk) 23:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, given this (for more context) this ANI report seems to be some editors not seeing eye to eye on the Snowden etc. stuff fighting some proxy battles on ANI now. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

DES is correct, the full offending language is:

“ That said, I don't mean to underestimate the value of your effort; the appearance of great writers who make a habit of editing Wiki-PR and American Legislative Exchange Council, people who note on their userpages that their views don't represent those of their employer... I know nothing about this, but I suspect it all sounds expensive. You can donate money to Wikipedia and have them spend dollar for dollar in combat with these folks, or accomplish the same for free at the cost of nothing but ... frustration. Just because Wikipedia pays nothing doesn't mean it costs nothing for somebody with the opposite agenda and little general public support. There have been idiots who have gone down to protests to smash shop windows who may have inflicted less financial expense, and that at random. ”

Translation: "Keep up the good work; Dr. Fleischman is being bankrolled by unpopular special interests, and righteous volunteers such as you and I can put pressure on their benefactors by forcing them to spend more money on him." I can certainly explain how Wnt was referring to me (something he/she semi-acknowledged in the ensuing discussion) bur not right at the moment, since I have to attend to the little Fleischmans right now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Wnt is wrong about more than one thing? Or not talking about you? You seem to have done very little editing at Wiki-PR (exactly 3 edits according to [194]). And I don't see where he said you edited pro-ALEC, so I'm not sure how you inferred that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be indeed better if Wnt stopped casting these vague WP:ASPERSIONS, but I doubt any admin is going to take any actions based on what he actually wrote. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a rather bizarrely non-AGF "translation" DP 00:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok DP, what do you suppose Wnt meant? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to do such a thing - but I sure wouldn't personalize it :-) DP 10:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

When people are writing about you I have a hunch you'd try to understand what they mean, just as I did. If you think my interpretation was a stretch, please do me the dignity of explaining why. AGF isn't the same as ATDMWTW (Assume They Didn't Mean What They Wrote). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This seems rather plain to see, but...

Evidence that Wnt was writing about me:

• My user page says: "My contributions to Wikipedia do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer."
• Scroll the bottom of my user talk. Two of the last few threads are about Wiki-PR and ALEC.
• In the Wiki-PR thread I declined to get into a dispute about accusations of paid editing.
• I'm by far the biggest contributor to ALEC (especially in recent months).
• Wnt and I have been skirmishing a bit the last couple of days over at Talk:The Day We Fight Back.
• Wnt's acknowledgment: "You aren't the only person I had in mind when I made that comment, anyway. The way you keep materializing - here in response to a conversation with one other editor, at Restore the Fourth right after I reverted a removal by a different editor, and your persistent removals at The Day We Fight Back do make me suspicious. ... I do expect the pro-surveillance side to take some kind of action at some point ..."

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this. To begin with, as you see there, I was trying to talk one editor, then two editors, out of quitting editing Wikipedia. I don't yet know if I have succeeded, or what my odds are now. I only mentioned the possibility of paid resistance because we have all shared the experience of seeing an (overly) enthusiastic discussion of possibilities for blacking out the site or running all articles about surveillance at Jimbo Wales' talk page, only to quite abruptly run into a wall of troubles over running DYKs or even preserving article content. I was trying to reassure Hector that if we were up against hired guns, at least that meant we were costing someone money. I don't think it should be a Wikicrime to say such a thing to another editor as a mere possibility to look out for or consider. I had already given up trying to edit The Day We Fight Back because of DrF's resistance, only to get reverted by him on another page, and then I was being told to avoid speaking, even in the most peripheral terms, about what would happen if someone were being paid. And despite all that, I even indulged him, removing the comment he had complained about right away, basically because it was a careless observation; it was not something I was planning to take to a noticeboard, just a way of saying 'cheer up..." He demanded that I immediately "retract or apologize" - have I not retracted enough something I never even said? Do you think I really owe him an apology?

I should emphasize on the broader issue of advocacy that I have been trying to take a wave of outside enthusiasm and channel it into accepted forms of Wikipedia work that should improve the encyclopedia long term. Moreover, this particular form of "advocacy" is special, first because Wikipedia did participate in the predecessor event spearheaded by the same people against SOPA, and second, because merely editing Wikipedia is a political act in this context. There is another wiki, Project PM, where people tried to do work not that different from that on Wikipedia, though with a less developed set of standards, and in the process of that Barrett Brown was charged with a potential 15 year prison sentence for citing a source. Wikipedia can't really be neutral about something like that. There is a fundamental tension between those who want to make the sum of all human knowledge available to everyone and those who want to make the sum of all human communications available to themselves, while denying you the right to even know they exist (and hitting Barrett Brown with another 20 years or so for trying to look up their home address). So my point all along has been that for this purpose, Wikipedia is by nature an activist organization, just by the routine work of building articles, and so advocacy can be accomplished while acting fully within the rules of Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's clear from the stuff said above and the talk page conversations linked that ANI can't help with more or less vague mutual assumptions of bad faith from editors who disagree with each other on content issues. This thread is creating more heat than light, and I don't see any administrative action forthcoming, so I propose it be closed by an uninvolved admin. Demanding an WP:APOLOGY while climbing the WP:REICHSTAG seldom accomplishes anything. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm on my way out the door, so no details (or apologies) to follow, but I'll just chime in to say Dr. Fleischman has a behavior problem. He does seem to have a hand-full of 'friends' he takes a special interest in, often showing up to arguing with them in conversations not related to him, or making a special point of reverting their content. At first I assumed it was just shared subject matter, but he seems to keep showing up at the right time and place to trigger arguments and edit-wars, adding lots of heat and very little light.
I agree with Someone not using his real name-- close the thread and hope that's the end of it. I just chime in to predict you'll see this individual at ANI again in the future. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The editors above appear to be trying to turn this into a broader content and political battle, something it's not. This seems really quite simple to me: Wnt has falsely described me to a third person as a paid editor on the weakest of suspicions. Wnt continues to stand by that description, and despite being proven embarrassingly wrong continues to stand by the assertion with a "nothing to see here, move along." I commend him/her for giving a pep talk to fellow editors, but not for doing so at my expense. We should all be able to have content disputes like the ones described above (really rather minor, I might add) without being subjected to this type of behavior. Perhaps we need Drmies to explain how this is any better than "Update. Im a target of intel boys". In fact it's worse, because Wnt identified the "intel boy." Not express identification, but identification nonetheless. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

DrFleischman once declared his exasperation about another editor's behavior which he described as "Every edit, every source is contested" only to himself engage in very similar behavior "No, we don't have to go with what the news sources think is relevant. We are not a newspaper." on another article, followed by rants on the talk pages of editors who raised an eyebrow [195] followed by ultimatums to another [196]. Wnt casting vague aspersions of COI with which DrFleischman then easily self-identifies for point-scoring purposes is surely not the best way to deal with his behavior, but then WP:BEAR, WP:SPADE, and WP:HYPOCRISY applies too. As another sampling point, DrFleischman immediately chided another editor for expressing his exasperation with him [197] while freely dispensing his own snotty "advice" like "Hurry along, now.","Just please try to keep your punches above the belt" and "stop with the sighs and groans" to those trying to discuss matters with him. If other editors posted a warning to his talk page every time he says something disrespectful toward them, then DrFleischman's talk page would be miles long. But I guess playing the hurt WP:DIVA works well enough around here. Unfortunately, I've seen this tactic successfully used on ANI before. Phrasing the personal attacks in the snotty imperative seems to bypass the civility filter of most admins. DrFleischman's continued insistence on an apology or block of Wnt well after Wnt removed the questionable allusion [198] (this ANI report was filed after DrFleischman declared his impatient dissatisfaction with that solution [199][200]) is just another example of the general WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude exhibited by DrFleischman. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been quietly watching some of the disputes with DrFleischman, albeit not this one with Wnt. There's a good deal of editors needing to work better together, on both "sides", and I'm skeptical that ANI will be the place to resolve that, but I think that the specific accusation of paid COI editing gets waived around way too much. It's a serious accusation if true, and should be pursued at WP:COIN, but just saying it about someone with whom one disagrees about content or POV ends up being, at best, a cheap shot, and at worst, a personal attack. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree, if editors such as Wnt really are concerned about me engaging in paid COI editing then the appropriate place to raise this would be COIN. I would encourage them to lay out all of the evidence and we can have an above-board community discussion about it. What happened here was much more cowardly, IMO. I shouldn't have to police Wikipedia's back channels for smear attacks against me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre, petty hatchet job this. I'm surprised that SNUHRN, an editor I've had hardly any interaction with in the past, would stoop to such a low level. He's apparently gone deep into my edit history to dig up what he perceives as "dirt." Thing is, it's not, and even if it was, it has nothing to do with this discussion thread. I guess SNUHRN has some vague issues with my editing style generally. Well if he does, I welcome him to raise them on my user talk, where perhaps we can discuss them like adults. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks for the personal attacks. I've only posted examples of your problematic behavior from two threads in which you've been recently involved, both closely related to this incident that you have reported to ANI. The only "digging" is one unrelated post of yours that I did remember because I also post/read DGG's page; that's pretty much the only memory I had of you before this incident. I didn't and don't object to the concerns you had about that editor (the one about which you complained to DGG and which is better to remain unnamed here), but you seem to fail to see that you have adopted a similarly problematic line of behavior in recent times. Two wrongs don't make a right, but Wnt at least knows when to take a step back from the brink by striking/removing questionable remarks. I have yet to see a conciliatory move like that from you. Instead you're asking here for Wnt to be blocked because he isn't kowtowing to you, after you've been very intransigent in your editing and behaved disrespectfully/uncivilly toward a number of editors (diffs above), only to rush to ANI after one of them questioned why you might be doing all this. And you started this ANI complaint after Wnt had already removed the vague allusion to you (chronology with diffs in my previous post). Given all the above, I suspect you'll want to have the last word here too, but unless you level more new/bizarre charges at me, I think I'm done here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not sure how you think I've acted intransigently, disrespectfully, or uncivilly, even with those diffs, so your allusion to WP:BOOMERANG is beyond me, but but we're ranging pretty far off-topic so again, please, let's take this to user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Reggie Watts page admin is not keeping the page up to date.

After trying to update the page for comedian/musician Reggie Watts a bot erases all edits and has his page lacking information for the past 2 years. Please remove the admin in charge of this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.54.116 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that an editor (who is a person) removed a bunch non-notable supposed "filmography" credits, and thankfully so. I do see that a Bot made a single edit here where name of the show had become really screwed up by someone. There is no "admin in charge of this page" - we have requirements about articles regarding living people and a manual of style that the community enforces. If you're having trouble getting your additions to "stick" then you're 'required to discuss them on the article talkpage to obtain WP:CONSENSUS for them DP 10:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing per WP:DISCUSSAFD

Two editors have asked Sue Rangell to withdraw her AFD nomination here [201] and here [202] per WP:DISCUSSAFD.

Instead of withdrawing the nomination, she has asked to have the article (Global gun cultures) deleted, or merged with another article. Lightbreather (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not an incident requiring admin intervention. There is no requirement that someone withdraw a nomination, particularly not on the deman of an IP thats first edit was 3 days ago. The admin that closes the discussion will make their own determination about the consensus of the discussion, sues comment is irrelevant. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42 and Lightbreather: Deman [sic]? No, I made no demand. I'm not the only IP here. You're an IP too. (Your IP number: http://geoiplookup.wikimedia.org/) Like registered users, unregistered IPs are allowed to "fully participate in deletion discussions, and have been since 2005." No one's comment is irrelevant. ...172.162.77.52 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• RESPONSE

Great...another complete waste of everyone's time...

I wish I could say it was just me, but Lightbreather has been doing this sort of harrassment to many other editors as well. This is the third time she has pulled me into ANI for something frivolous, and she has crossed swords with other editors as well. For those interested, I will outline the history in the text wall below. If not interested, that's fine, the information above speaks for itself.

Balance of SR's response

first edit march 07 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Hard_Day%27s_Night_%28album%29&diff=prev&oldid=118542717 The Lightbreather account is created and 8 edits are made, all to Beatles music related articles Now for the next six years, something odd happens, the account dies. Only four edits are made in all those years, and then suddenly, the lightbreather account blows wide open. August 2013, It's first edits are reverts, and huge ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=prev&oldid=567874306 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=prev&oldid=567874306 Suddenly Lightbreather is a wiki-saavy editor, making avalanches of edits to the FAWB article, and it's first two edits are an edit war with user:Anastrophe and the other editors there, warring over the use of the word "cosmetic". On August 10, the second day of her "return", she makes 18 edits, twice as many as the account has made in it's entire history of 6+years. On Aug 11: 15 edits, on Aug 12: 22 edits, Aug 13: 19 edits, etc. etc. until by September Lightbreather is regularly editing 30 times a day to that single article, fighting with the editors there, mostly edit warring over the word "cosmetic". Ignoring a consensus that was already reached in a RfC about the word prior to Lightbreather's sudden interest in that single article. I should point out that the FAWB artcle was stable prior to all this, and edits to the article were limited to the occasional Gnome edits or to Bots performing various tasks. These edit avalanches were disruptions, and when the editors there complained, Lightbreather began to actively recruit editors and admins to her "cause". This began only ten days after her "return" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RJFJR&diff=prev&oldid=568567171 She starts a second RfC about the word "cosmetic", and continues recruiting/canvassing pro-gun control advocates. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JennKR&diff=prev&oldid=568735788 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tekina_g&diff=prev&oldid=568735962 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndrewRT&diff=prev&oldid=568736235 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Rangell&diff=prev&oldid=568734930 etc., etc., etc. But did you notice the last one? It's me! Yes, Lightbreather and I are on the same side politically speaking, so you might imagine my surprise to see her behaving in this horrible way. I attempted to reach out to her several times, as did many other editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightbreather&oldid=570578592 On Sept 4, her RfC is WP:SNOW. It is closed early by an admin and Lightbreather proceeds to go ballistic. Not only does she ignore the consensus, her alone vs. twelve other editors at this point, but she starts the real bullying that has been her trademark since day one. She continues flooding the article with multiple edit avalanches, and the article talk page with "issue floods", and begins making trivial complaints anywhere she can, such as this one, claiming that the capitalization of the article name was "original research": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=571828626 In spite of her vast knowledge of Wikipedia, she repeatedly sprinkles in comments about how "new" she is. It's very strange, and a number of editors notice it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GregJackP&diff=prev&oldid=574523971 This came to a head when she and user:SaltyBoatr began avalanches of edits and reverts that were so bad that the page became unusable and unreadable. Lightbreather escaped a block, but her partner, was not so lucky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#SaltyBoatr.2C_Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban Immediately after, and I mean IMMEDIATELY, Lightbreather brought all of the complaining editors to ANI.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Ownership_issue_on_Federal_assault_weapons_ban_page.3F If you read nothing else of this text wall, read the above link. It says volumes about the Lightbreather account, and not just from me. Her attempt boomeranged on her badly. She is urged repeatedly by admins to stop editing Gun Control articles, and the FAWB article in particular. Although she continues to be combative Gun Control articles in general, she has stepped away from the FAWB article and it has become stable once again. Her habits have not changed. She continues to edit Gun Control articles exclusively, less than 0.5% of her edits are in other areas of Wikipedia. She continues to be combative, etc., often playing the victim. (For example, she complains that I "follow her around" failing to mention that she has invited me to the discussions involved, and of the many gun Control articles she edits, we share only TWO) A few more links: Editors trying to reach out to her: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightbreather&diff=prev&oldid=581795845#Friendly_suggestion Lightbreather attempting to get me blocked for the second time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive234#User:Sue_Rangell_reported_by_User:Lightbreather_.28Result:_No_violation.29 Here she is in ARBCOM https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=593912981 Here she is wasting people's time with procedure yet again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sue_Rangell&diff=prev&oldid=593942825 In ANI yet again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Lightbreather_mass_depopulating_cat Again on ARBCOM https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=593830704#Gaijin42_topic-banned_2 Wasting everyone's time at WP:3o https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&oldid=593533298#Active_disagreements I have edited Wikipedia in peace for many years now, and I have never had a problem like this with ANY editor. My behavior is to back away when there are problems, I can provide many examples of this, even with Lightbreather, if anyone wishes to see them. This Lightbreather account has been actively editing for less than a year six months, and has already been to ANI more times than can easily be counted, made rounds of ARBCOM, and battled scores of editors on every Gun Control related article that one may think of. Remember, I have asked her extremely politely a number of times to put Wikipedia ahead of her politics, but I doubt if that is ever going to happen now. There is no doubt in my mind that if something isn't done, you will see Lightbreather here in ANI again and again. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

COUNTER response I'd first like to say that I find Sue's rhetoric uncivil in its choice of words like: "waste," "harassment," " frivolous," "blows wide open," "huge" reverts, "wiki-saavy," "ballistic," and "bullying." She also misrepresents facts, including:

Balance of LB's response

The assault weapons ban (AWB 1994) page was stable prior to my arrival? There was an RfC consensus about the word "cosmetic" in that article prior to my arrival? I have "a vast knowledge of Wikipedia"? But repeatedly claim that I'm new? I recruited editors and admins to my "cause"? That SaltyBoatr was my "partner"? That I edit gun-control articles exclusively? That I tried to get her (Sue) blocked - again? Wasting editors' time? Re: the AWB 1994 issues from four months ago: I agree with Sue that if you read nothing else re: this issue, do read the ANI ownership discussion from the time, [203] paying particular attention to what I wrote, what she wrote - and the outcome. Of the four editors whom I suspected of ownership issues, Sue was the only one who pushed for me to be banned. [204] One supported the idea (though he and I now have a collegial relationship that I truly appreciate), one opposed the idea, and one recommended mentorship. I had been searching for a mentor (that was part of my thought when I asked for help with the RfC), and found one about this time. When I arrived at AWB 1994 on 9 AUG 2013 to remove the word "cosmetic" from one section, [205] the article's material was duplicated among at least two other articles. [206] Prior to my "arrival," the AWB section of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act had just been redirected/moved to the AWB 1994 article. [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] (As I noted in the ANI ownership article, MediaWiki emails of 8 and 9 AUG brought the activity to my attention.) As one might expect, the history pages of gun-politics related articles show that they are regularly and hotly debated. I never found a consensus about the word "cosmetic" - which is why I started the RfC. And, at any rate, the editor with whom I had my original beef agreed mid-November that use of the word is due at least some weight, as seen in the beginning of this discussion. [212] My knowledge of Wikipedia policy and jargon was miniscule in August 2013. By October, because of my ongoing debate with Sue and about a dozen pro-gun editors, it had grown considerably. It is even better now. Don't most editors learn incrementally? And shouldn't we learn faster editing more-controversial pages rather than less-controversial ones? As for claims of being "new," I did it more then - because I was! I still claim it about specific WP tasks with which I've little or no experience. As for recruiting to my cause: I was looking for someone to cool down the situation on the AWB 1994 page. All of my appeals were worded the same as the one to Sue. [213] (I'd been actively editing about one week then and did not yet have a mentor.) SaltyBoatr was not my "partner." It was nice for a time to have one other not pro-gun editor on the article - though he obviously had a rocky past with at least a couple of those guys, which caused problems for other editors and me. (A bunch of good and BRD edits were rolled back after his disruption.) Re: more recent (2014) issues: I edit a lot of gun and gun-politics related articles; I also edit other articles. [214] Yes, I reported Sue for 3RR [215] My mistake was in not understanding how to count a revert as a revert for 3RR purposes. She actually claims to have a personal 1RR rule, which explains in part her single edits that cover lots of reversions, often with misleading edit summaries. [216] [217] Since 3O is between two people, I disagree that it was a waste of everyone's time. I think the push by the editor in question (not Sue) to keep putting Nazi material into gun-politics related articles when behaviors related to such material are before ArbCom right now IS a waste of time. Re: her other complaints, I don't understand what the ArbCom links are supposed to show. I did NOT follow up on the RFC/U I started because my mentor was going to talk with Sue. (That did not go well. [218]) Gaijin42's ANI against me was withdrawn [219] at my behest, and without a boomerang. It was a misunderstanding. Nowhere does Sue mention that she took me to ANI for deleting some of her comments from a talk page (they had accused me of willfully vandalizing pages) and that the admin told her it could boomerang on her (Sue). [220] Nor that she until very recently followed me from page to page shouting that I was an SPA, which an admin warned her to stop doing. [221] Nor that she disrupted the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) article and related articles, insisting that this LIVING scholar is an activist and advocate. [222] If any admin has any question, please ask and I will drop what I'm doing to reply. --Lightbreather (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather, thanks for the the kind words. But just correcting/ clarifying, even then I did not support getting you banned or blocked. I was leaning on you to dial back on aggressive editing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, North. Remember: don't shoot the messenger. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Even if Sue wanted to withdraw the AfD, she couldn't. The consensus is very clearly in the "delete" ballpark. This ANI thread is petty in the extreme, and that's putting it lightly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Luke, you might want to (re) read about Withdrawing a nomination. Also, per WP:CLOSEAFD: "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Lightbreather (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You might want to re-read it. "The AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as Speedy Keep #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for "keep", and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion." Sue could change her !vote, but she could not unilaterally end a discussion that others were involved in. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Gaijin is 100% correct (and beat me to saying that). Quite how the AfD was closed as no consensus, I don't know, but I really don't care enough to file a DRV. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin (and Luke), the point you're quoting is a way for the NOMINATOR to withdraw and close it THEMSELVES (if there have been no delete votes) using Speedy Keep #1. They can also withdraw their nomination - even if there are delete votes - and ask an admin to close the discussion. READ Withdrawing a nomination (link given before) directly above How to close an AFD discussion (link also given before). Lightbreather (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

once again, YOU need to read the section YOU linked. " Withdrawing a nomination can save other editors' time by cutting short the discussion, if no-one else has supported the deletion proposal." You are wasting everyone's time and causing drama. This never should have been brought to ANI to begin with, what did you want, admins to force her to change her opinion or else they ban her?Gaijin42 (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin: First, thank you for clarifying. I have made a few edits to "Withdrawing a nomination" [223] and WP:CLOSEAFD [224] based on your replies to me.

As for the second part of your last reply to me - about "wasting everyone's time" and wanting "admins to force [Sue] to change her opinion" - what I wanted was to get a dispute resolution (keep or delete article), based on this:

• 26 JAN 2014 - Sue nominated the article for deletion for reasons WP:PUSH, "creates a content fork," and "fails notability requirements as well, since the content is already going to be merged into a larger article." Later the same day, she clarified "content fork" with WP:REDUNDANTFORK. [225]
• 1 FEB 2014 - Admin Drmies said she thought the article was a valid content fork [226]... and on 2 FEB 2014 Sue agreed. [227]
• 7 FEB 2014 (Twelve (12) days after she opened the nomination) - And here's where it seemed unabashedly disruptive - Sue called for the discussion to be closed and the article deleted (based on votes),[228] and she called the article WP:OR (in an edit with the summary "POV fork" [229]).

To reiterate, I was trying to get decisions from an uninvolved editor (you were involved in the discussion, yes?) and/or admin about the article and about Sue's behavior. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your tweaks to the guideline, it doesn't change the meaning but does make the restriction more clear. None of the items you mention were issues for ANI. The AFD would be (and was) closed when an admin got to it. There is WP:NODEADLINE and the AFD queue appears to be significantly backlogged currently. (Threads like this one take up admin time, which makes that backlog take even longer!) You may disagree with or dislike sue's comments, but she is entitled to her opinion and predictions and her expressing those opinions is not a violation of any policy that would require admin action. Sue called for the discussion to be closed and expressed an opinion about the way that close should go. You did the exact same thing here. This section should probably be archived as the core dispute is resolved. It does not appear that my proposal below is gaining any traction except for TParis, so it is likely to die soon as well. Lets all move on. But please, if you are going to bring people up for violating policy, maybe make sure you have read it carefully. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, Gaijin, the issue I brought up here (top of discussion) was WP:DISCUSSAFD, which says:

"AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD."

It was you and Luke who brought up CLOSEAFD. Lightbreather (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I am also waiting to see if Sue will agree to my counter proposal below. She said, "it would be grossly unfair for me to have to leave [gun related] articles while [Lightbreather] remains," but I looked at her contributions from October 2012 through August 2013 and I see virtually no evidence of her having an interest in gun-related articles prior to my asking for her help about 15 AUG 2013. There were no contributions from her account from Oct. 2011 to Oct. 2012. After that is was primarily - thousands - of reverted edits and AfDs. That's fine; I know there is a need for that kind of administrative work on Wikipedia, but the point is, she showed no interest in gun-related articles until I asked for her help. (You and she will remember that I asked for help because I was one pro-control editor against at least 10 pro-gun editors. Though I did not know the terms at the time, I felt tag-teamed (I'm not saying I was - that's just how it felt) and probably was just suffering a don't-shoot-the-messenger experience.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Lightbreather, drop it. Stop attempting to Wikilawyer your way out of the hole you dug, particularly when what you're saying categorically does not support the existence of this ANI, or your demand for the AfD to be closed; not even slightly. The only constructive thing I've seen from you so far is your amendments/clarifications to the AfD guidelines, which I also agree with. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose IBan

These two cannot get along, and have been here against each other multiple times. I propose a mutual WP:IBAN. The caveat to that is that this is probably effectively a topic ban on guns/gun control for one/both of them as the majority of LB's edits are only to gun control topics, and the topic as a whole is full of contentinos discussion/RFCs that would have them !voteing or commenting on the same threads and proposals, which is generally viewed as an iban violation.

• support as nom Gaijin42 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Sue and I would get along fine if she would just quit following me around and "fixing" my edits. I don't have super-powers and I edit in good faith. Other editors are capable of BRDing with me and don't need Sue's help. (I also resent a little having an editor who is currently before ArbCom, and who only a few days ago brought me to ANI hastily, dismissively collapsing everything we wrote.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I just went and read about IBAN, and since editor "X" (Sue) usually replies uncivilly to editor "Y" (me, Lightbreather), and accuses "Y" of things (vandalism, SPA, PUSH, etc) on numerous pages, and generally undoes Y's edits first and in large, single edits that undo others' work - I would support an IBAN of X/her against Y/me. Lightbreather (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I initiated the arbcom, so its not like I was hauled in front of the magistrate. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless, although I respect your right to share your opinion, I'd have preferred the perspective of some other editors and admins first. Lightbreather (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mostly because I am not the only editor she tangles with (See above). Also I am not the one wasting everyone's time here. I've just been pulled into ANI and accused of being disruptive because I am of the opinion that the article (Global gun cultures) should be deleted, or merged. I've learned not to be annoyed by these things when it comes to Lightbreather. My complaint is how these things waste so much everybody's valuable time. Our interractions are WP:CIVIL. We don't use profanity or bait each other or anything like that. Our conversations are polite enough. We simply disagree. We aren't even on opposite sides of the gun issue. An IBAN is a bit premature as we haven't even persued WP:DR (There's been no need) Because of this, I think it would be more helpful if a few editors suggested voluntary behaviors first, or at least made a formal request dispute resolution. I would, as an example, agree to both of us mutually and voluntarily topic banning ourselves from gun related pages. I am happy to do that, as it would be grossly unfair for me to have to leave those articles while she remains. There is plenty of Wikipedia for everyone. An IBAN will not solve the core problem here. Lightbreather will return to ANI again, and again, and again because I am not the only editor she tangles with. I think I've demonstrated that. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with some of what you've written, Sue, but rather than get into that, here's a counter proposal. I will voluntarily avoid articles that fall under the WikiProjects you belong to, which appear to be: Computer Security, Sociology, Spam, and Universities, if you will voluntarily avoid articles under WikiProjects that I belong to, which are: Countering Systemic Bias, Firearms, Journalism, Law, and Politics. CSB, Law, and Politics are pretty broad categories, so to be more fair, let's say those articles under CSB, Law, and/or Politics that also overlap with Firearms and/or Journalism. If one of us accidentally edits on another's turf, the other will AGF and give a friendly warning. Lightbreather (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support For these two opposing an interaction ban, they sure do resent each other quite a bit. I've spoken to both, I think, and I have a feeling this is the only way to stop the disruption. They've both been asked to stop and haven't.--v/r - TP 05:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I've seen and interacted much with both and think that they are both fundamentally good people and editors. (not perfect, but who is) They are both are on the same "side" on gun control topics, so that is not an underlying dispute. I think that a full interaction ban would result in one or the other getting excluded from those articles. Could you both agree to just not talk about each other? And if any actions "need" to be taken against the other party, leave that to others to decide and do? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, North. I think we posted on top of each other. See my reply to Gaijin above that begins, "I am also waiting to see...." Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Based on the amount of drama between these two on AN/I I support a IBAN and a topic ban. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Mark Miller overriding consensus on supposed BLP issue

I am concerned that Mark Miller has modified the text of another editor (that would be me) on a Talk page, citing that the previous text violates WP:BLP and saying that "There is actually no proof" to support the previous text. Miller was carefully told that there was proof to support the accusation and that this therefore was not a BLP violation, not only by myself, but also minutes later by another long-time editor, Ken Arromdee. In light of two opposes to his modifying the original text, and no supports other than his own, Mark Miller went ahead and overruled the consensus forming at the page and modified the text anyway. When Mark Miller was warned about this on his Talk page, he deleted the warning rather than discussing it. He also deleted a discussion about whether evidence (or "proof", as he believes is a semantic differentiator) had been provided in the previous text. I believe that Mark Miller should be counseled about modifying other editors' Talk page commentary, that it is both non-customary and impolite. - Checking the checkers (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

One SPIsingle purpose account, and one long term editor, do not a consensus make. I do not assert that Mark Miller is correct here; this is an interesting and complex problem. However, there is no consensus as we currently define it that he is wrong. You are welcome to seek a discussion and consensus on Jimbo's talk page or here. For the time being, there is none. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

One "SPI"? There was no sockpuppet investigation involved in the story, George. Does SPI stand for something else that I'm not aware of? Regardless, Mark Miller now says "I won't edit war over any editor that should decide to revert", so I have simply reverted him back to my originally-intended prose. - Checking the checkers (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I Agree with GWH. Jimbo's talk page is one of the most highly watched pages. When you make accusations about Jimbo based on very little but your own opinion, and you attribute them to intentional malevolence, you can expect to draw attention and perhaps have your posts edited. Jimbo is a living person, this is one of the top 10 websites in the world, and you're slandering that person on it. Now, Jimbo's a big boy and I think Mark Miller should've left the comments alone, but you can't seriously expect us to protect you from him when he's completely justified in what he is doing. Sorry, but no. Either toughen up or don't start the drama.--v/r - TP 05:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And GWH meant "SPA".--v/r - TP 05:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I err brain d'oh yes. I did. No sockpuppetry investigation needed, merely observing single purpose of the account. My apologies for the unintended and unwarranted suggestion/implication. I have struck the goof and clarified above. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, Checking the checkers should voluntarily put it back the way Mark Miller edited it. If policy-based arguments are unconvincing, it should be done out of basic human decency. Stay classy, checker. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent advice, Guy Macon. I have voluntarily restored Miller's questionable modification, even after he said he would not edit war "any editor" who reverted him. I don't know why (above) I am being called a "single purpose account". My contributions to Wikipedia over the past year have been highly diverse. I would appreciate if that epithet were withdrawn. - Checking the checkers (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Having a strong interest in either Keeping Wikipedia Honest or Throwing Around Wild Accusations (take your pick which way you want to describe it) is not the same as being a SPA. That "stay classy" advice I just gave? It applies to calling someone an SPA too. In the name of common decency we should reserve such labels for clear-cut cases. Georgewilliamherbert should voluntarily retract that statement. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

How much competence can an editor have if they think that it would be worthwhile complaining at ANI about someone reverting parts of their baseless comment that includes "Caught in a lie". Or, is Ctc competent but so engaged in battle that they imagine recruits would be available to right-great-wrongs on Jimbo's talk? Unfortunately the open model of editing means that a lot more nonsense has to be tolerated before action will be taken, but if there is much more unsubstantiated baiting perhaps action will be soon. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I am amused by your "baseless comment" and "unsubstantiated" phrasing. It occurs to me that some people on Wikipedia are incapable of reading diffs and connecting dots, even when they're conveniently numbered "1", "2", "3". I could go over the very clearly-based and substantial evidence that the subject was caught in a lie, but what would be the point? Loyal-to-the-Sole-Founder Wikipedians would just deny the evidence all over again. They show no shortage of their ability to do that. - Checking the checkers (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Get a room, you two. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And now, Guy, you need to retract something. Johnuniq's point is valid. "Caught in a lie" is nothing but hot air meant to provoke. It's not an honest question asked by someone interested in the answer. Perhaps we'll find out from Wikipediocrareview who this super checker really is. I respect a bunch of our gadflies, by the way. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahh—that's exactly what I meant to say. For any onlookers, if you find someone "caught in a lie", the way to handle it is to ask a question. You can always add a suggestion that there seems to be a conflict between the events and what someone said, but saying "I caught you in a lie" will never get a good result unless you are not interested in an explanation and merely want to spread muck to attack the person. I would suggest trying another website for the latter because there are quite a lot of intelligent people here who are not impressed by huffing and puffing. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Shalom11111 must stop with his bad behaviour

Hi. I have some ongoing dispute with Shalom11111 and he keeps issuing personal attacks in his answer, directed at my language skills. It doesn't look like he will stop so that's why I am coming here, so that he can finally adhere to both good standard and our policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. This is respectless and just leads to a bad atmoshpere. Yesterday, he wrote this totally unnecessary point in his answer: "4- "you doesn't want too se ... I am interesting of knowing" is terribly poor English, please improve your grammar before making other similar confusing entries on this encyclopedia, as this is just one of many examples. Thanks". I said to him what I think about this and hoped he would stop. Unfortunately, he continued today again: "Anyway, you shouldn't be telling editors anything about grammatical edits they make, as your understanding of it appears to be substandard [31] IRISZOOM: "it just that you doesn't want too se what happened to Arabs"". Note that his claim about "grammatical edits" is not true as I specifically talked about keeping a word, not about someones grammatical skills, because I thought this would be better to show the distinction between one country's view and the world's view (which I later explained to him). Also notice the claim that I am "paranoid".

I am not sure if this is personal, because we have had disputes before, such as two months ago when he restored every comment I had deleted in my talk and issued threats about that I can be blocked for that. When I explained to him that this was allowed, instead of apologizing, he said "Well, to be honest I actually didn't know of that, so please do as you wish now. The fact that you choose to consistently delete posts from your talk page instead of archiving them which is Wikipedia policy's "preferred" option means a lot, as there must be a reason behind it. What are you hiding? You have exposed your POV-pushing editing style everywhere, and other editors have told you about it already. Anyway, I can only guess how long this comment will stay before it gets removed too". I took this to here (ANI) and I was advised to ignore him. In his user talk page, he wrote "Please stop making so much unnecessary noise, Wikipedia admins have much more important stuff to go over than your imaginary "intimidation" and "harassment" made by other users". It just seems that if you have a dispute with him, he will use personal attacks as a weapon. Either way, his bad behaviour must stop.

This case could be of intererest. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, there's obviously a civility problem there and a failure of good faith. Just taking the first example there about the "you doesn't want too se what happened to Arabs" thing. Yes, it's poor English but it's poor English on a talk page. Shalom11111 could probably do with calming down on that front. It's important that spelling and grammar is enforced in articles but on talk pages, arguing about each other's spelling and minor layout changes and so on is a complete waste of time and energy. Both of you need to apply the principle of charity and try to deal with the substantive differences rather than just pick holes in minor edits. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to IRISZOOM, and an official request for action from administrator

I’m not surprised that all editors have chosen to ignore this post. Ironically, as you selectively picked quotes of me from various disputes we’ve had in the past, you proved what I said to be true. You have to understand that there are millions of heated discussion on Wikipedia talk pages, and if every editor were to complaint about any tiny issue as easily as you do, this WP:ANI noticeboard would have thousands of new posts every hour.

So many of the edits IRISZOOM has made do not comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Mistake made by her are commonly seen, and I was just able to find a few in a matter of a few minutes. IRISZOOM changed a link from "List of Israeli Arab Christians" to "Arab Muslims”, [230], another mistake is where she wrote “and between and between”[231], or here where she deleted factual content, summarizing the reason with a link to a website that doesn't support the the removal of the content. It's important to note that IRISZOOM did not fix any of these later.

Considering the fact that IRISZOOM is not fighting with everyone as often as she has done with past false accusations that were directed at me, one has to ask himself this why this is happening: Is it a coincidence that I am an Israeli Jew while she's a person who has links to some of the most anti-Israel websites in their user page? IRISZOOM’s twisting name is meant to attract readers to enter her page and click on those anti-Israel links, as evidenced by the thousands of daily minor edits she makes[232] just for the purpose of flooding Wikipedia with her user name for people to click on. She also did that in this very strategic article [233] for example - her edits are anti-Israel, which is sad but is as itself fine, however here comes the serious problem: (taken from IRISZOOM's own user page. she moved it to the bottom recently)

Websites you should visit

• mondoweiss.net - Mondoweiss
• normanfinkelstein.com - Norman Finkelstein
• chomsky.info - Noam Chomsky
• ifamericansknew.org - If Americans Knew

This consists of different violations, including WP:USER#Excessive unrelated content, which prohibits "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links), and WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, which states: "user pages...content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise" - and this is exactly what IRISZOOM is doing by spreading her name and attracting reader to click on here user page so they can see these links. Furthermore, as you can see, she literally asks that viewers visit them ("Websites you should visit"). Admins, IRISZOOM must be asked to peacefully remove these links, and if not, you should remove them yourselves. Thanks you, -Shalom11111 (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, 3 of those terrible sites are written by highly informed American Jews, two with important scholarship to their credit, who happen to disagree with Israel's occupation of another country. They are not 'anti-Israel'. They are again an illegal occupation of foreign territory, which is a respectable position within international law. Though not RS, they are generally highly tuned in to events that are underreported, and therefore assist readers otherwise addicted to mainstream tailored news to see the underside of contemporary issues. Citing them on a user page does not constitute advocacy for what is written there. I don't think anything here is actionable, however, other than that Shalom11111 should be reminded that disputes should not be personalized. If IRISZOOM feels that these personal attacks are unacceptable, then simply linking all recent examples with diffs, without comment, at the WP:NPA page would be the best way to clarify the issue. Nearly all of the edits I see from IRISZOOM look like close technical corrections on sloppily written pages, while Yamabaram . . .Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, regarding that template, this was a result of me changing from "Muslims Arabs" to "Arab Muslims", then I also wanted to change from "Christian Arabs" from "Arab Christians" and I copied "Arab Muslims", then forgot to change the rest too (the last word, "Christians"). I don't see what I would earn on making this on purpose. I've corrected this now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Lets take a look at his second example. Some of the changes I made:

• Jewish communities currently established in the West Bank and in the Golan Heights, between 1967 and 2006 in the Gaza Strip and between 1967 and 1981 in the Sinai Peninsula
• Jewish communities currently established in the West Bank and in the Golan Heights, between 1967 and 2006 in the Gaza Strip and between 1967 and until 1982 in the Sinai Peninsula
• Jewish communities currently established in the West Bank and in the Golan Heights, between 1967 and 2006 in the Gaza Strip and between 1967 and between 1967 and 1982 in the Sinai Peninsula

One of the changes was that I changed to 1982 because settlements such as Yamit where evacuated then, which I said in the edit summary. The last change was because I wrote that I was "Restoring from when too...". I didn't see "and between 1967" was already there. So you are correct that this is a mistake. I shouldn't added those extra words when there was already those in place. But this doesn't prove something more than I made a mistake. I will correct this now.

Regarding the article about Jordan, I did remove the allegations as they were unfounded, as there is a misunderstanding about Jordan's nationality law. It doesn't "explicitly bars Jews". The law says "(2)Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954" under "The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:". Note that this was not presented as an opinion but as a fact ("Jordan has been accused of practicing apartheid because of the Kingdom's 1954 law prohibiting Jews from living in Jordan") made by a columnist. I was reverted and contrary to your claim, I made other changes. I changed to "allegedly prohibiting Jews from living in Jordan". After that, I inserted what the U.S. State Department says about that.

Regarding my user page. Admins can decide if it's wrong or not. I have directed accusations at you with proof, like yesterday when you made some really troubling POV pushing, where you gave fringe views the same significance as mainstream views. In the end, you realized what you were doing and stopped. And let us don't forget that you direct accusations too, very often in fact.

Shalom11111, I really don't know to say to the rest of your text. You called me "paranoid" today. I don't know what that you are writing is then. This is the second time you make allegations of antisemitism. Didn't you learn something from the case you had with Nishidani? I don't care that you are an Israeli Jew, it makes no difference for me what your background have. Three of the websites I link to are written by Jews, maybe the last one too.

The part about my username and my many edits are just... too much. I am sorry but I can't see anyone who agree with this. This is really laughful. Do you think I am spending several hours per day (often more) just to "spread my name and gets the links to anti-Israeli websites"? Most of the time I am spending is just to correct links, formatting etc. I do think my many edits are improvements. But maybe I understand your claim, because you can't find any hate in my edits, or incorrect edits with of course some usual exceptions as shown here because everyone makes mistakes or is wrong sometimes, you now point to the "anti-Israel websites" (which of course is a bad term). This is conspiracy thinking at the best. I took my username, as explained at my user page, from a game engine. I also have one email with that name. Is that also for "spreading my name and getting clicks" etc. or could it be that I just want to have that name because I like it? I am really confused by your remarks.

You know I can bring up your awful edits, like spreading propaganda about Muslims' birth rate in France, you trying to make Palestinians look like interlopers who wasn't ethnic cleansed but, at least many of them, "returned to their home countries". But I won't do it as I don't see the relevance of that. This is about your incivilty, not anything else. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the many small edits and mistakes: on Wikipedia, editors make mistakes. That's because editors are human beings and humans are fallible. If there's routine incompetence and you try in good faith to alert them to the issues in a civil way and they pay no attention, then we might want to consider a block. I'm not seeing that condition being met yet.

As for the links on the user page: I'd suggest the simple answer to that is for IRISZOOM to remove them. If they are unwilling to, Shalom11111—or anyone similarly concerned—has the option to take the user page to Miscellany for Deletion and seek wider consensus on deletion of the page itself. But the idea that there's some grand propaganda war going on here because IRISZOOM has an all-caps username and makes a lot of edits to effectively spam the history page so as to seduce people reading the history page into clicking on their user page so that they can then get pro-Palestinian propaganda in the form of links to four websites... sorry, that's silly.

Beyond telling the both of you to stop bickering and to implore you to try and be civil to one another, I'm not exactly sure what admin action is required here. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have explained where my user name comes from but it looks like Shalom11111 didn't see that. Otherwise he would not have thought I am a woman ("her"), as "Iris" makes it sound (pretty common mistake in my email conversations). So I advice him to read one time more and use common sense before drawing up conspiracy theories.

I have removed that from my user page now. I just want to add that those websites have only been there for a month. I had an empty user page for several years before that. I have done much copyediting for much longer than that. So the silly claim makes even less sense. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I Just read all the responses. Nishidani you're intellectual enough to know that these four websites/people aren't just "against illegal occupation of foreign territory" - each one of them represents either strong radical-leftist, anti-Israel, or extreme liberal views. This is unacceptable, just like I would never put a link to this anti-Islam website on my user page and write "Website you should visit", even if I really felt the need to advance a point.

Tom Morris, thanks for your helpful reply and advice. With all due respect, I think that what you called "silly" is actually the truth. You surely agree with me that whatever a Wikipedia user puts on their user page is what they want visitors to see. It's understandable, and it's what IRISZOOM did, but in his/her case, it's against Wikipedia's rules. But let's not get into this. Anyway, just before I was going to go to WP:MFD, IRISZOOM wisely removed these websites. A smart move, I guess.

IRISZOOM, as I'm writing this you keep changing the content of your response and it's really confusing and misleading as it is hard to follow. I'll respond briefly. You can't see anyone who agrees with me? You have been reverted dozens of times and other editors told you similar things, so this statement is factually wrong. Also, from 2009 until late-2013 you were barely active and made as little as about 400 edits on English Wikipedia, so saying that your user page was empty for a few years is again a half-truth. Conspiracy theories? Propaganda about Muslims and Palestinians? Unlike you(this is just one example of many), I always cite any sentence I add whenever it could be disputed. And did you just say that I made antisemitic allegations against you?! This is an absolute lie and you should be sanctioned per WP:BOOMERANG. -Shalom11111 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already explained the article about the situation in Jordan. The claim was not true and presented as a fact. I was reverted and then I kept it but clarified and added a source about the situation. None of your examples show anything unusual, as others have explained to you here. And please to don't try to misinform readers. You have made many unwarranted changes such as yesterday in the article about Israelis and the fact that you may cite someone, doesn't mean that it's acceptable, like you for example did in some edits about Palestinians.

There will always be disputes about content. But no one has agreed with the silly claim about why I am editing. You write "With all due respect, I think that what you called "silly" is actually the truth. You surely agree with me that whatever a Wikipedia user puts on their user page is what they want visitors to see". You are missing the point. It was not about which pages I had in my user page itself but your claim I wanted to promote it by making many edits. And please read again what I wrote. I said my user page, with a link to it, was empty for several years. Or actually, it said "IRIZOOM". I am not talking about the edits. So your claim about why I am making so many edits makes even more less sense. It's bad that you made this claim from the beginning and it's worse than you keep pushing this idea. You are now trying to leave this by saying "But let's not get into this". No, if you make a serious accusation, and in the very same time as you write this, keeps pushing the same claim about why I am editing, expect me to want you to retract it.

Why do you bring up that you are an Israeli Jew if that's not what you mean? "Considering the fact that IRISZOOM is not fighting with everyone as often as she has done with past false accusations that were directed at me, one has to ask himself this why this is happening: Is it a coincidence that I am an Israeli Jew while she's a person who has links to some of the most anti-Israel websites in their user page?". Why didn't you only write "Israeli"? Not that this would be much better. Don't you see any problem with the claim you are making here? This is a serious accusation by you, don't change it to my being my fault. I see why you are changing it to be about me but lets be honest. You made personal attacks, directed at my language skills, and now it's has gotten worse with the two claims you have made here. You have to understand why I react and not just ignore it or try to make it irrelevant. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, to imply as Shalom11111 is insinuating here, 'is it a coincidence that I am an Israel Jew?', i.e. that we have a case of anti-semitism here is worthy of administrative note. Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, my edits on Wikipedia are good and productive, and I'm rarely told otherwise. If there are specific edits you think I should correct, tell me so in the proper place, unlike what you did here, and I'll gladly discuss the issue. I said "but let's not get into this" because as a life principle I tend to refrain from saying things that will probably not benefit either side of the argument, but since you׳re continuing your insistence I'll respond in details now.

I wrote that your account was barely active for about four years prior to late-2013 (correction - early 2013 so it's again a half truth to say that your user page was empty for years. You made so few edits every year so this may be why you didn't bother to change your user page space. And no, I'm not "missing the point". The serious issue is the actual websites you promoted on you user page while asking visitors to click on them, and this is what I focused my explanation on as I examined which Wikipedia policies you're violating by having them. The other stuff about your edits was just side notes for whoever it may concern to take into consideration. And no, if you haven't noticed, you have made many more accusations than I have in this entry, and far less relevant and justified ones, indeed.

Nishidani, I'm not going to let you twist my words this time, as you did in "that case" IRISZOOM keeps referring to. Thankfully, as you got more people involved in that discussion by mentioning them, the statements you made about everyone were slowly debunked by those editors. So this is to both of you:

When I asked 'is it because I am an Israeli Jew while IRISZOOM has links to anti-Israel websites?' I was implying that your Wikipedia account/activity is anti-Israel, and so I raised the possibility that I may have been targeted by you because I'm Israeli. I'm surprised it's so hard for you to understand this as it's quite simple. And I asked it, as opposed to accused. I wrote Israeli Jew because (and you know this very well) there are Palestinian Israelis (also known as Arab Israelis), which you IRISZOOM are very supportive of, as your edits indicate. So if I were an Israeli Muslim/Palestinian, my statement just wouldn't make sense as it would contradict the reality, so I clarified it by saying Israeli Jew. And even if I were to say "is it because I'm a Jew?", it still wouldn't be an accusation, which for various reasons you claim it to be. It is a question that I'm entitled to ask just like you can. In case you guys don't know what the word "accusation" really means, it is (according to Google) "a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong", which is not what I was doing when I asked our of concern why I was being targeted while IRISZOOM has had many disputes with different editors in the past.

You both are just harming you reputation the more and more here, and your false and offensive interpretations must be enforced by administrators. -Shalom11111 (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what you want to say with that. This is not about our content disputes (which is normal to have), and I yes, I have explained to you several times (both in talk pages and in edits) regarding your edits, and I surely think my edits are also good and productive, but this is not about that. It's about your bad behaviour, which unfortunately, with this claim that you have made here, is much worse than I thougt your remarks about my language skills were.

I don't know why you are keep saying that's "it's a half truth" and that you didn't miss the point. I will explain again.

As for the links on the user page: I'd suggest the simple answer to that is for IRISZOOM to remove them. If they are unwilling to, Shalom11111—or anyone similarly concerned—has the option to take the user page to Miscellany for Deletion and seek wider consensus on deletion of the page itself. But the idea that there's some grand propaganda war going on here because IRISZOOM has an all-caps username and makes a lot of edits to effectively spam the history page so as to seduce people reading the history page into clicking on their user page so that they can then get pro-Palestinian propaganda in the form of links to four websites... sorry, that's silly. - what Tom Morris wrote

I have removed that from my user page now. I just want to add that those websites have only been there for a month. I had an empty user page for several years before that. I have done much copyediting for much longer than that. So the silly claim makes even less sense. - what I said to him

With all due respect, I think that what you called "silly" is actually the truth. You surely agree with me that whatever a Wikipedia user puts on their user page is what they want visitors to see. It's understandable, and it's what IRISZOOM did, but in his/her case, it's against Wikipedia's rules.

Also, from 2009 until late-2013 you were barely active and made as little as about 400 edits on English Wikipedia, so saying that your user page was empty for a few years is again a half-truth. - what you wrote

What I explained to you in my last reply to you was that you said that the "silly" thing is "actually the truth" because "whatever a Wikipedia user puts on their user page is what they want visitors to see. It's understandable, and it's what IRISZOOM did". I said "It was not about which pages I had in my user page itself but your claim I wanted to promote it by making many edits". So you are now only talking about why I had that user page but ignoring your silly theory which my name and user page was a part of, namely that my "twisting name is meant to attract readers to enter her page and click on those anti-Israel links, as evidenced by the thousands of daily minor edits she makes[3] just for the purpose of flooding Wikipedia with her user name for people to click on". In response to this, I also said (with a link to it) that this claim makes less sense also because my user page was empty/only contained "IRISZOOM" for several years until a month ago. You respond by saying Also, from 2009 until late-2013 you were barely active and made as little as about 400 edits on English Wikipedia, so saying that your user page was empty for a few years is again a half-truth. As I said, I am talking about my user page (not my edits), and the fact that I have done much copyediting for much longer than that makes your claim even more less sense. This is why your theory is getting debunked. But if you still want to believe it, no one can stop you.

I think it's clear what you mean and they are atleast insinuations to anyone. Stop trying to hide behind linguistics and that you wrote "Israeli Jew" just because there are Palestinians who are Israelis. "Considering the fact that IRISZOOM is not fighting with everyone as often as she has done with past false accusations that were directed at me, one has to ask himself this why this is happening: Is it a coincidence that I am an Israeli Jew while she's a person who has links to some of the most anti-Israel websites in their user page?" is a very offensive remark. Obviously you don't agree with the interpretation so we will se what others say. The fact that you have made a similiar claim against another user (Nishidani) is also relevant. And no, it is not a "question that I'm entitled to ask just like you can". Even if what you say above is true, namely that you mean that I may have something against Israelis, it's still offensive. If you would have acknowledged that your remark was wrong, I would have accepted it, but you have made the opposite. Let us not play this "It's only questions"-game. It's not acceptable to have something against other nationalities. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what nationality did I have something against? None. You just wrongly accused me of having "something against other nationalities". Yet another serious Wikipedia rule you broke and should be sanctioned for. And with all these long texts you copy-pasted and all these blatant remarks, it's clear that you're just trying to make me look as bad as possible in the eyes of the uninformed reader. You keep referring to Nishidani (a user that was/claimed he was being called an 'antisemite' many times in the past, like here and here, to name a few), and this is becoming pathetic. You're telling me to stay on topic, while you do the opposite.

And yes, I still believe this theory, which you haven't debunked simply because in this case it is impossible to debunk what one thinks. I cannot read your mind and therefore my opinion will probably not change. Because out of millions of English Wikipedia users, IRISZOOM is the only one who meets the following description: Has an all-caps username and makes hundreds of daily minor edits which obviously gets many visitors to click on it, while IRISZOOM'S views are clearly demonstrated in his/her editing and in those external links to websites for promotion, which clearly have no place on Wikipedia (an interesting side note is that the country you come from is one of least Israel-friendly ones in the world). But this specific issue was solved as you removed those links (it's better than having the whole user page removed via WP:MFD) - I do not interfere with anything as long as you/anyone else follow Wikipedia's guidelines. -Shalom11111 (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

First we start with your theory. Your argument about my user page and the part about what was considered silly was the thing I wanted to clarify as you misunderstood it. If you want to believe your theory, it's silly but you are allowed to do so.

I don't see what you want to say with those links. Yes, the fact that you wrote that to Nishidani is relevant. You got warned for this.

I am tired of you misreading thing after thing. I did not "accuse" you of having "something against other nationalities". Read it again. I was referring to you who said that you meant "Israelis" and I responded that this wasn't acceptable either, as it's not okay to have something against other nationalities. -IRISZOOM (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Khabboos

N.B. This was originally posted at WP:AN, but since this is much more of an incident, I've moved it here. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User Khabboos has continuously and knowingly violated and attempted to violate Wikipedias stance on neutral point of view and rule on editing originally on four pages (Talk:Karachi, Talk:Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush). He has already been warned by other editors that this is not allowed. Even though knowing this he continued to request to have mine and Inayity edits reverted on the Sindhi people page. Following his recent edits on the Hindu Kush (here and here) with his deliberate disruptive editing of a quote in a attempt to push his "agenda" I had personally come to inform him that he is severely risking being banned.

Despite being clearly informed of this, he completely ignored my message and want on his normal ways on the Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush pages. He would again violate NPOV on Hindu Kush, restoring his edit after being told its not allowed and again even after being told by 3 different editors that his edits are not neutral and unsourced. He also claims that the sources provided say "flee" instead of "migrated" but on the contrary both sources say "migrated".

Other disruptive edits include:

Claiming to have "found a good reference" for the Jayapala page even though none of his edits related to the source provided.

Using original research on the Hinduism in Pakistan page (here) which is also not allowed on Wikipedia.

Using original research on the Persecution of Hindus page (here and here). The references used are the same as the ones used on Hinduism in Pakistan.

Adding a reference to the Sindhi page (here) to citation a needed. Though he provided a source it does not mention the numbers given on the article. I have already and several times before have told him to make sure his edits are supported by the source he has given and to make sure the source he gives is relates to the citation needed.

Providing a "dead" "sourced" link to the Hinduism page (here); which called Hinduism "a way of life" which would also conflict with the fourth and fifth word in the first sentence of the first article which are "a religion". AcidSnow (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You tried WT:INB, or WP:DRN? Noteswork (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Noteswork, please do not give misleading advice on noticeboards - WT:INB is not an appropriate place to raise a contributor's behavioural issues, dispute resolution is only of use where there is an active discussion, and page protection is unlikely to solve a problem spread over multiple articles. I've not looked at the evidence in detail, but from Acidsnow's comments, it appears that admin action may be needed - in which case, this page is exactly the place to raise the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And BTW, editing your posts long after initial posting [234] is confusing and unhelpful too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

While I'm new here, I have been taking advice from friends who are active here. They tell me that I can ask for a senior to tutor me, that I can write anything on the Talk page and it is counted only as a discussion, not an edit. I also asked questions at the Tea House. I was also told that if more than a week has passed after I posted something, I will not be blocked/banned for it. Please tell me how to proceed.—Khabboos (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard of this, who said it? I have warned you before that you were risking being banned if you continued, yet you ignored my message and continued. Anyways, even if it was true it does not mean much. As for the talk pages I said "attempted" since you were warned that these break NPOV and were clearly showing "to be advocating your point of view".

*Sigh*, once again you have added original research on the Persecution of Hindus page (here and here). This also has been said by another user too (here and here). Why are you still doing this when me and other editors can see your edits? How many times must you be told to stop before you stop? AcidSnow (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Some links that may be helpful. This is only for the Hindu Kush portion, which I happened to see at the teahouse (I don't know anything about the rest of the articles). Here is the teahouse thread, WP:Teahouse/Questions#https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FHindu_Kush. Here is my request for some savvy folks to take a peek, if they could, User_talk:Drmies#Talk:Hindu_Kush. Here is the article-talkpage thread, Talk:Hindu_Kush#Possible_edit_war. Note that dispute over the "literal translation" sentences in mainspace (albeit not between AcidSnow and Khabboos I hope! :-) has been going on since 2005, see Talk:Hindu_Kush#Miscellaneous. Khabboos claims to be getting information straight from the 1957 national geographic article, if I understand the article-talkpage conversation. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, you asked a question at the Teahouse on January 27, but a review of that discussion does not show any such advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already asked him who said it and to come back to the ANI on his talk page, but he has yet to do so. Hopefully he stops ignoring it so we can end these types of edits. This user appears to have a serious problem with Islam (see his most recent talk page discussion). Not just those but he has also continued to lie about his references then post them all over Hinduism in Pakistan (here and here) and on the Umayyad Caliphate page (here). AcidSnow (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I had made some edits to the article Hinduism in Pakistan that can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_in_Pakistan&diff=593445517&oldid=593438770, but User:AcidSnow has formatted it, removing the sentences that say there were forced conversions back in time, that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005 etc (the references say that). Please tell me what to do about it.—Khabboos (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you just ignoring all of my messages especially the edit summaries and the talk page I have left? None of the sources you provided support your POV. Are you simply Google searching books on the history of Pakistan without even reading them? As for the mob I have said this twice before it was a response to an alleged Quran desecration which you continued to ignore in your edits. It was not out of hate against Hindus but rather and attack out of anger. You have also ignored the questions previously asked you, but raised a question on what to do with my edits that have broken no rules. AcidSnow (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', but you removed it, which means you did break the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. In the article on Sindhis, you removed the names of 2 Sindhis, stating that they were not Sindhis, but the surname, Vaswani (see http://www.surfindia.com/matrimonials/sindhi.html and Vaswani, J.P.'s, 'I Am a Sindhi: The Glorious Sindhi Heritage - The Culture & Folklore of Sind. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 129–135. 9788120738072.') is a truly Sindhi surname (your edit summary can be seen here), which is again a breaking of the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war.—Khabboos (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Block proposal

I am not sure if I am allowed to do this as I am not an administrator, but this appears to be the only solution to deal/stop with this user. Following his countless POV edits, disruptive edits, use of original research, lies, ignoring messages when told to stop and to rejoin the discussion (see my other comments above) I have request to have this user to be blocked form editing on Wikipedia. AcidSnow (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a strong claim, and needs substantiation; please post specific diffs to show that the user has lied. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He has and very clear ones would when he said, "I was also told that if more than a week has passed after I posted something, I will not be blocked/banned for it." (he is referring to the Teahouse and I am not the only one that called him out on it). He has also claimed to "have found a good reference". AcidSnow (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You said that the user has lied.

Please can you show me where he has lied. Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For the rule he stated, theres nothing at either Teahouse discussion that says anything like it (see here and here for each one). There's also no other discussion about it in his contribute history (had to make sure so I don't make false accusations). As for the "good reference", none of the edits he made are related to it, so he lied about that too. AcidSnow (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so, you're talking about Khabboos (talk · contribs), right? Got it.

Next, can you show some specific diffs that require admins? Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am confused as to what you mean by that and what you are? You know a lot about Wikipedia's policies and have made many edits so far in your first day. They range from articles edits to blocking discussion; these are not normal for a first time editor. Have you been a user before?

Anyways, I have already listed all the things he has done up above. This discussion needs administrator intervention since this user could careless what others say (has been warned countess times). I was also guided here by a helpful user. Another user who has also glanced at this section also see it as such. Since you appear to have missed the issues stated about this user please reread this discussion.

EDIT: It appears that you have been a user here before since you claim to have made "over 100,000 edits". But than again "everybody lies". AcidSnow (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', but you removed it, which means you did break the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. In the article on Sindhis, you removed the names of 2 Sindhis, stating that they were not Sindhis, but the surname, Vaswani (see http://www.surfindia.com/matrimonials/sindhi.html and Vaswani, J.P.'s, 'I Am a Sindhi: The Glorious Sindhi Heritage - The Culture & Folklore of Sind. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 129–135. 9788120738072.') is a truly Sindhi surname (your edit summary can be seen here), which is again a breaking of the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. I therefore request the administartor/s to block AcidSnow instead of me.—Khabboos (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your going to try to block me for going against your NON NPOV? You do realize since you keep on failing to mention that it was an anger attack not a hate crime that you are once again pushing your POV (which you have been told countless times that it not allowed? This is not breaking a rules if I remove it since it misrepresents the source. Also its not an edit war if you revert it once (once again I have not broken any rule). Dispet knowing this you continue to readded it (here) I removed it because they are not sourced being Sindhi. You know many Turks have the name Yusuf which is an Arab name, but they are not Arab? So the use of the surname does not help.

You also added an unsourced comment to the Babri Mosque (here) about Pakistani Hindus which has nothing to do with the Mosque. This called Original Research, find a source next time (really, I still need to tell you this?). You also added another reference to Temples to the lead that have nothing to do with the mosque once again (here). AcidSnow (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you also tell us who told you the one week rule? You have already been asked twice, so you might as well as do it now. AcidSnow (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

My offline wikipedia friends told me that if an edit goes unchallenged for more than a week and it is backed up by references that say the same thing, it is acceptable.—Khabboos (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Name? "unchallenged" and "backed up by references", odd, you did not say these before. Anyways this has nothing to do with the issues you have caused as they were challenged and not backed up. This also has been a continues problem too. AcidSnow (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear admins, In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', which said the same thing, but AcidSnow is continuously removing it, so please tell me what to do.—Khabboos (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are constantly saying this? I have given you 3 legitimate reasons why its not needed, yet you keep on asking for Admin assistance? You are wasting time.

AcidSnow Could you explain to me why the sentence "Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera" is not relevant as it appears to be sourced? Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 00:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You are now forumshoping: (request for medition, asking at ANI which you did more than once, making your own section at ANI, asking Smsarmad, and at the teahouse). AcidSnow (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your a 100% right Flat Out that it "appears" to be sourced and if that was the only thing the source said or that it was a "hate crime" or anything related to it than it would also be ok to add. However, the article goes on to say they were out to "avenge an alleged desecration of Holy Quran by a man here". As you can see it was done out of anger and nothing to do with persecution. It is also a miss representation of the source as the section it's being used is discussing persecution of Hindus. This is just another one of his attempts to push his POV. Those were the three reasons: nothing to do with persecution, miss representation of the article, and POV pushing. AcidSnow (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, AcidSnow. It's important to remember that not everyone has the benefit of all of the details of the disagreement and that you will need to be specific both here and at arbitration. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 02:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, Flat Out I have edited my response at the Request for mediation.. Could you close it now since it's now pointless to have it open? Also do I continue too wait for assistance? AcidSnow (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I cant close. I will review your additions at Arbitration - Good luck Flat Out let's discuss it 03:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you anyways. AcidSnow (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I restored this discussion because it is still ongoing. If it was removed due to lack of discussion, it is because Khabboos has staled it even though I have asked him to return to it. This is not about a "dispute", but rather his inappropriate behavior. All Khabboos is trying to do is shift the discussion from his inappropriate behavior to this "dispute" he is "trying" to "resolve". In fact he would rather see me banned. When he responded to me, as you can see here, he has no desire to discuss his continues inappropriate behavior and even denied the discussions existence. AcidSnow (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There can be no mediation because: (1) "the mediation process is unsuitable for complaints about the behaviour of other editors" (see Wikipedia:Mediation); and (2) because User:AcidSnow has not agreed to mediation. We need to discuss the behaviour issues.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Behaviour

AcidSnow has said that Khabboos provides citations that did not contain the information that they were claimed as a source for. I have looked at three of the citations that AcidSnow has complained about, and his/her complaints are justified.[235][236][237] Khabboos, do you have an explanation for these?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There are also cases where Khabboos has provided a genuine citation, but the citation only supports part of what he/she has added. This example happened today.[238] The citation is completely accurate for the second sentence, but does not support the first sentence.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Toddy1, thank you for trying to keep this discussion going, but I doubt he well bother responding. As I have asked him to return, but he would ignored me and denied the discussions existence. AcidSnow (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Yatzhek

This is a complaint about User:Yatzhek

The edit conflict that has caused the personal attacks and insults is [239].

I noticed on the article Black people in Nazi Germany a slight error, the mention of ethnic Poles as an inferior race and as "racially non-Aryan" is incorrect and the source given does not mention this. I then removed this and have found myself having to revert this a couple of times now. Before doing this I created a new section on the users talk page which can be found [240] which was my attempt at explaining why I removed the text that the user has kept reverting back into the article along with evidence. The replies are astonishing and are full of personal attacks whilst warning the user about this. I then created the discussion on the actual article itself which can be found [241] and again there is no cooperation with the user but rather insult after insult and personal attacks. One personal attack which really made me angry was "How dare you discredit the Polish suffering during the Shoa by saying that Poles were treated as Aryans? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims - Hope you read the whole of my message and educate yourself. Thank you". The user then decided to "contribute" towards a discussion held a little while ago which can be found [242] and this was the final straw, I received this at the end of the rant "You are from England, so you are either anti-Polish racist and hate the fact that Poles suffered racial persecution in their own country, or you are Polish and strongly want to be a full-fledged member of the Stormfront forum. That's all. Thank you." This was the final hurdle and one step too far, the user knows nothing about me (I might even be Polish myself?) it is not the users concern what I am as we are all just editors on Wikipedia and is now also accusing me of being Polish and wanting to be a member of the Stormfront forum.

There is no cooperation with the user despite the many attempts, the user even created a section on my talk page and just copy and pasted the same text of one of the responses on their own talk page. I am not getting anywhere with the user and it is now just becoming too personal for my liking simply because I am refuting and removing the text given that the user wants in the article.

I am not happy with these personal attacks and constant reverting without actually giving an explanation, the history of the reverts can be found [243] and the user clearly is not reading my reasons, such as:

"I've already created a section on your talkpage regarding this, Poles were 'Aryan' not "racially non-Aryan", the source given does not state that and it is irrelevant to the article anyways. Please see your talk page before rv again."

Users reply:

"Undid revision 594494517 by Windows66 (talk) 2 million Poles were victims of Holocaust. They were not only discriminated but killed"

I have warned the user a few times and the user has chosen to ignore me, I want this resolved please as the personal attacks were one step too far. Can you please help?--Windows66 (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And the personal attacks continue...

"Are completely out of your mind? Why are you saying this "Aryan, Aryan, Aryan" thing all the time? This was not the case and you push this topic all the way! I had enough! You deleted the information about ethnic Poles because you dont understand the article Black people in Nazi Germany - ethnic Poles were mention as people who suffered SIMILAR persecutions... or should I say - Blacks suffered similar persecutions to Poles. You are an anti-Polish pseron, hating on this nation, can't stand the fact that Poles were the victims and I think, if you had such power, you would delete all the articles about the Polish suffering and victims of the Would War II. The question is - why? Racism? Antipolonism?"[244]--Windows66 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You hate the Poles. Admit it. Be a man and admit it. Why everything you do on Wikipedia is hunting the articles about Polish suffering during the WWII and deleting the information about them? Why don't you delete Gypsies? Didn't you know that Gypsies were higher on the "racial ladder" than Poles accoring do many Hitler's cooperators? Haven't you heard about 2 million non-Jewish ethnic Poles killed in the German Nazi death camps? You are making a lot of conflict around yourself. Be a human, not an anti-Polish monster. True, Germans considered Poles half-Aryan, but that doesn't change the fact Poles were the second largest victim group of Nazism, right after Jews. you JUST CAN'T DENY IT. don't you dare deny it ! Yatzhek (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks that Yatzhek has difficulties understanding some basic policies of Wikipedia (WP:CIVIL). On the other hand, Windows66 himself is doing exactly what Yatzhek is doing: accusations and personal attacks on other contributors[245], [246] edit warring[247],[248] and copying and pasting material from one articles talk page to another,[249], [250] -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You are showing yourself to attack me even more through WP:PA right on the page that I have reported you on.

I do not hate Poles. I have nothing to admit. I have not removed any text about Poles (Jewish Poles or ethnic Poles) suffering during WWII by the Nazis. I never deleted the Gypsies because they were persecuted as an "inferior race" according to the Nuremberg Laws, this was not the case with ethnic Poles. Gypsies and their Aryan purity can be seen on the article Porajmos#Aryan_racial_purity, Gypsies were classified as non-Aryan; they were seen as originally Aryan but became too racially mixed and were subject to losing their German citizenship, forbid from having sexual relations and marriages with Aryans, again this was not the case with the Poles. Where did I deny that Poles were not victims of Nazism? Poles were seen as fully-Aryan not just half-Aryan (plenty of evidence for this). You seem incapable of handling the truth and because of this have continued to personally attack, attack and attack me for simply removing un-sourced content. Who spoke about denying anything??? Who spoke about denying crimes against Poles??? NOBODY. What I removed was that ethnic Poles were viewed as an "inferior race", its not true. Second removal they were "racially non-Aryan", again not true.

You claimed on another users talk page (found here) that you struggle with English yet you seem enough to constantly insult me to the level of calling me "racist".

I've tried to co-operate with you, for example after your rant without any sources I asked for you to produce the responses were:

[251] - me asking for evidence.

[252] - your rant.

You won't answer anything I say but then full out call me racist and anti-Polish, then the more severe personal attacks came...--Windows66 (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Tobby72 - The reason it was removed from the Nazism article was already mentioned, the Slavs is already mentioned and Poles are Slavs so there is no need in a separate insertion of the same text when Slavs covers it.

I've not personally attacked anyone, I've not called anyone a racist, a white supremacist, etc etc. I've not personally attacked you I first even said it might be a coincidence, especially now since you're following it up on here.

May I ask why you are even bothering to reply on this when it is really to do with me, Yahzhek and administrators?--Windows66 (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Closely related to this incident: I am calling for someone with historical interest in Nazism to review the onging dispute on the Talk page to this article regarding a serious WP:UNDUE issue.

Windows66 has repeatedly removed referenced information from the Nazism article[253] and used this quotes[254] to support his assertion that "Poles and other non-Germans were not going to be treat like second-class citizens because they were to be equally citizens of the German state just as much as Germans..." seems to me to be historical revisionism of the worst kind (I can quote from it: "... Of course, before Nuremberg, that is still in the war, allied "aces information warfare" periodically recurring thoughts about wanting to "fascists" exterminate millions of people, but then it was just propaganda, often very clumsy. ... By inventing such posts Jewish writer performs a social order, fomenting bestial hatred of everything German, and encouraging physically destroy German women and children. ... the Slavic peoples, and, of course, the Russian people were officially recognized in the Reich racially related, fraternal ethnic groups. What is the meaning to destroy their brethren - here's a simple question that we address Kovalev, Black and other conscious and unconscious falsifiers of history.").

Has Wikipedia been hijacked by anti-semitic revisionist authors like Artur Silgailis and David Irving? Thanks. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It was already mentioned why it was undone and removed, it is already discovered in the paragraph regarding Slavs, Poles are Slavs.--Windows66 (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have left User:Yatzhek a warning for accusing Windows66 of Holocaust denial. Regardless of the content dispute, his comment above clearly aggravates the situation. Shii (tock) 16:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Tobby72, I have not put any anti-semitic or revisionist stuff into any talk pages but rather copied and pasted from a Russian website that some historians and authors deny any racial hatred towards Slavs existed and show evidence that Slavs were recognized also as Aryans.

Thank you Shii. I have tried numerous of times to cooperate with this user but to no avail. The user yesterday said he/she would not edit the Black people in Nazi Germany article anymore and that I have "won", see here, yet I logged on this morning and have found several new tedious edits by this user including on the article he/she said their would not edit again on. See [255] for the edit on the Black people in Nazi Germany article. Other edits include [256] and [257] [258] [259] which was challenged and ignored as "nonsense" by the first reply from another user, see [260].--Windows66 (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Either the same user or a sock puppet can this please be checked out, see [261] which is a load of nonsense because I have no undone any information on the Anti-Polish sentiment article which can be shown here.--Windows66 (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And another attack on me here, can this please be followed up, thank you.--Windows66 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

New class of editors?

Perhaps someone is teaching a class and got a bunch of students to sign up in last few days; or maybe someone has a bunch of socks? Anyway, these guys are editing a lot of the same articles the last few days, and making a lot to clean up after:

• JaunJimenez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DaveeBlahBlah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BatManFascination (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 808caTFish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SuleeeOuh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Among the articles edited by at least a couple of them in the last week are Ocean, Salinity, JFET, MOSFET, Transistor, Diode, Zener diode, Microphone, Transformer.

Is there any good way to bulk notify them or help them be less of a problem in their contributions? Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Bulk"? Not that I know of. Try individually, or try to figure out who the teacher might be (you can ask them). Drmies (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits [262][263][264] by User:DaveeBlahBlah include copyvio from the same sources that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jwratner1 was fond of plagiarizing. The areas of electronic components and ocean/salinity that are the focus of this pool of editors are also the area of that sock-drawer. DMacks (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean this 2006 book? I'm not seeing the copyvio in the 2nd one; do you have an easy way to find? And the third appears to be nothing, and a different account. Dicklyon (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes (well, I was seeing the 2011 edition of it). "an inductor with an iron core has a greater inductance than an inductor with an air core." matches, and many of the surrounding phrases sentences do too (albeit with different conjunctions). See [265] for a "very close not exact" match as well (but close-paraphrase is still headed towards WP copyvio land especially if not cited). For #3, I meant [266], which is again from that same published work. DMacks (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

All Special:ListFiles/DaveeBlahBlah also appear to be cut'n'pasted from that book. Although there may be some "intrinsic non-protectable facts" in the technical diagrams, WP still requires citation when taking from a source (and the source does not assert free licensing) rather than claiming "own work". Uploading images from various published texts is also part of Jwratner1's pattern. DMacks (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit [267] by User:JaunJimenez is copyvio (can't remember if it's a source the SPI used). DMacks (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If you know it's a copyvio, could you please revert it, saying so? Dicklyon (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Some already had been (for content/sourcing reasons), got distracted before checking the others' history:( I just did some. DMacks (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note User talk:808caTFish. I believe in good faith and those articles need help. Maybe CU would be helpful for the suspected sock, but let's try and be optimistic and helpful first, OK? Drmies (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they need help. Dicklyon (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Holds not being respected at WP:DYKN

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.

---

• At Did You Know nominations, users are extended the courtesy of having nominations 'held' until a specific date, Although consensus may or may not emerge for them to actually be scheduled on that date, we preserve the possibility. We are currently respecting the holds on items for Valentines Day, "The Investiture of new cardinals appointed by Pope Francis" (Feb 22), the 2014 Football League Cup Final (March 2), and Internatioanl Women's Day (March 8)

• Gobonobo nominated Oleg Syromolotov with a requested hold date of Feb 11. Admin Resolute approved it and moved it into the holding area for that date.
• Orlady is attempting to run this item immediately, ahead of schedule, ignoring the hold request over the objections of others, despite knowing this is a controversial move.
• To the best I can tell, no attempt was even made notify Gobonobo and alert him to the fact that his hold request was going to be ignored, out of process and contrary to status quo expectations.

I do not feel this is appropriate, and think it shows a distinct lack of respect for Gobonobo. I would request Orlady unschedule the item and respect the validly-stated hold request from Gobonobo Too late now, it's on main. The past is the past, but I would request Orlady clarify that in future they will not, as a rule, run held material ahead of schedule, as was done here.--HectorMoffet (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

My perspective is that Hector Moffet's actions at WP:DYK have been disruptive. With less than an hour to go before the next scheduled update to the main page, I checked the status of the queue and found that there were no admin-approved updates. Furthermore, the next two unapproved prep areas in line were each short by one hook (but did not display an empty slot) because Hector Moffet had removed hooks that he apparently feels that he WP:OWNs, without also removing the code that creates records and "credits" for hooks that have appeared at DYK, and without editing the nomination templates for "his" hooks to record the fact that he had removed them from the prep area. Both of these hooks had been promoted to the prep areas by another DYK volunteer who had been aware of Hector's request to reserve them for a certain date and had decided to run them on 9 February instead. Given the time-urgent situation, I restored the removed hooks and approved both hook sets for the main-page queue.

Note that DYK does not routinely run hooks on dates requested by the article creator or nominator, although some items are scheduled for "special occasions" when volunteers are convinced that this is justified. There has been plenty of discussion of this situation with Hector Moffet in recent days (including User talk:Jimbo Wales#Orlady's Prejudgment of consensus and scheduling against procedure and User talk:Orlady#Sorry for the intensity, but...). I've lost patience with him and his apparent view that the importance of his political agenda justifies over-riding the standard protocols and disrupting the processes of the Wikipedia community. --Orlady (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, ad hominem to HectorMoffet, who after years of hard gnome work suddenly became a drama queen completely unprovoked.
But what's being missed is that I'm not Gobonobo-- he did nothing wrong to earn your disrespect. He asked for his content to be held, an admin approved for it to be held, and you flat out ran it without a word to either of them. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"He asked for his content to be held, an admin approved for it to be held", and nobody is required to say a word to either of them before running the hook, as any hold is nothing more than a courtesy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Bushranger explains the situation well. Also, please note that it was User:Ohconfucius (not me) who moved those hooks to the prep areas. On the Oleg Syromolotov hook, that user's edit summary states "no consensus on Surveillance awareness day, going with olympics; need non American hook." That summary reflects the reality that DYK volunteers post a new set of 7 hooks every 8 hours, and we endeavor to maintain topical balance in each set. It takes the cooperation of a number of volunteers to keep DYK running. How many more hours of volunteer time do you intend to divert from the process of keeping the DYK feature running in order to argue that a couple of individual hooks are uniquely entitled to special treatment? --Orlady (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh poo! These folk who will go out of their way to get their desired date of insertion or top slot are getting annoying. Hector is clearly engaged in advocacy, quite against consensus. He objected before, got in a huff, puts a semi-retired tag on his user page and now creates a ruckus because he wants his own way again. NO. He needs to learn the best way is amicable cooperation, not strong-arm tactics. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Okay, let's move beyond Feb 11 and Gobonobo, that's in the past. Let's just look at going forward and focus on preventing this same problematic behavior from recurring in the future.
I see that Theparties has DYK content approved and being held for the "Investiture of new cardinals appointed by Pope Francis" on Feb 22. Now can we agree that that it's inappropriate of you to run Theparties's nomination for Feb 22 on Feb 19???
And if, for some reason, you DO need to run an admin-approved nomination ahead of its hold date, you need to, at minimum, try to contact Theparties to let them know there's a change of plan.
If you were only rude to me and gobonobo, we can drop it. If it's your standard operating procedure, it's a problem. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"no attempt was even made notify Gobonobo"..."without a word to either of them"..."rude to me and gobonobo"...HectorMoffet, I'm not seeing where you notified Orlady of this discussion (which she evidently found on her own). A tad bit hypocritical, no? 173.209.204.206 (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nah, hypocrisy would be if I didn't try to / want to notify Orlday. In fact, Orlady was the very first commenter, probably alerted via the "Your Notify" gadget, and posted a responding within minutes, as I was still polishing my statement. But you make a good point-- if I had let a discussion go on without notifying Orlady, that would be bad. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Orlady replied 35 minutes after you started the discussion. 173.209.204.207 (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The recurrence of problematic behavior can only happen if there was problematic behavior to recur - and there was no "problematic behavior" here. As for the other stuff you mention, if a DYK queue on February 19th is short and the only way to fill it is to grab a hook being held for February 22nd, then that hook being held for February 22nd is going to run on February 19th, full stop. Holds are a courtesy, and there is no obligation either to hold, maintain a hold, or notify that a hold has been 'run early'. Being "Admin-approved" means nothing at DYK; you don't even need to be autoconfirmed to approve a hook or to move it to a hold area. It requires the use of exactly zero tools to do, and thus whether or not the editor who did it wields a mop is wholly irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

you say "Holds are a courtesy"-- what I want to know is, are we going to be extending that courtesy to Theparties on Feb 22, or should TheParties brace themselves for the same discourtesy Gobonobo experienced. This should be a simple answer: no, as a rule, we won't run held material ahead of schedule. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Please stop lawyering, accusing others of wrongdoing and changing the subject away from your own disruptive actions. If you hadn't tried to be so pushy, you might have been pleasantly surprised on 11 feb. Instead, you are getting people's backs up. DYK already has to run by quite a few rules and constraints, and it's often difficult to make up sets accordingly. And I don't see the need for a HectorMoffet Appeasement Policy, thank you very much. Now will you kindly drop that bone of yours?. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The weirdest part is that Orlady is the user who proposed that February 11 be treated as a "special occasion" at DYK. This failed to generate consensus, so she scheduled Hector's hook normally. When he inquired about this, she politely explained that the idea was rejected, informed him that it was past her bedtime, and advised him to raise the matter at WT:DYK if he still felt that a change was needed. Instead, Hector removed the DYK item from the set, moved the article back to the draft namespace and inserted a bogus tag "to keep [it] off mainpage for a few days". He also reported Orlady on Jimbo's talk page (and didn't bother to notify her of that either), claiming that she's part of a clique attempting to undermine consensus. Keep in mind that Orlady proposed the very idea that Hector believes was unfairly cast aside. —David Levy 10:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Really not about me. What courtesies are going to be extended to future DYK newbies? As a general rule, is it okay to cannabilize 'Feb 22 HOLDS on Feb 19? --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:HEAR. —David Levy 10:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is, actually, about you; you can't decide "this AN/I isn't about me". At AN/I, all participants in a discussion are under the microscope - continued "this isn't about me" only puts you under more scrutiny. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• My above question stands. I'm okay with ME being disrespected-- At least some of my proposal ideas were genuinely controversial. But I have a duty to ensure that I'm the last DYK newbie to be bitten in this way.
  Again, I note that TheParties has DYK content on hold for Feb 22. Is it appropriate for us to run that content on Feb 19 or not??? --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• The problematic behaviour was all your own to begin with, so you have no right to talk about the respect that you feel you are owed. If you go to Le Gavroche in a ripped Tee, shorts and rubber thongs, you'd expect to be told off. OVER AND OUT. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Homophobic hate-speech not withstanding, I note that TheParties has DYK content on hold for Feb 22. Is it appropriate for us to run that content on Feb 19 or not??? All nominations deserve equal respect, TheParties is just one example. The harder it is to for people to admit all nominations are 'equal under the law', the more concerned I get . --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Homophobic hate speech"? Really? (For the record, the "thongs" referred to you may know as "flip-flops".) While Ohconfucious may possibly have been less blunt, there's nothing "homophobic" about what he said; further personal attacks like that may well result in this AN/I report turning into a WP:BOOMERANG. As for your continued refusal to listen to what everyone here is telling you, please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, it's not going to get any deader just because you keep asking the same question over and over because we're not telling you what you apparently want to hear. There was no biting, there was no "misconduct", there is nothing else to see or do here other than continue to dig your hole deeper. Unlike what some would like to believe, we really don't like blocking or banning people, so it'd be appreciated if you'd let the words to the wise be sufficent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is this really what I wake up to? "Potentially holding a DYK to a date" is a nicety, not a requirement - period. Nobody on Wikipedia gets to have things scheduled based on their time. If we have zero DYK's one day, the project will move a couple into the queue. These aren't promises, they're "we'll promise to try, but cannot guarantee". Seriously, calling this "disrespect" is disrespectful to the project en masse DP 10:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, all you insiders that haven't been bitten to pieces may not understand.
Most of us are of the understanding that a hold is held. If that's not the way you want to run things, rewrite the headers to make it crystal clear that nominations are just polite suggestions' requesting special permission from the owners, which the owners may ignore as they please.
My experiences with DYK was very negative because I assumed that my holds would be held.
Now, even if you agree I'm an ahole, let's still learn from my negative experience and make it crystal clear to future users that "holds" aren't held, they're just a "mother may I" plea for special favors from insider-owners, not actual holds like the literal interpretation would suggest. This will decrease future friction.--HectorMoffet (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Rather than look at this from the other side and see that "promised dates" are contrary to the community's concept at large, you wanted to get the last word in and a few zingers too? Nice. Reallllly nice DP 11:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• @HectorMoffet:You have to understand that rescheduling of Syromolotov is not about you. There was no biting. You are wrong to barge in like a bull into the proverbial china shop and expected everyone and everything move out of your way. There is no obligation to hold for a certain date. The regulars do their best to ensure that consensual holding dates are accommodated, but let me just reiterate that 11 February is not such a consensual date.

  BTW, I thought carefully about using the word "thong" that I deliberately prefixed it with the adjective "rubber". Maybe that isn't enough these days of political correctness. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There are no "insider owners". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I know that, and you know that-- but I know a few users who don't know this --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone just close this before things go too far?. This isn't the place to change the rules for DYK - that would be Wikipedia talk:Did you know.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Closure is rarely helpful-- I'm asking legitimate questions and I'm not demanding any specific action against anyone in particular. Ignoring a question doesn't make it go away. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

---

There's no shortage of ad hominem, but let's refocus:
The question I'm seeking to have answered is: Who decides if it's okay to run Theparties's Feb 22 holds ahead of schedule? Who is on the list to unilaterally make that decision? Is that one name? is that a few names? Or can that change only be made by community consensus?
When I was a newbie, I genuinely couldn't figure out the answer. I still don't know the answer. You need to make this clear, not just wing it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me make this clear: that question is not the remit of this board; period. DP 11:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• You forget that this is a wiki. The answer to your question will probably be the same as "who will create "2020 FA Cup Final"? – It will be whoever gets around to it. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good answer, OC. I hope your answer is correct-- that no users claim any special ownership of DYK. Sadly, my recent experiences have led me to lose some of my naive optimism. Let us both hope your vision is the accurate one. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing some sample of the vast bureaucracy of pages that make up DYK -- it appears that not only are there rules, but there more rules -- but none of the rules that I found directly address Hector's concern. Since it appears the requested date section is only a couple months old, I assume the rules (I don't know whether they are rule rules, or supplementary rules) are still evolving. So I suggest the Hector post a polite inquiry on WT:DYK asking what the current practice is, and perhaps requesting an appropriate note be placed in one of the rules pages setting the appropriate expectations for the management of date requests are unable to be fulfilled. NE Ent 16:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Hector has been poorly treated. He spent the time, wrote up the articles, and expected them to run on a day they were scheduled for, only to be told by some other editors that his event is something not worth commemorating, while others' events are. Some have justified this by saying the issue was closed when a different proposal, one to run years-old hooks on a Special Day, was rejected, but that's just wrong. Regarding advocacy: Wikipedia's policy on advocacy makes no distinction between sport, religion, and politics - if any one of the three deserves to be held for a certain day, so do the others. I raised the example of the elevation of the Cardinals because we have to decide what happens if someone wants to hold articles about a less popular religious group (such as the Universal Catholic Church). If we have centralized authority claiming the right to decide whose hooks have the right to be scheduled, we may end up with a list of official Wikipedia religions that can claim scheduling rights, whereas others are unapproved. Since that is an unacceptable outcome, this is an unacceptable policy.

Now it may be that allowing anyone to schedule hooks for a certain day in the near future is more work, but it's fair, and the work could be automated. The elaborate system of DYK holding areas dates back to pre-Scribunto times - it is possible for me and others to write scripts that could implement some other procedure. I don't really know that much about DYK, but this shouldn't be rocket science.

In the meanwhile, I think it's important for Hector to be careful about doing ad hoc edits/moves to fix the situation if they could have unintended consequences. I don't want the whole DYK mechanism broken over a day or two difference in when a hook runs; I want the problems fixed. The NSA is not closing up shop on February 12, nor the agencies with which they share surveillance data, and it is all too likely that Wikipedia will be facing existential threats from imminent legislation sometime in the next year or two. There will be all too many opportunities for the site, by necessity, to get involved in activism to save itself. Wnt (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it's important to avoid conflating the concept of a hook being held for a certain date with the concept of a "special occasion" on which multiple hooks sharing a common theme are run together. The latter (which was proposed in this instance) simply isn't feasible without consensus that a particular "special occasion" is suitable. Otherwise, any editor or group of editors could write/expand a bunch of articles from a particular subject area (birds, insects, plants, ships, the Eurovision Song Contest, Friends episodes, etc.) and submit DYK hooks for an arbitrary date, thereby thwarting efforts to maintain a balance of topics.

So we (by which I mean the Wikipedia community, as I'm not particularly active at DYK) have to decide when a "special occasion" is well established and widely recognized by reliable sources. Your concern regarding unequal treatment (and the potential for certain groups, such as religions, to be excluded unfairly) is a valid one, but that isn't what occurred in this instance. The Day We Fight Back is a planned protest, not an event with recognition or cultural significance approaching that of the Olympics or the investiture of new cardinals appointed by the Pope.

And as I pointed out to you on Jimbo's talk page, these articles' subjects merely relate to the political cause behind the February 11 event, not the event itself. It's no secret that the motive behind the request is to participate in the protest, which contradicts multiple Wikipedia principles (and which there is no consensus to do).

The discussion on Jimbo's talk page also contains the following exchange:

Note that the "lengthy discussion" linked above rejected a different proposal to re-run old DYKs, which I also opposed, but is not a blanket ban on this topic!
One of the subsections (introduced by Orlady, as noted above) is titled "Proposal: Treat this like a 'special occasion'". You supported said proposal, so it's curious that you've now overlooked it. Discussion of the broader idea to tie DYK into the February 11 protest occurred throughout the parent section.

So I don't know why you're still making that assertion. —David Levy 17:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually lost track of that thread - but scrolling down, I see 5 Support and 3 Oppose, for taking over all the DYKs on the page. How is this possibly evidence that we shouldn't allow any of these DYKs to run on that day?? Wnt (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, there are still 8 of Hector's nominations in the DYK which have not yet made it to the queues or the MP (of which 7 are US topics). They will all eventually get there unless the articles themselves get deleted. But bearing in mind the logjam and the quotas applied for the building of sets, simple mathematics mean that we probably couldn't run them all on 11 Feb even if we wanted to. But this is a digression.

As I stated earlier, Hector was "poorly treated" mainly because he got worked up that DYK regulars would not entertain a Surveillance Day holding. He himself treated others quite a bit less than spectacularly. Respect works both ways.

As to combating advocacy, DYK could decide not to entertain any polemic topics such as religion or politics. And I'm not sure we are ready to do away with holding for St Valentine's Day or other such religious or quasi-religious observance. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 18:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I honestly don't know what's going on but I'm fine with as long as what I nominated appears.--Theparties (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There was absolutely no consensus for running the 'Day we Fight Back' as a special occasion, therefore no hooks for it should be held. Matty.007 18:27, 9 February 2014 (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.

Clear legal threat

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.

---

Jasondalesweeet (talk · contribs) diff Good. I'll see you next week to meet in person with my attorney for discriminating against me. Jim1138 (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup - I was just looking into this contributor, after responding to another legal threat on the help desk [268]. A post on their talk page also contains this little gem: ""I'll fry your computer's CPU and kill it instantly to make sure it won't ever work again from all the way from over here next time you bother my page." [269] AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've indeffed for Legal threats and personal attacks, there is similar on Talk:Qbase Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 9 February 2014 (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.

WP:FPC

Just to note, we seem to be in a bit of a reviewer slump at Featured pictures just now - a lot of things are closing with just under the minimum number of supports, and no opposes. So if anyone would like to review, please do! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Troll?

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.

---

A user with an account he can't log into here. I'm not sure if I'm violating WP:DENY by posting here, but could someone look at potentially blocking User:Sonarclawz? His last several edits appear to be trolling. 182.249.240.26 (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would you get that idea? Sonarclawz (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Because after almost two years' absence you showed up at an article about an ancient Japanese poet and posted an incomprehensible rant about "purges conducted in 1985" and used triple and possibly quadruple negatives.[270] Your other edits don't look much better. 182.249.240.6 (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you're required to discuss directly with the other editor in order to try and resolve things before coming to ANI (especially before throwing names like "troll" around), could you point us to the results of that discussion? DP 10:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is that rule written down? This isn't a dispute; I saw an account that seemed to be doing nothing but posting nonsense comments in RFCs, so I reported it. I'd like someone more experienced with these issues to look into the issue further. The diff I posted in the comment above should be evidence enough that something is fishy. 182.249.240.38 (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page say "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page" - pretty clear. You saw a user that you believed was causing issues, so clarify before tattling on them. This board is not to have "someone with more experience...to look further", it's to report serious incidents of disruption that require immediate Admin action. DP 11:43, 9 February 2014 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kautilya Society for Intercultural Dialogue

The sudden appearance of numerous keeps by new or one-purpose accounts is suspicious. Can some admin please check. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Extremely abusive IP

178.84.30.14 (talk · contribs) has only made one edit (which an alert editor reverted within 2 minutes), but I hope that this extremely abusive level of Personal Attack means that they can be blocked: it can't go to AIV as it's not "persistent" vandalism. PamD 18:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The editor only made one edit and left about six hours ago. Since any block is as likely to affect an innocent party as the party making the personal attack, I don't think a block is warranted. If they were to make a second such attack from the IP, that would be another matter. —C.Fred (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Mint Julep, clear vandalism

WP:DR will be ineffective given the malicious nature of the revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dubyavee User has been notified, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mint_julep&action=history this is clear vandalism, user stated in edit summary that "play cited in 1850" the reference that was remove long predates this, this seems very disruptive and was not even discussed on the talk page, this needs immediate attention. Thank You.Drinkreader (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Drinkreader: I suggest you take your proposed addition to the talk page. I do not see any malice in Dubyavee's removal of the text, so I don't see anything that requires immediate administrator attention here. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, ANI is not the place to address editing concerns, as you have threatened to do with this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink. Editing here works by consensus, not by fiat and force. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Expert Master Mixologist David Herpin claims the mint julep appears in print as early as 1765."That extra mint julep has put the true pluck in me. Now for it! (Aside.) Mr. Tiffany, Sir — you needn't think to come over me, Sir"

Was removed by user because of (play cited is 1850, remove commercial, rv)by the abusive editor? I'm sorry? How is this not malicious? If someone confuses this for a commercial and doesn't realize that they are removing an edit that predates the suggested version by 85 years, WP:DR, will likely not be effective. This does infact need attention.Drinkreader (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. First of all, no. You can't judge one single edit (well, two consecutive ones) as "malicious" when they are not obviously so. ANI is not the first venue for this; Drinkreader should have discussed this elsewhere. Perhaps Drinkreader is a bit inexperienced in the process, but ANI should be a last, or next-to-last resort, and this is, in the first instance, just a tiny little thing.

  However, "Expert Master Mixologist David Herpin" was discussed here (was it?) or elsewhere not too long ago (can't find it in the archives right now). Drinkreader has been adding references to Herpin all over the place--this Herpin. I'm tempted to use mass rollback: this is a totally non-notable source, and its addition is really spammy. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is clear spam and should be mass-rollbacked. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, I was reminded too of this ANI from a month ago, where questionable sources were being used to support additions to drink articles. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Further, I pulled a copy of the cited source, Representative American Plays by Arthur Hobson Quinn. It was published in 1917. The play cited—and the quote is correct from page 325 of the book—is Fashion by Anna Cora Mowatt Ritchie, which Quinn states was written in 1845. Accordingly, if anybody is to be taken to task over this, it's Drinkreader for making a claim that is not supported by the cited source. —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Rrrright, I looked all over the place for that. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Drinkreader: Are you editing on behalf of Herpin or some other party? I point out the edit summary in this edit: "Updated with more current accurate revisions, citations needed, far earlier references posted, current version left on the page WP:Good faith,sqgibbons may revert my client tells me, it will be posted in ani/user will be informed." The mention of "my client" makes it appear that you may be editing on some other party's behalf. This is in addition to your own admission of writing books about the subject in this edit summary. —C.Fred (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The book in question is not A Season of Youth: The American Revolution and the Historical Imagination Kamme, but infact, Representative American plays - Page 325 by Arthur Hobson Quinn in 1765. Tell me what would make you all happiest, it seems I am not effective at pleasing you.Drinkreader (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed all of the unsourced additions that involved "Expert Master Mixologist David Herpin". This was clear spam. The editor does appear to make the occasional valid edit; they need to ensure that they do that from now on. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The play cited as a source is "Fashion" by Anna Cora Mowatt (born 1819),published London, 1850, W. Newbery. The line quoted is from that play. It is not 1765. Dubyavee (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Rollback?

Okay, based on this discussion I'm going to start removing some of these by hand where I see them. None of them seem too encyclopedic, and they are dubious beyond being spammy. There's a clear COI here, as Drinkreader admits here[271] to being the one who wrote the Amazon eBook 'The Julep Family of Drinks',[272] i.e. "Expert Master Mixologist David Herpin. Searching the web I find mostly self-promotion, which is fine in the bartending world but not here in an encyclopedia. Even if he were recognized by authoritative sources as the world's greatest mixologist, that does not make him an authority on history. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, Wikidemon! Based on that, I'd say any edit with "Expert Master Mixologist David Herpin claims" or the like is at best original research and at worst blatant self promotion and should be rolled back. I don't inherently have a problem with Drinkreader editing articles relating to mixed drinks; however, he's got to cite secondary sources (not himself), and the sources that he cites have to actually support the claims he's making. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

block evasion

This user account was created after his ip spamming was curtailed by an indef block and is continuing the same sort of behaviour. See his classic NOTTHEM post Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#already banned, need alot of help. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he just needs some Wikipedia love. It's not clear whether "I am a new editor and im already banned" is referring to a past blocked account, or perhaps a use of "banned" to refer to the current concern over COI spam edits rather than in its technical Wikipedia sense. If we can assume that he's a well-meaning professional mixologist that sincerely wants to contribute to the knowledge of drinks on the encyclopedia, and what better way than to cite and promote himself here, that's really not evil, just a little uninformed as to how this project works. Instead of making him feel terrible and an enemy who's going to tell everyone what an awful place Wikipedia is, why not somebody go and cheer him up and show him that Wikipedia is a great way to do things, just not an original platform for original research or audience-building. All of his reactions, including NOTTHEM, are pretty understandable, that's what a lot of people would do if feeling ganged up on in an unfamiliar place. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

and? I dont even remember when its lifted, im owning up to it, ban me again, but ban this username so I can know when its done. I would like to come back and be a helpful contributor, if you will have me. Just let me know, you aren't taking away anything cause it was never mine to have. Be fair please, you keep mentioning my books and I have said nothing of the sort, so you are being unfair. You say I am citing them when I am not, you are being unfair and making inaccurate statements. yes I am block evading. I registered a user name, I want a clean slate, i'm not the one with the problem here, I am only an inexperienced editor who wants to contribute, but you guys are gunning hard for me and dismissing much larger violations of wiki codes of conduct, i'm sorry you feel it's necessary, but again, I guess I would hate truth too if I shatter belief systems, i've already proven on mint julep: talk that you are incorrect but whatever. How long is the ban?Drinkreader (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 1 week for block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Jamie-- but I don't know why we don't simply indef this user (and follow it with an SPI, which seems to be the next logical step). They have a battlefield mentality (as evidenced by this thread and the previous one), they don't know what reliable sources are, and they're here to spam their own book, all the while telling the world how great they are. Expert Mixologist David Herpin (that's how you put it in the articles, Drinkreader) needs to find another venue. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • At the time I didn't realize how far back this behavior went. I see that the block has already been extended to a month, and I'd naturally support an immediate and indef block if any further block evasion or disruptive editing occurs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

After a lengthy and prolonged discussion with Mr Herpin, I have reached some conclusions. First, regardless of whether Mr Herpin's book is itself a reliable source, it shouldn't be considered OR to reference the sources which Mr Herpin cites in his book. It would only be OR to use Mr Herpin's own speculations, or to refer to him with that less-than-modest descriptor. I will not be unblocking Mr Herpin, nor will I be asking someone else to do so, but once his block expires, I ask that he be allowed to continue using his impressive collection of source material to help improve Wikipedia. DS (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Drinkreader ban proposal

This has been going on for a very long time. Drinkreader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the first registered account, but this individual has been in touch with OTRS a number of times (see merged Ticket:2014012710015825) and it is absolutely clear that the problems are consistent over time, and have been running for at least a year. The user's real name can be trivially inferred from the long-term attempts to credit a named individual. Patient explanation by email and on Wikipedia does not seem to have succeeded in helping this person to understand WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:TRUTH and the inadvisability of adding namechecks for yourself. I would propose a topic ban, but there's no evidence of any other interest. I think we would save everyone a lot of time and pain by simply banning this person. His intention is fine: he wants to share knowledge. His methods are not: he wants to assert that it is his knowledge, and as a self-described "master mixologist" he does not feel he has any need to defer to independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I spoke with Drinkreader on wikipedia-en-help extensively yesterday, leading to at least one productive action, and I concur with the sentiment of DS in the section above. Drinkreader seems passionate and knowledgeable about mixology. He's also having trouble finding the correct mode of collaboration and writing required for contributing to Wikipedia. He's already found out the painful way that promoting his own work is not a good idea. Such behaviour shouldn't re-emerge; we're not looking for promotion of "Expert Mixologist David Herpin" and his books - but we can definitely use his subject knowledge, knowledge of source material and passion. Neither should the block evading behaviour re-emerge. I too noticed a NOTTHEM mentality, and difficulty with understanding RS, OR and SYN. Frankly, the latter concepts can be difficult, especially when RS'es are (possibly) mistaken, and it takes quite a bit of sources-tango to get things in to Wikipedia shape - and some understanding that newly discovered relations and derivations that haven't previously been published have no place on Wikipedia, regardless of them being true or not. So to be clear in my expectations (and I assume he's reading along, so I added some additional detail and explaining), I expect Drinkreader to

• Stop any block-evading behaviour. Blocking and protection are desperation moves from our end. If warned to stop doing something, you should stop doing it, not continue until blocked. And definitely not try to evade the block by trying to edit logged out or create different accounts. This should be obvious, and should not (ever) happen again from this user.
• Stop any behaviour that can be construed as self-promotion. I think this point has been driven home with Drinkreader already, but it doesn't hurt to repeat it here.
• Start working collaboratively. Drop the battleground mentality. There is no conspiracy, only people trying to write the best encyclopedia they can. Drinkreader should be welcome to join in working with the community, but not to battle the community to present his POV in wikipedias articles. I expect at times this will pop up again and needs some reminding from time to time at first.
• Listen when people have concerns about OR, SYN and RS. Mistakes are fine and expected to make, but when people say that edits are problematic in this regard, Drinkreader should first stop to listen how and why it's problematic rather than immediately jumping to defending and explaining. SYN isn't easy to grok for a newcomer, but is quite important. Drinkreader has to acknowledge that if someone tells him that edits are problematic, they are doing so in good faith, with the interest of the encyclopedia up front, and that they probably have more experience with the way Wikipedia treats sources. In other words, he is expected to make mistakes and learn from them rather than make mistakes and defend them tooth and nail.

I have good hope and expectation that the first two won't be a problem in the future. I still have sufficient hope in the latter two. I have no access to OTRS tickets, so I can't read about the history here. It's possible that if I could, I would have a different opinion. With that I weakly oppose the proposal. If there is a clear consensus from people with access to the OTRS tickets that my assessment is mistaken, they may just be right. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since his history is being discussed, I'm just noting that this post last May seems to be the earliest edit which I have found under 174.69.112.172's contribs...an IP not previously mentioned in this thread.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ignoranceisnotbliss19

Editor blocked indefinitely due to continued attacks. m.o.p 03:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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.

---

• Ignoranceisnotbliss19 (talk · contribs)

Hard to know where to begin here: the seeming antisemitism, the personal attacks on two editors, the edit-warring and the post-block comments that have earned him a warning from an admin....

• This WP:SPA editor [273] was edit-warring over original-research synthesis to politicize the page Scarlett Johansson. Three editors independent of one another reverted his edits; even after going to four reverts and a 3RR report going in, he continued to a fifth revert. And then he wrote this to an editor other than myself: " "Lets [sic] just cut to the chase, you are a Jewish man with an agenda to keep Jewish interests in illegally obtained land..." [274]

• When I pointed out to him that I and another editor, unaware the other was doing so, each independently reported his 3RR vio, he wrote: "It is well known MANY people have MANY wikipedia accounts [NOTE: A false claim of sockpuppetry] so cut the crap and please do not waste everyones valuable time with this nonsense Tenebrae. You and I, as well as everyone IN THE ENTIRE WORLD knows you are simply trying to control unfavorable information from reaching wikipedia pages and the masses...." [275].

• This is with an edit-summary calling me, personally, "self-serving." I don't know Scarlett Johansson and have no personal stake in the issue of Israeli settlements, so how "self-serving" is fair or accurate, I don't know.

• Other comments included calling myself and another editor "priggish" and "generating unsolicited and viscous [sic] attacks" [276];

• and calling another editor — the "Jewish" one — "BOORISH and DULL" [277] (presumably meaning "dull-witted" and not "boring").

In my experience, political zealots of this temperament are rarely serious about being constructive, longterm contributors, and certainly alienate other editors and take up enormous amounts of time and energy to no good end. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I blocked the user for 24 hours for edit warring. It will expire in about six hours. They did a lot of ranting on their user page, but, although the ranting was unusually virulent, I let it go because it's not atypical for blocked editors to react by ranting. However, they crossed a line when they made antisemitic remarks against Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, and I removed it and warned the user that if they did it again, I would revoke access to their talk page. They restored the comment (I think they altered it slightly but it was still unacceptable), and I revoked access. I didn't increase the duration of their block, though. I might have done so had they been blocked in the first instance for personal attacks. It still occurred to me. If Tenebrae is proposing a longer block, I have no objection if there is a consensus for doing so, or even if one administrator wishes to do so. One way or the other, I don't think the user is going to remain an editor on Wikipedia. Just a question if it happens now or later.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

See user's talk page for further details. I think dealing with this now is the best option. I've blocked the user indefinitely but restored talk page access so that they may answer my questions. m.o.p 20:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As always, m.o.p. is a model of fairness and diplomacy but at the same time no pushover. I fully support his way of handling the situation.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Bbb23. Hopefully things work out. m.o.p 02:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Persistent incorrect rounding of numbers

Hope this is the correct board to report this.* I have noticed a lot of film articles have incorrect runtimes and yesterday I spent some time fixing them (list of edits from the IP I was using yesterday, with edit summaries).

As I'm sure you know if 30 seconds or more should be rounded up to the nearest minute, but for unexplained reasons someone is rounding down these numbers. I noticed this issue in several film articles, and also noticed that a particular user User:Lemaroto was doing some or all of it.

Yesterday the user changed the Robocop film article, and I added a note on the users Talk page explaning how numbers should be rounded. The note was quickly blanked. (Other editors also made corrections and added strongly worded warnings to articles that had incorrect runtimes.)

Another editor also added a similar note on the talk page. It was also blanked without reply. A short read back on the edit history of the Talk page suggests User:Lemaroto does not reply or discuss, and only blanks the page. Checking back through a few pages of the contribution history (which you can cross check against my edits mentioned above, indicates a persistent pattern of unconstructive edits.

Again today another incorrect and unconstructive edit was made to the Robocop article.

• If this is not the correct place to report this please direct me to the correct place and help me start action to discourage this user form persistent unconstructive edits. -- 109.76.247.81 (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I added a note to the users talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lemaroto&diff=594733773&oldid=594712738 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.247.81 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• • It is as 109 says it is, so we probably need admin intervention. NE Ent 22:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I just dropped an ANI notification on their talk page and also a final warning for disruption. Blackmane (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

109 did notify the editor, they just didn't use the template (not meant as a criticism of Blackmane's edit, just want to make it clear 109 didn't skip the step). NE Ent 00:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, hence why I didn't say "which you should have done" after "I just dropped an ANI notification...". Using the template adds a very obvious link to ANI (and yes I also saw that 109 had wikilinked it in their comment). Blackmane (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Note Hi guys, I would like to point out that I also had some issues with Lemaroto. For some reason, he deciced to unlink the name Neil Druckmann in the article of The Last of Us. I wrote him a personal message, which was blanked less than two hours later. When he unlinked the name again, I issued a warning, which also was just blanked. That Lemaroto doesn't communicate at all is very annoying, he doesn't reply to talk page messages but never leaves an edit summary. But his edits are mostly constructive... --Soetermans. T / C 08:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Lemarato seems to have managed to go a day without making any unconstructive edits. I've gone back further in his contribution history to check more the films he has edited. I don't know if you have an ongoing watchlist for longer term behaviour. The lack of discussion or even edit summaries makes it hard to know anything about intent. (Note: There is no chance Lemerato mistook a minute for 100 seconds rather than 60 seconds, even in the case of the film Gravity the runtime had more than 50 seconds on the minute and that was also rounded down.)

Sad that people would mess about with something as seemingly simple as runtime, now I feel like I have to double check and provide a source even for that. Frankly I'd ban anyone who consistently fails to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and at least show enough good faith to provide an edit summary. Any less than this basic level of courtesy poisons the culture and makes it difficult if not impossible to distinguish between outright vandalism and misguided edits from deletionists who cant be bothered to try and improve things. Wikipedia has long been stacked in favor of deletionists which (amongst other complaints) is why I abandoned my account and now only occasionally edit as a IP user.

Thanks for your prompt responses in this case, I will not be actively watching Lemarato or this discussion any further. -- 93.107.152.97 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Lemaroto has since blanked their talk page, again, so it can be assumed they've seen the warnings. However, none of their edits have involved runtime rounding down. That they don't use edit summaries is not really a big deal, although the lack of communication could be problematic in the futures if another issue pops up. At this point, I don't really think there is a need for admin action unless they go back to their old habits. Blackmane (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

OpenOffice.org

I stumbled into a discussion on OpenOffice.org, which appears to be suffering from a degree of ownership (by David Gerard). The article is superficially well-referenced but a little reference checking shows it is riddled with statements that are not supported by the given references. For example, the article contains a statement that:

"[Oracle] also contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License, at the suggestion of IBM ... as IBM did not want the code put under a copyleft license."

To support this, a blog entry is referenced that outlines IBM preference against copyleft licenses with regard to Open Office. However, no connection is made in the source between IBM preference against copyleft licenses and Oracle's decision-making around licensing when donating the code to Apache. Thus the need for an imaginative interpretation of sources (or synthesis).

I opened a number of threads challenging a sample of statements like this for verifiablilty. As I expected, the response was defensive, avoided the substance of the challenge, lay blame at my ignorance, or brushed off the challenge as part of agenda pushing on my part. I had hoped that more would participate in the discussion. There is, however, an element of weariness in trying to resolve issues with the article.

I'd like now to seek views from the broader community. I think Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard is most suitable. But I expect that doing so will draw accusations of forum shopping.

So, is the community supportive of seeking views from the broader community on issues to do with verifiability OpenOffice.org? Does the community have a suggestion for the best way to do this (e.g. NOR/N, RFC, etc.?) --Tóraí (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"Views from the broader community" can be obtained at Wikipedia:Third opinion. This isn't anything to do with administrators, and isn't an incident. It's an ordinary content dispute that you need to resolve using the ordinary Wikipedia:Dispute resolution system. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't suitable for 3O because there are more than two editor involved. I've asked here because it is a well-trafficked noticeboard and I'd like to fend-off an incident before it happens. Issues arising from WP:OWN, and how to deal with it, are frequently raised here.

But, broadly speaking, I take it your comment means you'd be supportive of seeking another venue (beyond the steps already taken) to resolve the issue? (i.e. WP:SEEKHELP) --Tóraí (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen ownership at the article. What I have seen is an editor who is unfamiliar with the nomenclature tell us that what's clear to others is not clear to that editor. Sorry Tóraí. I've tried my best to show you that and I don't have the time to continue. Thanks for opening this here. I'd like to suggest a topic ban on Tóraí on anything having to do with technology topics. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban Being critical does no warrant a topic ban at all. It even less warrants a topic ban as wide as Walter Görlitz suggest. That is what I call: silencing of an opponent. The Banner talk 01:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support WP:V enforcement Apparently Walter Gorlitz believes that things obvious to some don't require accurate citations.--v/r - TP 02:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Torai has also been pushing an idiosyncratic view of the whole matter at Talk:OpenOffice, which was roundly rejected by all discussants, and is part of the present discussion. This is an editor pushing an odd view, and then claiming it is an administrative matter. Oh, with canvassing - David Gerard (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

David, I notified you, Walter Görlitz, KAMiKAZOW and Palu of this thread. These were all of the participants in the discussion that led us here. This is normal community practice, as you know (see Wikipedia:Canvassing). --Tóraí (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for rangeblock of 190.96.32.0/20

An user in the range 190.96.32.0/20 (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing through many months multiple articles at en and es.wiki. I came in the past to request a global rangeblock, but it was moved to meta.wiki. At meta.wiki the situation was sightly discussed, and regardless the constant evidence of this person vandalism, nothing has been done.([278]). That time ANI discussion informs better how this person works, and his/her vandalism is so undetectable, their edits last for days or weeks (s/he changes dates or years for living people and releasements of objects). The lattest known IP is 190.96.41.186 (talk · contribs), in which changes a date regardless the sources. I will open an ANI case at es.wiki as well. Considering this has lasted for months a short block will not stop him/her. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

From the 190s comes a lot of edit warring on music articles, mostly genre warring and vandalism. It has gotten to the point where I investigate any and all 190.x edits that I see on my watchlist. Some of the IPs are proxies, so it is possible the person is not working from within Chile's borders. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

After looking further at Tbhotch's problem editor, I can see that the target articles are cars and music. The person puts in the wrong year without bothering with a reference. I can confirm that this person is using IPs based in Santiago, Chile:

• 190.96.32.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.13.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.35.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.49.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.35.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.42.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.13.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.12.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.35.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.42.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.32.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.40.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.34.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.33.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.41.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.96.13.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The bulk of the range is roughly 190.96.32.xxx to 190.96.41.xxx, if a few outliers are removed from either end. This person has been active for a long time, certainly as early as May 2013, possibly earlier. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked the /18 on this range (190.96.0.0), no collateral damage. m.o.p 06:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you MOP! Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome Binksternet. m.o.p 03:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A different case: genre warrior working from Peru IPs

The ones I tangled with in my last 1000 edits are the following:

• 190.232.2.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.232.55.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.232.193.205 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.233.208.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.233.236.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.233.242.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.233.243.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.233.247.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.233.247.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.233.248.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.89.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.155.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.156.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.159.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.160.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.197.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.234.253.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.235.27.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.235.27.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.235.71.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.235.117.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.235.144.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.235.168.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.235.170.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

It is quite possible these are all the same person. Some of the edit warring is about nationality, such as whether the BeeGees can be said to be from Australia since they were raised but not born there, or whether a certain UK musician can be called an expatriate because they live elsewhere. Other edits dispute non-mainstream sexuality, such as the bisexuality of Dave Davies. However, these two pools of edits may be tied together by quick sequential edits from the same session, for instance this anti-LGBT edit followed by this UK nationality edit, both from Special:Contributions/190.232.55.206. Then there are tons of edits about song/album/band/artist genres, such as this genre change, again from our friend 190.232.55.206 who is dialing in from Lima, Peru, which is flagged by some carriers as blacklisted. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This rangeblock is pretty unfeasible - there will almost certainly be collateral on a /16 range. m.o.p 06:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That all depends if we even get that much traffic from that range that is not a result of this editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes--the amount of disruption caused by these editors is huge, so if we weight that against collateral damage, the balance might come out positive. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong and Drmies: A /16 is over 60,000 IP addresses - that's a sizeable amount of Peru's address space. I'd be hesitant to block for that reason alone. We'd also be eliminating all the good edits coming from the range. CU confirms that there's a lot of activity on the range, so we can't just silence it. An edit filter is probably a better option, unless you can narrow down the chief offending IPs to a smaller range. m.o.p 03:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, if you say so. (Nice template, "reply to".) I don't see a filter that could prevent these changes, though I suppose the "changed numbers" alert can go off. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Folks, at the request of Master of Puppets, I've put on my checkuser hat and reviewed the range for collateral. I've also looked at the edits of a random selection of the IPs listed in these two sections. First off, there's too much collateral damage to block the range, and in fact I am inclined to suggest lifting the rangeblock that MOP made earlier. Secondly...and perhaps more importantly... a lot of the edits being made by these IPs are correct edits, although perhaps unsourced. Looking at their edits, and the current state of the article, many examples show that registered users subsequently added the same information, or a close variation of the information (and often still unsourced!). Not all of them are good edits, but few of them would justify blocking the IP editor at all. A range block is not appropriate here. Risker (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Tbhotch and Binksternet: Per Risker's advice above, I'm considering unblocking first range. Any insight you could lend? m.o.p 15:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If we are talking about the top group of IPs from Santiago, Chile, the 190.96.xxx guy, then I have no idea why you would ever unblock that dude. He's a terrible drain on resources. This change to a biography was dead wrong, and there was a parallel attempt to put the same wrong information at the date page. Then the first wrong fact was repeated after being reverted. This change to a song was wrong, and this change to a biography was even more wrong. I chose examples from just one session of editing, so multiply that times 100. This guy is persistent and not here to help. His intentional factual errors are insidious. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

...And I am interested in the suggestion that the Peruvian vandal might best be stopped with a filter of some sort. What sort? Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If the problem is as widespread as claimed, an edit filter can be cobbled together that tags any edit from that range. When I have a second I'll try to review the edits (I haven't gone through them all yet), but Risker's assessment above makes it sound like this isn't quite worth an edit filter, either. m.o.p 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sock of banned editor

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.

---

Wotan_Condemns_Lesbianism (talk · contribs)

It can only be a sock of Moses_Condemns_Lesbianism (talk · contribs)

If it's not, he certainly wants us to think so. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And if he's not, he's still a troll-only account. Feel free to notify him with a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2014 (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:62.140.132.32 and User:84.24.199.150

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.

---

Keep removing Notability and COI templates from Dayhaps Calendar. I suspect that they are connected with the company in question (both IPs are from Netherlands). Requesting block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchestnykh (talk • contribs) 09:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Their interaction with the article is well-within what would be considered normal. I also think the COI template is undeserved given the contribution pattern of the article

Best way to deal with the notability issue, in my opinion, would be to nominate the article for deletion on the basis of notability. If it survives, it's notable. If it doesn't it's gone. --Tóraí (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I withdraw my block request and will nominate the article for deletion. Dchestnykh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 10 February 2014 (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.

Help, please

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.

---

A new experience. Having just welcomed a new user called "5Bengal", I was quickly menaced on my talk page, and then again. I have no idea what enraged him/her and I do not feel able to deal with it. Moonraker (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Subsequently this user removed two-thirds of the contents of History of Islam without any explanation. I have rolled the edit back but have not left a warning about it. Moonraker (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Those kinds of attacks are utterly unacceptable. I have blocked the user for 1 month and warned him/her that if they repeat this behavior they will be blocked indefinitely. --Tóraí (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2014 (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:Truthrus33: Repeated COPYVIO violations, edit warring, and generally inappropriate behavior

User:Truthrus33 arrived yesterday and has already established a pattern of inappropriate behavior. They claim to be a friend/fan of actress Hunter Tylo, and have five times in the last 21 hours wiped out most of Tylo's article and replaced it with cut-and-pastes of copyrighted/unlicensed material from Tylo's promotional biography -- obviously in violation of copyright policy, 3RR, as well as plainly inappropriate for a BLP. Despite warnings from me and notice from User:This lousy T-shirt, they have repeated their behavior with increasingly aggressive edit summaries (and uncivil comments on their talk page). They also apparently rather strongly dislike another actress, Katherine Kelly Lang, and are intent on inserting content into that article emphasizing her appearance in a non-notable film that they described (without sourcing) as "softcore porn" -- although IMDB calls it a "TV movie." This is not appropriate behavior, even if they are a new editor -- a dubious claim, since they're already making noise on their talk page about administrator action and alleging stalking. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And now indefinite due to the legal threats. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And I've just been called away so if anyone wants to make changes to the block feel free. Don't wait for me to get back. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

He may have a point about Katherine Kelly Lang's article being a copy of her website.[279]. Dougweller (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That looks like a not-so-official site, with the bio likely copied from our article (which is, I don't deny, rather lousy). An earlier version of it is clearly a cut-and paste from our article, complete with nonfunctional footnote numbers [280]. See [281], the twitter feed of a European fan of US soaps who claims this and other "official" sites as her own work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Should we consider putting usernames with the word "Truth" in the list of "potentially disruptive usernames"? Most of these users seem to be disruptive. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of the material in her, Lang, bio has been in our article since 2004. Hard to tell who is copying who as the Wayback Machine hasn't archived that page. There is a contact email for the site there and I've asked them who has copied who. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I Waybacked the front page of the site and found a link to an earlier version of the bio that's clearly cut-and-pasted from our article, as I note above. I did a quick check for sources this morning, but didn't spot that page because I somehow managed to Google one of the very few phrases ("the love interest of Alabama lead singer Randy Owen") that's not on "Lang's" page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: I'm pretty sure that Lang's site copied Wikipedia (which is, interestingly, a copyvio on their part as they haven't attributed accordingly). Compare our version from July 2012 to theirs; looks like they copied it over wholesale (note the in-line citations that weren't removed). m.o.p 22:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Strange, I wonder why Wayback wouldn't work for me. Anyway it looks that way and the contact name for the site is the one in the Twitter account linked above. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Lang page has been restructured; it now uses php code rather than simple hyperlinks. Older versions of the bio page therefore have different URLa than the current page, and Wayback can't link them automatically. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I just received an email from the woman mentioned in the Twitter account who runs the site about Katherine Kelly Lang. They took over the site from the previous operator and weren't aware that it was the same as the one Wikipedia. They have offered to either change the material or credit Wikipedia. So I'll ask them to put up the usual credit. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Administrator Kevin Gorman

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.

---

Kevin Gorman has repeatedly accused me of gravedancing over the suicide of a Wikipedian I have no knowledge of, most recently here, where he says "Accusing Eric of gravedancing was not a wise choice on my part ... [but] I'm not going to apologize because I am far from convinced that it was not an accurate description of his behavior." If that's not a personal attack worthy of a block then I don't know what is, far worse than calling someone a wikilawyer or a sycophant in my book. I have not posted a notification of this thread on his talk page because he has forbidden me to edit his talk page. Eric Corbett 21:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The conduct of Kevin through the whole incident has been appalling and an example of how an administrator ought not to behave, and the fact that he still clings to the idea that you were gravedancing and that it was somehow a BLP violation is absurd, but I think your conduct has not been blameless either, Eric. I don't think that any use of administrative tools is wise on this matter. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin needs to follow the same rules that the rest of us are expected to do, unless you're arguing that different rules apply to admins? Eric Corbett 22:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Come off it Eric. You know full well that you've said worse about other Wikipedia contributors (and yes, so have I, before anyone else points it out...). If it isn't true, ignore it.

(for the sake of formality, I'll notify Kevin Gorman) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Consider for a moment if you will the morality of that statement. Eric Corbett 22:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Already done :P Ross HillTalk to me! 22:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

So all we have to wait for now is all the reasons why admins don't get blocked for personal attacks but regular editors do. Eric Corbett 22:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well you aren't an admin and you have made personal attacks. You should be blocked right now by your logic. Ross HillTalk to me! 22:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman judged the situation wrongly from his very first post on Jimbo's page and has compounded it by accusing Eric of things he didn't do. Something worth considering here is that a major gripe of Eric's is that policy is applied unevenly. If for once justice was seen to be done who knows what the result might be....... J3Mrs (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

[Multi-edit conflict. I began writing when Ross Hill, 22:35 10 February was the most recent comment] I assume you're talking about the things in "A a day of kindness, fairness and understanding" as of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=594628755. If not, please tell me, and when you raise another ANI thread, please link to the page where the discussion happened. I see the statements beginning with "When did WP become a psychiatric hospice?", "I wasn't at all sorry", "I was simply making the point", "This topic is actually a disgrace", "Strangely enough I don't care for your tone either", and "Try reading again". Which of those is the origin of the dispute? I can see contention over whether the last two are WP:CIVIL-compliant, but the fourth is a meta-comment not worthy of complaints, the third is explaining the second, the first is a rather basic and should-be-obvious statement, and the second is the only thing that might warrant this kind of reaction. Unless John was your father, I see no reason to object to the second, and if no reason to object to the second, no reason to object to any of these. Kevin's not abusing any admin tools (anyone could say what he's said), but I can't imagine a good reason for him to be harassing Eric over these comments, unless something else has been said or done that I've not seen. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, technically anyone can say: I will be monitoring this thread for violations of Wikipedia policies, including those that deal with the recently deceased, and will be acting with a heavy degree of WP:IAR. I will be actioning any exceptionally offensive comments in the rest of this thread, regardless of who they originate from. and anyone can say: If you post any further material that can be construed as violating WP:BLP/WP:BDP, I will be banning you from that discussion for its duration, enforced by block if necessary. as part of an AE notice, but they're only really meaningful coming from an administrator, so saying that they didn't use the tools is not wholly convincing to me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• What if, out respect for the deceased, this issue is dropped instead of dragged out so publicly? -- John Reaves 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  What deceased? Eric Corbett 23:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  The deceased at the basis of this dispute. Is dragging this out going to achieve any thing? We all know the possible outcomes: a.) there is a lengthy discussion with no real resolution or b.) someone get blocked and then immediately unblocked (which results in another instance of the first scenario). -- John Reaves 23:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  I've got absolutely no idea who you're talking about. When have I ever commented on this speficic suicide? Eric Corbett 23:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Eric, when was the last time you were blocked for a personal attack and it actually stuck? Blocks are preventative, not punitive. You've brought me to ANI over a comment I made in the past that I have already stated I would not repeat. I do agree with the suggestion you made in your original post here not entirely sure what constitutes a blockable personal attack. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. You've brought me to ANI over a comment I made in the past that I have already stated I would not repeat. You've exhibited a consistent pattern of personal attacks and civility violations extending multiple years; blocking you would be more than justifiable as preventative. I'm headed to an outreach event so I can't compile them now, but I'd be happy to put up fifty diffs in the last couple months of you violating NPA or civility when I return. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  Hard to keep track, but let's see how long a block on you for personal attacks might stick. Eric Corbett 23:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's not "hard" to keep track of that, here's Kevin's block log. We all have one. Even you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  Perhaps not hard to keep track of it then, but hard to make sense of it. Eric Corbett 23:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × multiple)So to summarize: one Wikipedian has committed suicide, another informs us their father committed suicide after murdering their step-mother, and we're concerned about some less than touchy feely comments on Jimbo's talkpage???? Obviously I'm sad in the vague way one is sad about hearing of a strangers suicide, but if we believe our own content (Suicide), there are over 2,000 / day. Am I too mourn only the 1 of the 2000 who contributed to Wikipedia, because the other 1999 matter less?
I am sorry, I will mourn none until it's someone I know personally, because to mourn each and every death in the world is to stop living. If that makes me an asshole, I'm an asshole.
Or am I to understand someone's pain in dealing with a loved ones suicide is greater because Eric made a gruff comment somewhere on the Internet? NE Ent 23:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I left a comment on Kevin's talk, expressing hope that this dispute would be dropped, but it appears that it has not. Please, let's drop it now. Eric has an understandable point about administrative overreach, and I'm sympathetic to it, but this situation does not call for further administrative action. ANI can provide a drama-fest, but it won't provide any useful administrative sanctions. I've read what Eric said at Jimbo's talk, and I'm heavily inclined to cut Eric some slack for having said what he said there; he had his reasons. But I also think that Kevin believed in good faith that he was seeking respect for a fellow editor who has committed suicide. Kevin seems to me to be making it clear that he is backing off; Eric is asking for too much in insisting on an apology quoting Kevin's statement about not apologizing, as a reason for Kevin to be blocked, and risks looking hypocritical. It's time for everyone to drop the stick. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Where have you ever seen me asking for an apology from anyone? I simply want to see Kevin blocked for his ongoing personal attacks, as any regular editor would have been by now. Eric Corbett 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

For "gravedancing", which is a term regularly used or misused on Wikipedia to describe User's comment posts? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• To those wondering about the general situation: I'll be dropping a note to arbcom in the near future detailing in greater detail why I did what I did in that thread (I'm not posting it publicly, because it contains sensitive, personal information. I may, after further consultations with people about the appropriateness of disseminating it, share it privately with any interested administrator.) I've posted a general explanation of my actions on my talk page already. To passing by admins... compare the severity of the comment I made that Eric linked to the one he made that I linked. I view it as quite seriously ironic that WP's most consistent violator of our civility and personal attack policies would come here asking for someone else to be sanctioned over a comment like mine, especially given that I've already said I will not repeat it - you know, the whole preventative not punitive thing. It points to ridiculous culture problems that Eric has behaved in the same inappropriate way for years without receiving a significant block - if blocks are intended to be preventative, Eric should be blocked until the point that he explicitly agrees to reform his conduct. And I'm utterly serious in saying that I'm more than willing to compile fifty diffs of Eric's inappropriate behavior from the immediate past in this section if warranted, although I would prefer Eric either receive a commonsense block, or this section be closed without actions and diffs saved for a future RFCU or arbcom case. (And for the record I had no incredibly strong feelings about Eric until reviewing his current comments and past record during this kerfuffle.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  We're at a watershed I think. Either you're blocked or I leave. Eric Corbett 23:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia actually need another thread alternately about and exhibiting Eric's conduct? I think it best expresses respect for everyone, dead and alive, to not further a discussion that nobody expects to get anywhere. Pakaran 23:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

At this point? I think we actually do need threads about Eric. We have editor retention problems, editor recruitment problems, and massive demographic problems - and those are all actively hindered by the fact that we have editors who consider them above WP:NPA and regularly go around telling people they are fucking idiots who should go fuck themselves. Eric's behavior is a small part of our overall issues, but if we want to not fail as an encyclopedia, sooner or later we're going to need to confront the issue of vested contributors like Eric head on. The No Asshole Rule does a really good job of explaining why allowing people who are incredibly competent at their jobs (or in this case, at their volunteer encyclopedia writing,) but who don't adhere to behavioral standards to continue to be part of an organization contributes to organizational failure. To be clear, I'm not calling Eric an asshole, that's just the name of the book. That said, I would fully agree that this thread is not a needed one. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

At this point, please let's drop this. (If Eric wants to leave, that's his business. If Kevin wants to open something else, somewhere else, that's his business.) If there is any lesson to be drawn, it's that life's too short for arguments like this. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a problem for our community really. There are lots of other people who would be writing good content if Eric and other s hadn't driven them away. That said, if Eric had a real grievance against you, he'd be filing a RFAr or RFC/U, not whini complaining on here about a threat, never enacted, to ban him from a user_talk thread on which the relevant user still has yet to himself comment. -- Pakaran 00:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, you accused (or appeared to accuse) another editor of celebrating the death of a fellow Wikipedian. That was a horribly inappropriate thing to do, and the proper response upon having that pointed out to you is not to start building a case for what an asshole the other guy is, but to say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to accuse him of that" if it was inadvertent or "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that" if it was intentional, and then drop the issue. Making it into a competition of who's said the worst things and how often is not in anybody's interests. 28bytes (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2014 (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.

POV-pushing by Psychologicaloric

Psychologicaloric (talk · contribs) has been pov-pushing at Zoroastrianism, downplaying its influence on the Abrahamic religions by making unsourced claims counter to academic sources, and by misrepresenting properly sourced information. Although not making outright reverts, it does border on manual edit warring as well.

• [282]
• [283]
• [284]
• [285]
• [286]
• [287]

He has altered his edits the the barest imitation of acknowledgement to the messages I've left him. Some of his edit summaries, about changing druj into asha (Zoroastrian terms for existential falseness and truth, respectively) strike me as fundamentalist POV-pushing, akin to an evangelical Christian removing or distancing references to Christianity in the Mormonism article while using edit summaries about "changing heresy into gospel." I've tried to get across to him that Wikipedia is not the place for that sort of thing, but not everyone who can hear listens, especially in this case. It is because of this POV pushing that I have not merely brought it to 3RRNB.

Some older edits indicate that censorship may be a problem for Psychologicaloric.

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I reported him via huggle to WP:AIV, though I'm not sure if this is the correct place for his edit warring or not. It's worth noting that he has since moved his discussion to the talk page. I'm not sure if I was correct in allowing that report to go through, but seeing as this incident is now here, I don't know if that should be removed or not. NicatronTg (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't quite assume it's vandalism just yet, though. He seems to be operating in good faith, but a fundamentalist and biased one that assume religious doctrine trumps any verifiable source. Despite taking it to the talk page, he is still WP:NOTGETTINGIT, refusing to bring in sources, merely saying that all academic sources are wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

White supremacist propaganda

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.

---

• Kohelet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gang rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a doubly ugly topic. User:Kohelet has repeatedly [288][289][290][291][292][293][294][295] tried to add content to gang rape that says "According to data from National Crime Victimization Survey, blacks committed 10,000 gang rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, but there wasn't a single case of white-on-black gang rape." This was originally lifted from a white supremacist website. The source he's trying to cite does not verify the statement. Many different editors have reverted Kohelet but he refuses to listen to reason. Could an uninvolved administrator please stop this racist POV pushing? It's not a joke, or a debatable point. For the record, I am not going to revert him again on this article.

Other evidence of racial POV pushing by Kohelet includes: [296][297]. This is particularly odious: [298]. Jehochman ^Talk 01:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC) and 01:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. It's disturbing this person has edited for as long as he has. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he had couple of good edits. But he would edit war even after warning was issued, he regarded such warning as WP:NPA. OccultZone (Talk) 02:24, 11 February 2014 (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.

Momento appeal

I have appealed an indefinite topic ban for "persistent battleground behaviour"at WP:AE.[299] Regrettably, after five days only one admin has commented on the diffs supplied. Could some uninvolved admins please go to WP:AE and look at my appeal and comment as to whether there is any evidence presented there that shows "persistent battleground behaviour" justifying an indefinite topic ban.[300] Thanks.MOMENTO (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

We cannot review arbitration enforcement actions here. You'll need to file an Arbitration clarification case for the committee to review.--v/r - TP 05:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure you can. Arbcom enforcement decisions can be appealed to the AE noticeboard, to another community noticeboard, or to Arbcom. Risker (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering there is a current request about this, it may not be appropriate to have ANI and ArbCom looking it at once. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to the editors above for the lack of clarity. I have rewritten my opening paragraph to make it clear that I am asking if some Admins can go to WP:AE and look at my appeal and give an opinion.MOMENTO (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh, so inappropriately canvassing. That'll go well. Also - do not EVER edit something that has already been replied to - you then change the meaning of all the replies, User: Momento ES&L 12:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing? This whole page is about asking people to get involved elsewhere. And I believe my comment saying that "I have rewritten my opening paragraph to make it clear etc" would explain any discrepancy between the new paragraph and the kind and considerate replies I received. The original is available for those that care to look.MOMENTO (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Iago Falque - User Gringoladomenega

In the article "Iago Falque", we had an edit war, I have trying to discuss reasonably, giving my reasons. The user has continued to edit in the article of "Iago Falque", but do not reply to my requests to reach an agreement.

I need to know what to do.

I showed ​​a test, where the person itself explains how it should be your surname I think you can not find anything better than that.

Discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gringoladomenega#Iago_Falque_or_Iago_Falqu.C3.A9

Reference:

• http://www.rayovallecano.es/-/falque-el-eslogan-dice-juntos-podemos-y-es-asi-video-
• http://www.fifa.com/world-match-centre/news/newsid/149/889/6/

Thanks, Harpagornis (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a matter for WP:DRN. GiantSnowman 12:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Harpagornis (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Attacks on Kevin Gorman

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 debacle above concerning Gorman and his 'gravedancing' allegations has already been closed with no action, so I won't re-hash that entire thread here. However, the discussion has certainly not ended in other areas and unfortunately it is beginning to get out of hand, as evidenced by this vindictive attack by Ihardlythinkso, who calls Kevin a Jerk and questions his competence (particularly his ability to read and write). A similarly unhelpful message from the other side of the spectrum was posted by an IP a few moments ago. I realize that there are a lot of raw emotions flying around, but the nasty attacks are not likely to improve the situation. I don't know that any action (ie. blocks, bans) is necessary yet, but the unhelpful discussion should be shut down. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• As usual Wikipedians are showing the foresight of goldfish. When an Admin makes not only a severe error of judgement, refuses to apologize and then launches a smear campaign on his attackee - all of which is seemingly condoned by his peers (why else has he not been desysopped) then all hell is bound to break loose. Why is anyone surprised?  Giano  16:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I don't agree with how Kevin handled the situation. Personally, I think we should have some form of community de-adminship for cases like this. However, I doubt that it will ever happen. (I'm not saying that Kevin should be desysopped, but I do think that decision should be in the community's hands.) Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• My comment here more or less sums up how I feel about this issue. The behavior of certain editors on Eric's talkpage, my talkpage, and various other places is stuff that would be sanctioned as NPA violations with no one blinking an eye if this situation didn't involve Eric. I can put up with the crap although I'd be more than happy if someone feels like blocking some of the ruder attacks on Eric's talkpage, but more significant than attacks themselves is how the response to my actions points to serious cultural problems with regard to talented contributors enjoying de facto immunity from WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. As a note regarding the original situation, arbcom already has a brief note from me, and will have a less brief one in the near future. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's a little late in the day for you to be crying for the protection that you deneid to others. A responsible admin thinks through the consequences of his actions before taking them.  Giano  16:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Kevin, while I agree with your concerns about those who enjoy de facto immunity from the policies cited above, I must note that there is possibly some resentment over the fact that admins are often essentially immune from serious consequences unless someone wants to jump through all the hoops of an ArbCom case. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If I made the personal attacks Eric has, I would be blocked, regardless of the fact that I'm an admin. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I doubt that it was really necessary for you to escalate the situation to that point. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom will have details in the near future (two arbs already do,) but it was. Not all blame lays on Eric and I handled it poorly, but that thread needed to die. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Kevin, you showed poor judgement in your initial action. Rather than working so hard to justify it, why not try to learn from your mistake? --John (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I admitted from literally the first articulation I put forth of why I acted that I made mistakes in how I conducted it. I thought it was necessary at the time, and emails I've received since then whose contents would literally be oversighted if I posted them here has made me even more convinced the action was necessary even though parts of the manner were inappropriate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your language is so tortured it's hard to figure out what you mean. "I made mistakes in how I conducted it"; good. "...[T]he action was necessary"; not so good. Keep thinking, I guess. --John (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since this happened, five barnstars have appeared on Kevin's talk page and at least one of them (mine) was a direct gesture of support for his actions here. That indicates that there is a (IMHO sizable) portion of the community that are right behind Kevin on this.

IMHO, Eric's comments were remarkably choke-on-your-coffee offensive, even for Eric. The thought that anyone could be supporting them, or even thinking that this was an appropriate use of WP, is beyond me.

If Kevin's actions were in any way inappropriate (and nothing is leaping out at me), then their overall reasoning and direction was within an acceptable GF reaction to offensive behaviour in a sensitive situation. As such, even if hindsight suggests differences, there is no criticism to be made of an editor who acts in such a way, in such an obviously GF manner, in such a difficult situation – let alone whether it's Eric or any other editor beyond the rawest newbie.

As to Giano's comment today, I can only ask – how does one "smear" Eric? What possible negative spin do you put on his behaviour that's worse than the basic reality? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

How does attacking Eric help? Other than demonstrate that you think NPA is for others and not for you? --John (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally think both of them should have been blocked for a good long while. But turn that around, do other editors get free shots because someone who likely should have been blocked was not blocked? That's not how it works, last I checked. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. My ostensible personal attack is something I've already said I will not repeat, thus a block would be punitive, even if were a blockworthy comment. On the otherhand, I can pull up fifty diffs of Eric violently attacking people with no problem - which demonstrates a recurring pattern of behavior utterly justifying a long term block as a preventative measure. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok Kevin, I'll rise to that one. Please post 50 diffs of Eric "violently attacking" someone. (How does a "violent attack" work on the Internet exactly?) --John (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(EC) You've said that repeatedly - I look forward to reviewing those diffs. And you're right, blocks are preventative, not punitive. I've yet to see someone explain what would be prevented by a block here. Perhaps I overstated my point - whether you were or were not blocked doesn't justify some other editor taking pot shots at you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Given Eric's track record, if we want to avoid him making personal attacks, one would think the only type of block that would be long term preventative is an indefinite one. KonveyorBelt 17:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Right now, nothing is to be prevented as Eric has indicated that he is leaving. Therefore, posting 50 diffs (or suggesting that you have 50 diffs) might fall into the category of 'generating more heat than light'. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 17:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric has repeatedly left and returned to resume his same behavioral pattern - there's an absolutely strong argument to be made that blocking him for a years long pattern of personal attacks and incivility is thus preventative. @Ultra: I agree with you that there's not a justification for multiple editors continuing to attack me in multiple places - which is why I view a potential block on any who continue to do so as preventative and thus potentially justifiable (whereas I used one word that people have alleged constituted a personal attack that was already closed without action, have already said it's not something I'll be doing again multiple times.) NA: I agree with you that posting a large collection of diffs at this point is not useful at this point in time. Anyone who wants to see them at the moment can look at my talk page. Or Eric's talk page. Or Eric's block log. Or Eric's contribution history. I'll save collating and posting a massive collection of diffs for an RFCU or arbcom case when Eric returns and continues his pattern of behavior. For now I'm logging off and taking a nap. One arb has a full description of why I took action and what after the fact communications make me fully believe the thread needed to die. Another arb has a tl;dr version. I'll chime in on this thread again when I wake up if it is still alive at that point.If this comment sounds grumpy... it's probably because I'm both tired and grumpy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The nap is a good idea, the first sensible thing you have said. I look forward to seeing you come back refreshed, retracting the false grave dancing claim you made and apologising, and retracting the false "50 diffs" claim and apologising for that too. --John (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There are other users behaving in the same manner. Personally, I think implying that someone is incompetent and unable to read and write is a little bit too far over the line. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I would think the same about implying that someone is celebrating another's death, but that's just me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 17:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

We can argue over whether or not anything should be done regarding Kevin's actions (a thread with that purpose was already closed), but I highly doubt we will reach a consensus. Therefore, ArbCom is probably the only venue for those who want him to be sanctioned in some way. However, what about the other people who are making attacks? Will anything be done to stop that from continuing, or is this all a colossal waste of time? Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 17:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

These threads are a pointless waste of time and should be closed asap. Leaky Caldron 17:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Only post in this or the other thread that makes any sort of sense. DeCausa (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

An arbitration case need not and cannot be one-sided against Kevin. If the committee should find that these "others" are also at fault, they can deal with them as well. KonveyorBelt 17:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well if it's true that the Arbcom is on possession of 'secret' material pertaining to this case, perhaps they ought to issue a statement - or they treating the plebs on the ground with same contempt as Kevin treated Eric Corbett?  Giano  18:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes move forward. Either admins should go enforce the breaches they see or recommend something with respect to them, or not, but the above demanding and posturing was closed on this board a long time ago. So, stop it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2014 (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.

Ban proposal - FanforClarl

Proposing ban of sockjobber FanforClarl (AKA Clark Bright, Brightify, HoshiNoKaabi2000, Unorginal [sic]) with mixed feelings. On the one hand he's literally begging us to ban him with his latest round of socks (Banclark1, Banclark2, Banclark3, Banclark4, Banclark5, Banclark6, Banclark7) so I am reluctant to propose feeding his greedily agape maw the negative attention it so lickishly craves, but banning him might make it easier to revert all his edits and to get his silly socks blocked quickly without going through the AGF Boy Scout theatrics of issuing multiple warnings. The user has, for years, been engaged in a long-term campaign of vandalism that includes introducing hoax content, corrupting dates and numbers, and possibly using mechanical means (maybe mobile phone/tablet apps?) to introduce gibberish into articles. Per usual, nobody knows what the sock operator's actual beef is, and while historically the user has not been overtly abusive (He created a sock Cyphoidbomb Stinks, which I thought was an almost friendly insult), and has even been playful at times[301][302], lately he's been cursing at other users and lashing out with increased hostility. So far I am unaware of any block that has been successful in scaling back his disruptions. And a minor note, the SPI report does not catalog ALL of his socks or even MOST of his socks. There are plenty more that got indeffed without being added to the SPI. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

He's indef blocked for sockpuppetry. We don't need a ban. We may need some intensive rangeblocking but a community ban accomplishes little to nothing here. CSD Criteria G5 accomodates both blocked and banned users, and he's defacto banned right now. I can work at a rangeblock for him, but a ban doesn't do anything here. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No ban - range blocks though should be used per NativeForeigner. --AdmrBoltz 17:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well isn't that a sad little trumpet I hear? :) Thanks guys. And sorry, Clarl. I tried to make all your dreams come true. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Long term harassment by an IP

Ip 69.253.15.167 Seems to have a personal vendeta agenst me vandlising my user page more then 5 time is the past 6 monthes (1 2 3 4 5) and I also suspect user:Epicclown is a sock of this ip. He is also very clearly A long term vandal two. Im tired of his constant vendetta against me. To me it looks like A straightforward vandal who needs a year long block. also my Userpage is vandlised so much it looks like an infinite semi-protection wouldn't go amiss ither. Thankyou.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address for 6 months (it appears to be static). If the problem returns with a new IP, please let me know and I will semi-protect your user page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Betacommand-related drama?

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.

---

So Bort Nort (talk · contribs) makes [303] this edit to my talk page, alleging that Werieth (talk · contribs) is a sock of Betacommand (talk · contribs). Today, Werieth (talk · contribs) seems to be busily gnoming, doing bot-like work tagging non-free orphaned images, and may even be a bot. But nothing bad seems to be resulting. (Betacommand was notorious for running error-prone 'bots and mis-tagging. Wereth doesn't seem to have that problem.)

Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise (talk · contribs) deletes this from my talk page, claiming that "Bort Nort" is a "serial ban-evading sock.[304]. I revert that deletion on my own talk page, and put a routine "test1" notice on the talk page of Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise again deletes the message from Bort Nort, and is then annoyed with me for undoing his deletion. I'd rather hear what people have to say on my talk page, even if I don't agree with it, so I don't want deletions there.

I seem to have become involved in some ongoing feud between other parties. But I don't know the context. I was involved in the Betacommand mess years ago, but after that source of drama was blocked, I hadn't given it much attention. Is there something big going on here that I should be aware of? --John Nagle (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Its just a harassment troll, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Formal Appointee Number 6 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Formal Appointee Number 6/Archive. Werieth (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Posting a "test1" notice on the talk page of an experienced user is a bit insulting. Simply asking him to not remove the text might have been a better approach. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 21:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The situation as I understand it, Nagle, is that someone is socking to make socking accusations against Werieth, and has been for months. Because they're socking to do it, the accusations are being reverted as the product of socking, without the accusations themselves being investigated to either prove or disprove them. And therefore the person socking gets offended at being ignored, creates another sock, posts them again, is reverted again on the basis of being a sock... and soon enough we're doing laps around ANI. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that the accusations were recently investigated.—Aquegg (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Somebody needs to get a life. I'm going out to ride my horse. John Nagle (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The SPI was closed for lack of evidence, meaning a lack of someone willing to do the sizable legwork to produce the relevant diffs. However when those diffs are provided, the account providing them has been terminated with extreme prejudice. Whatever has been happening here, it has not been acting in a way as if it was important to acquire these diffs, for the good of the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been going on since November, at least. Special:Contributions/Bort_Nort is the latest version (9 edits there at present, but they'll probably be revdeled at any moment).

My comments, similar to John's, are at User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Edit_to_talk_page. In particular, I am concerned at the overlap between Future Perfect, a defender of the original Betacommand, the current issues with Werieth and now appointing themselves as defender of WP against anyone who raises the issue again – up to threatening blocks to anyone outside it who begins to take an interest. Werieth is allowed to run up 6RR and even 18RR in disputes without sanction, but I get repeated threats of blocking if I challenge him.

Future Perfect is now turning around an account in 3 minutes, completely by themselves, and acting as judge, jury and executioner on an account merely for posting the same thesis that Werieth is Betacommand. We used to have policies and a process before we indef blocked and access locked an account. Even the worst content vandals are treated better than this.

Just a few still-live links of relevance:

• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#FYI
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Can_we_get_a_few_things_straight.3F
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Final_warning
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#ani 3rr
  • [305] Werieth +3RR reverting at ANI, on the grounds that he's allowed to. (one of a series)
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Note

Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2014 (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.