Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Ongoing conflict over links and content of the Qumran article

For more than a week I have been involved in a slow edit conflict, not really knowing how otherwise to proceed, over the Qumran article. This is an article about the archaeological site of Qumran. I am attempting to make sure, as I see it, all content is on topic and neutrality is maintained.

1. When the person I am in conflict with wants to post external links that are about other aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls and material of his own production, I remove them. They are already to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls article, so he's getting the publicity there. At the moment he is no longer trying to post one of his papers, the published one, though he continues to insert his unpublished paper as an external link and has decided to add a link to a Dead Sea Scrolls organization, an organization I long ago created an article for which has the link, The Orion Center, an article that can be accessed from every Dead Sea Scrolls related article through the navbox I put at the bottom. In an effort to clarify the problem to the editor, I divided the remaining external links into two categories, "Scholarly articles about the site of Qumran" and "Other links about the site of Qumran". The editor now removes these categories in order to insert his links.

2. The editor also inserts a comment, I consider both tangential and argumentative. He considers it background to his interpretation of the site. I work on the notion that if material is about the contents of the scrolls, then it is not directly relevant to the site of Qumran. The particular comment follows information about a scholarly opinion from Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, the person who first suggested that the scrolls came to Qumran from Jerusalem, an opinion which reflects a particular approach to the analysis of the site. The editor wants to insert this afterwards:

Rengstorf (p.15) also asked: "What is the explanation of the fact that the Essenes, who, it is claimed, speak, among other things, precisely about themselves and their views and customs in the Dead Sea texts, but always use other names for themselves?" In fact, many scholars have concluded that the Hebrew origin of the name Essenes indeed appears as a self-designation in some Qumran scrolls.

The "In fact" ushers in unnecessarily argumentative material about the Essenes. This for me is clearly not related to the site of Qumran. The editor believes that the Essenes were responsible for the site of Qumran, which is his prerogative, though here the material is gratuitous.

Here are my last two edits: [1] and [2] They represent the battleground.

To sum up the positions, I'm arguing lack of consensus, relevance and neutrality, a conflict of interest, and original research. He's arguing for relevance and against censorship.

The conflict is probably exacerbated by the fact that the editor and I have had conflicts on internet for well over ten years. It continues in a mild form on the discussion page

My desire here is to find some efficacious resolution to the conflict. I'm not interested in any punitive action or discouragement of editing. I just don't want to have to continue in this tug-of-war which is for me fruitless. I can of course abandon the article, though it is the only one I do much work on (though I have written over a dozen articles for the DSS topic), but that would be to me to say that I have wasted my time. The best solution in my eyes would be if I could find an administrator who would be willing to spend the time needed to adjudicate the problem. Though this is a highly specialized topic, an understanding of the problems shouldn't require more than some patience. I would have tried a third opinion but there was no way I could think of providing a neutral presentation of the "facts".

Thanks for your consideration. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The material that Ihutchesson removes from the article should remain in the article because they are descriptive of current major issues in the discussion of Qumran, as I document with peer-reviewed scholarly publications by numerous scholars. Some of my improvements to the article remain. And the link group headings are inaccurate and misleading; I have suggested that link annotations are more helpful for readers. I have published in multiple peer-reviewed scholarly publications, have archaeological excavation experience in Israel, and have a Duke U. Ph.D.; I have not seen any such scholarly peer-reviewed publications from the one who deletes major scholarly views and who classifies links as "scholarly" or not. The article version without the observations that he deletes is certainly *less* "neutral." I recognize that there are issues on which there are different interpretations, no consensus yet. I seek representation for major issues, giving both sides, and giving the reader options to be aware of and to read a range of the major viewpoints. Let the reader decide. The reader cannot be well informed if major viewpoints are censored out of the article, as one editor (who acts as if he owns the article), unfortunately, does. Let the readers have all relevant major facts. Coralapus (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

This editor has missed the point about my removal of his unpublished research interpreting some of the contents of the scrolls. The article is not about what may be in the scrolls but the site of Qumran. There are other places where he would better find grounds for posting his material, for example in the Dead Sea Scrolls article, where it seems to be more relevant than an article about the archaeological site, if his original research (WP:OR) is well adapted to be anywhere on Wiki going by the Wiki ethos. And posting one's own materials does seem to be a conflict of interest (WP:COI).

The inclusion of material purely because it can be hitched onto another piece of information by the same person, thus allowing for a gratuitous comment still seems to me to be argumentative, provocative and unhelpful in its context.

He has also upped the frequency of his reversions: in the last 24 hours it was three times. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In simple terms, the majority view of archaeologists and scholars about Qumran is that Essenes lived there; a minority view is that Essenes did not live there. I hold the majority view; he holds the minority view. He misleads readers by excluding--on quite changing, ad hoc, any means to an end grounds--sufficient material from the majority view to be proportionally represented. The scrolls are archaeological facts relevant to the site, in the majority view. I seek to have both views represented and let the readers decide. He prefers to slant the article to the minority view. Readers would be ill served by his biased editing. I allow both views for readers to consider. I have not erased in the bibliography his non-scholarly article that represents the viewpoint of no one (to my knowledge) besides him. That, in an abundance of allowance of a distinctly minority view. His approach, simply, is to seek to erase that with which he does not agree, while pretending to neutrality. I have written articles for Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, Anchor Bible Dictionary, and other peer-reviewed journals and books, and I know that his approach is neither fair nor scholarly. Coralapus (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

This noticeboard is not a forum to debate your views about the Essenes. It's a place where administrators consider the conflict set before them. I think you misunderstand what Wiki does and are breaking the rules

1) posting your own materials as references,

2) insisting on material that isn't directly relevant to the article, and

3) publicizing yourself rather than working on a good neutral article.

Your publications are very nice, but again tangential here. Besides, you had editors there, while you are the editor here, and you don't seem aware of the necessities of the job of keeping to the topic or evaluating the worth of the materials you present. For some reason you refuse to see that gratuitous mention of Essenes in a place where such mention is not needed doesn't help the article. Consensus for your material has not been established and I stress that it is your material. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually discussion of Essenes is called for. Descriptively, it is one of the main issues. Your exclusions are unbalancedCoralapus (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

We are dealing with the site of Qumran, not your musing on the Essenes. Obviously your claim that a discussion of them "is one of the main issues" is false regarding the article and shows that you aren't interested in the site of Qumran at all. You have been trumpeting the Essenes from one end of the internet to the other over the last ten or so years, insinuating them everywhere you can. Please try to see that you are not dealing with the site of Qumran, but your pet interest. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have peer-reviewed publications on archaeology, Essenes, and scrolls and care about all three. And archaeological experience in Israel. (And "Jannaeus" is linked at Bible and Interpretation, a location you use for links). It is simply a fact of history of scholarship that Essenes are relevant to Qumran. Your personal wish and intention to keep that away from readers, to hide the question, the debate, from them, is a clear-cut case of bias. If your bias is sustained, readers loose.Coralapus (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)CoralapusCoralapus (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

If I took a poll of the scholarly internet groups you have been ejected from or cautioned on, what percentage of people would claim that you were a good judge of bias? Please, you need to realize that you are too involved with your own views to do balanced editing on the Qumran article. You cite your own material. You link to your own material. You push your own views to extreme lengths. And all that is totally against Wiki policy. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder whether, given your history of using aliases on sites that explicitly forbid that, and your use of names quite similar to names of real scholars--i.e your use on ane [ancient near east] and orion [Dead Sea Scrolls] list of "John J. Hays," when there is a real Hebrew Bible, John H. Hayes--I wonder whether Raphael Golb (another sockpuppet) was encouraged by your use of false names, indirectly or directly. (?) In either case, a reader of an article on Qumran should be informed of the majority view as well as the minority one. Just because you temporarily managed to exclude majority views elsewhere hardly recommends a repeat obscurantism. I have added links to other scholars.Coralapus (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

An entertaining kneejerk reaction doesn't change the basic problem that you are not helping the article with your lack of perspective, a lack endemic in your willingness to inject your own materials wherever possible and pervert what the article says to your own tangential ends. (You didn't do the poll.) -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you think it is funny, but did you apologize to Prof. Hayes? And, if you care to reply: was Raphael Golb encouraged by your use of false names?Coralapus (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

Misuse of Clean start?

"A clean start is when a user sets aside an old account in order to start afresh with a new account, where the old account is clearly discontinued and the new account is not merely continuing the same kinds of behaviors and activities."

As a result of numerous complaints and this ANI discussion], Gniniv (talk · contribs) wrote at ANI on September 15th "you can see that my user has been retired". On the 19th he posted to his talk page [3] "'This user is now retired, but I have returned to Wikipedia as another User per WP:CLEANSTART. There was an immediate complaint [4] about this (about his returning under cleanstart after retiring in the middle of an ANI discussion about his behaviour).

Since returning as Terra Novus (talk · contribs) (who signs himself "Novus Orator" he has made various promises, eg to avoid editing in "large areas of Wikipedia (such as Creation-Evolution related articles)" (one of the areas in which he had problems) while at the same time continuing to edit related articles such as Russell Humphreys and giving a Young Earth Creationist spin to others [5] and receiving a one week block for his edits at Heim theory -- see also this discussion at FTN [6] about his edits there. And about his setting up a new Wikiproject for Young Earth Creationism, first without going through the proposal stage (at one point today on the original page, now userfied, there were only 2 members, his old account which was marked inactive) and his new account). You can see at the new proposal page Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Young Earth Creationism that he admits to having a history of contentious editing.

My question is whether he is entitled to claim that he started a new account under WP:Clean start, considering that he retired his old account in the middle of an ANI discussion, then came back claiming Clean start, while not making major changes in his editing habits and earning a one week block not long after returning. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• That's not a clean start, that's just transfering accounts. He should be blocked for this. Secret ^account 17:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Having observed both incarnations of this User (I have been monitoring contributions though not getting involved discussions), this is most certainly a misuse of Clean start, Either the user switched to new name was to avoid scrutiny or has fundamental misinterpretation of the rules of clean start. Based on the actions of the user as i have observed most likely its the former. I think a topic ban on Creationism might be our only hope here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• If it is known that this is the same editor editing under account, then it is indeed not a cleanstart but a "transferring accounts". However, there's no need to block for that. There's only a problem if the link is not known, and the user is "pretending" to be a fresh user, but doing the same old stuff. If it is known it is the same user, then simply treat the contributions of the new account as a continuation of the old one, and deal with it as such. Would the behaviour been sanctionable if it had been done with the same account? If yes, then sanction. If no, then don't. Cleanstart is irrelevant, since the link is known there is no cleanstart. It's just a change of account - and that's allowed. The old problem is if users hide behind an undisclosed account to allow them to continue the same problematic activity.--Scott Mac 18:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "There's no need to block for that" - generically, no, but given the circumstances of the transfer WP:GAME comes into if the same problem behaviour continues post-transfer. Rd232 ^talk 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• This user has been causing endless difficulties, making promises to reform and breaking them almost as soon as (or sometimes even before) they are made. His edits against consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Young Earth Creationism (now deleted and moved to his user space) are one example of that. Other ploys include creating physics templates to include Heim theory as "emerging physics". Or his recent attempts to introduce what turned out to be Young Earth Creationist commentary on the talk page of the featured physics article Oort cloud. Every time he is criticized he promises to reform, but unfortunately it seems at the moment that his editing patterns have become worse. Every edit he makes requires careful attention from other wikipedians: very few have any positive value. The article he created today is an example of this kind of unhelpful editing. It resulted in this thread on FTN.[7] The article did not survive. If a user requires every edit to be carefully examined, with just cause, that is not a good use of volunteer time. Mathsci (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Topic ban. Enough is enough. Those more familiar with him will be better able to delineate the borders of the topic ban, but he clearly needs to stay away from the topics he sought to escape from under CLEANSTART, an escape effected because his behaviour was coming under scrutiny. Rd232 ^talk 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd support a topic ban on anything to do with Young Earth Creationism, broadly construed. He also needs to remove any mention of Clean start from his userpage. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In view of the problems with his edits as both Terra Novus and Gniniv, any topic ban should also cover articles, their talk pages and templates in physics and astrophysics, broadly construed. Mathsci (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree, Broadly construed Young Earth Creationism Topic ban. I frankly dont see an alternative here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This user has been acting disruptively and misusing clean start. On account of the continuing behavior in related topics, I support a topic ban on Young Earth Creationism, very broadly construed.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll agree, but I don't think the problem is just Young Earth Creationism or cosmology or fossils or Heim Theory. TN's edit history corresponds very closely to many of the doctrines that are held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church and some of its more recent offshoots. YEC is a central doctrine among Adventists, and I understand that Heim Theory, for example, is claimed as necessary by some factions of that religion as part of an alternative hypothesis to the Big Bang theory. Physics articles would be of special interest for similar reasons: alternatives to mainstream physics are needed to support some of the religion's creationist beliefs, e.g. some Adventists believe that physical constants like the speed of light have not, in fact, been constant over time. It's entirely possible that I'm mistaken, of course, and if so, I'll be glad to apologize. But if I'm correct then I'd have to say that I don't see how a narrow topic ban is going to do much good here. Everyone has a right to his religious beliefs, of course, and I would never do anything to infringe on that. But none of us has the right to push our religious beliefs on others, and it seems likely to me that doing just that has been the principal focus and motivation for TN's presence here, and that a topic ban that's restricted to just the limited areas that have been mentioned so far is likely to prove insufficient for that reason.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • We can take those issues one at a time. this is where (s)he is causing disruption thus its where topic ban is being placed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, OhioStandard, this link seems to confirm what you wrote.[8] Mathsci (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef

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

Community-banned unanimously for 1 year for "constant issues with collegial editing"[9] (only to have the ban reset after subsequent sockpuppetry[10]) SRQ continues to disrupt article and userspace through her use of different IPs and named accounts that are routinely being discovered. When the initial ban was reset, it was to be followed by an indefinite block after the ban's expiration: I propose implementing a permanent siteban instead so that her edits can continue to be reverted on sight. The socking has become more frequent and harassing in nature towards her usual targets Crohnie (talk · contribs) and especially DocOfSoc (talk · contribs), and there is neither hope nor intention of this former editor returning constuctively here. With a lengthy and growing list of mostly "one-or-two-off" IP sockpuppets, she mocks the CheckUser process by challenging its ability to detect her, and has recently taken to blaming others for her sockpuppetry[11] (while blatantly and disruptively socking). Many diffs can be provided upon request, but I feel there is more than sufficient cause for a permanent community siteban to be implemented, rather than the fixed-duration community ban that is overdue for another "reset". Doc talk 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note This is a request to amend the ban from 1 year to indefinite, so I have updated the header. It appears that there are 21 confirmed socks, 68 suspected socks, and possibly more that have not been tagged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Bwilkins, HJ Mitchell, EdJohnston, and others below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Comment to follow. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think she's gone completely out of hand. She still made an entirely constructive revert to a living person just recently before she was blocked. Minimac (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly SRQ cannot adhere to Wikipedia's rules. One occasional good revert does not make up for the harassment and socking she's done and continues to do. AniMate 07:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I originally had hoped that she would see WP:OFFER or return after the block to edit constructively. I also supported the revdel of her very personal request since it showed some humility and seemed the right thing to do. However, the behavior before the block was so disruptive that when coupled with a complete lack of respect for the block and thumbing her nose at the community (especially the admin who showed some heart) means that it seems appropriate. If an extension of indefinite does not have consensus then it at least needs to be reset to the last edit confirmed to be by a sock and maybe even extended for continued disruption.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough, once you start socking that much there's no hope. --Rschen7754 07:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The disruption was so persistent that the 1-year ban was unanimous, and this degree of socking is simply outrageous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support This user will never stop. She has admitted to stalking my edits and that of DocOfSoc over at Wikipedia Review where she immediately set up an account after she was blocked. The latest sock that was blocked put this disgusting message on my talk page on 11/08/10. There are more of her going to editors that don't know her to cause problems like this on 10/26/10. If there is a checkuser about I would also appreciate a checkuser done to get rid of any sleeper accounts she may have too since she said she would set up a bunch of accounts to drive us crazy. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso that "indef" in this case means "at least 1 year" from its imposition. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunate support I'm one of those who believe that SRQ was pushed into a series of actions that led to the original block. However, their actions since that time have led me to believe that they don't give two craps about policy around here. They had a chance to perhaps come back. They blew it and got a 1 yr ban. They then had a chance to come back after that, and they continue to thumb their nose at policy. Well sorry, as much as I supported them originally, I have to say "feckit, you wasted my faith in you". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. It's always a great shame when it comes to this for a once productive editor, but we can't excuse the repeated socking when it's used to harass and attempt to upset other editors. SRQ, on the off chance that you might read this: Please, stop this nonsense, disengage with Wikipedia and serve your time quietly before it's too late for you ever to return. Indefinite does not yet have to mean infinite. Yet. But if you keep this up it will. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, having had quite enough after participating in the latest unblock-my-sock discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- If this editor ever decides to start behaving well, and wants to return to the encyclopedia, they know what they have to do. No sign of that so far. The IPs would be hard to rangeblock, and there is a large number of them. See the suspected and confirmed socks as well as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally. Because of the model currently in place on WP, indef bans to stop sockpuppetering simply don't work because making a new account or switching IPs to get around a block is too easy. It's best to give the user the possibility to give up sockpuppeting and a chance to come back. -Atmoz (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious question

As I would hate to impose a permaban on anyone based on evidence that was not beyond doubt, I have a serious question. First, I believe SRQ was on Verizon - which admittedly has thousands of editors coming from there. As such, SPI's would be quite a challenge. I know I gave a pretty damning !vote above, so I want to ensure that the socking is really coming from them. "Suspected" socks means squat to me. Even supposedly "proven" socks can mean that someone is an excellent impersonator - and we have had damn well enough of those. What really are the odds that someone is not effing us over and pulling some damned fine wool over our eyes? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would have to be the most epic case of sophisticated trolling ever if that were true. Socks like recently revealed Lazuli Bunting (talk · contribs) edit obscure articles that SRQ is the prime editor for[12] in ways identical to her (esp. changing to surnames later throughout the article)[13], and then try to get the same two users (Crohnie and DocOfSoc) "in trouble". That is how they are discovered: the socks keep repeating the same behavior. Some socks like True Crime Reader (talk · contribs) last a bit longer, until they predictably start harassing the same users and frequenting articles that SRQ did. With her avowed devotion to edit here, and admitted off-site socking[14], I can't see anyone wasting their time to so closely imitate her. The massive list of suspected IPs was compiled when the SPI was in progress, and the attempt to confuse by changing IPs so frequently is obvious and still continues. A contribution check for any IP or sock, suspected or confirmed, shows this can be no one else. I received an off-wiki legal threat from SRQ just two months ago in response to referencing her medical condition on someone's talk page (which she revealed on WP); and she recently responded instantly with IP socks (always Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon) after I tagged a sock that I was wrong about being her. She's actively watching, socking, and stalking edits, and there's no reason not to be positive that 99% of these are her. I've repeatedly asked for CU backup to tie named accounts together: to no avail. Doc talk 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment as promised with "Strongly support, earlier" I made my first edit in Wiki on April 8, 2008. From November 4, 2008 until the present, I have been maligned, excoriated, libeled, vastly insulted and stalked by SRQ, minus the few months I did not edit, totally discouraged and nursing my bites inflicted by SRQ, when I was an admittedly clueless "Newbie". She dragged my name thru ANI, without informing me, which discouraged admins from assisting me, when I begged for help. Too bad she took this road, she is a bright, talented editor, who can not hide her obsessive and unfounded loathing for me and others. (for her personal agenda tool lengthy to list here) Despite her egregious interference, I have survived to edit another day with great support. She must be unequivocally stopped. She has an admitted "medical condition" which affects her judgment, and enhances her ability to inflict pain. After 2 and half years, (it felt much longer,) 17 ANI complaints, 21 confirmed socks and 68 suspected socks, it is time for all of us to admit that her case for being a Wiki editor is hopeless. I do not state this lightly and do so without any retaliatory or vengeful motives whatever. She is sad case.DocOfSoc (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to Serious question: Bwilkins, you have been an enviable supporter of SRQ. I never report a sock puppet of hers unless I am 100% sure. Having been her target literally hundreds of times, I can assure you. when I know, I know unequivocally. Bless your good heart and honest efforts. DocOfSoc (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Question #2 What happens now? Does the ban reset? What are we supposed to do when she is here again and she will be, the same as always or have the rules changed about how we do the reporting? These too are serious and not sarcastic questions. I just don't understand what the purpose of doing this was for again, so here I am to find out. Oh and is there a chance that a checkuser is about to check for a sleeper accounts so we can at least know she hasn't built up a cache of awaiting accounts like she said? Thanks for your responses, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

edit warring on WP:Carlingford Lough

Carlingford Lough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3 users are involved in tag-teaming edit-warring on this page. All three Users have made contentious revisions without discussion first. These Users have supported each other in countless discussion topics, swaying consensus. This has to stop! Users involved are the usual suspects of Virtual Revolution,O_Fenian and Mo ainm. This is somewhat of a contentious edit as they wish to remove 'Northern Ireland' from the body of the infobox.

Here are the diffs:

• edit dated 2010-11-09T11:36:31 by VirtualRevolution "Undid revision 395720705 by Factocop (talk)".
• edit dated 2010-11-09T11:05:14 by O Fenian "Revert. Please take your concern over the name of that article to Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border".
• edit dated 2010-11-09T10:19:24 by Mo ainm "remove piping"

Can an admin pick this up and deal with them?Factocop (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• This editor is aware of the editing restrictions on articles which says quite clearly that "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."

  With these reverts here and here they clearly went beyond the 1RR for the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, thats only if you deem the article to be related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism....My reverts were only in response to edits that had not been discussed prior, in the discussion page. Given that there was no discussion, the edits can only be described as disruptive.And it does appear suspicious that all 3 editors appear at the same time on the same page, and only to support each others edits.Factocop (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Have you never heard of a watchlist? You are the one who was edit warring I made a legitimite edit removing an incorrect pipe link that was in the article which you reverted twice. Mo ainm~Talk 12:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Hmmm. This administrator is seeing a rather different view of the situation from the conveniently restricted view through one article that comes from the above. I see the the three edits by Factocop (talk · contribs) that prompted several of the reversions:
  • Changes "United Kingdom" to "Northern Ireland"
  • Changes "United Kingdom" to "Northern Ireland"
  • Changes "United Kingdom" to "Northern Ireland" and "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland"
• no edits by Factocop to:
  • Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border#Requested move
• a whole load of edits by Factocop to:
  • Talk:Giant's Causeway#Northern Ireland is a country
• and several people noticing that this is a spillover from the above at:
  • Talk:Carlingford Lough
• We seem to be spoiled for choice as to which sanctions to apply. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles the Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log sanctions, or even just plain old Wikipedia:Edit war for failure to do the "D" part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle after the aforelinked people did the "R" part. And I can hear a boomerang gently whirring through the air right now. … Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • this argument has also lead to a disscussion thread on Sareks talkpage, they still edit warred though on carlingford lough--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

•  
  1. I received a warning for my previous edits and apparent spillover. I opened up a discussion on the topic to discuss further. I have posted a very compelling argument that none of the said users have been able to respond to.
  2. I was unaware of Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border#Requested move
  3. The 3 users I have mentioned have also commented on the Giant's Causeway page. so what?
• The 3 users troll pages like a pack of wolves making edits and swaying consensus with their greater numbers. It would be a real shame if this is to continue.Factocop (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • the page was under 1RR you broke that rule Facto--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I also think Factocop that you were warned about commenting on other editors so describing them as packs of wolves and trolls I'm sure is in breach of that. Mo ainm~Talk 13:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Do you mean like you have done here? - User talk:NorthernCounties#Factocop. Factocop (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, told very bluntly. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

To assume that editors with the same views are acting in concert, or suggest they have ownership issues or similar, can be a breach of WP:AGF.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am not suggesting anything, it just very suspicious that they should appear on the same page at the same time to make the same edit and without raising the change in the discussion topic. Very suspicious.Factocop (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, of course. You're not suggesting anything, it's just "suspicious." If I could roll my eyes any harder, they'd pop out of my head. You're making a very blatant suggestion of WP:MEAT here, without evidence. I'd suggest you retract that statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Currently blocked for 48 hours, unable to retract at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The article should be reverted to it status before the edit fighting began & then protected. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well thats what I tried to do, revert back to the original but obviously very difficult to do with a clique of users intent on forcing the issue.Factocop (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thats a mistruth look at the diffs supplied by Uncle G Mo ainm~Talk 15:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • well if I have made 2 reverts and Mo,O Fenian and VR have made 3 revisions collectively then that would mean that the page is not in its original state.Taxi!!!Factocop (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
      • It's a clear infraction, with these edits here and then here there is not "IF" in this matter. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Let me remind my fellow admins of this clear warning to some of the participants - I'm off for lunch. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that. I'm finding it hard to match with reality Factocop's statements that
    • xe assumed that the border between these two places was not Troubles-related;
    • xe didn't know about Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border#Requested move, despite the edit summary in the second diff that xe pointed to in bringing this here;
    • this was a reversion to the status quo, when in fact the status quo has stood otherwise since this edit dated 2009-04-06T00:22:28 (citing the house style manual), which seems to be a span of just under one year and seven months.
  • Uncle G (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm too am finding it hard to match with reality Factocop's statements per their admission here, plus this report here and this report here. This is going to be a long term problem. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Ahem! Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • • As I understand it, they are not this editor. Could we not clarify this? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop was WP:DUCK blocked as a sock of the Maiden City. Somehow he then persuaded Shell Kinney that although he socked as Pilgrisquest, and apparently edits in the same IP range as the Maiden City, and he edits just like the Maiden City, he isn't the Maiden City. If there is more evidence now that his edits make it probable that he is the Maiden City, then the correct course of action would be to reblock as a sock of Maiden City. I'm not familiar with the Maiden City's edits, so I'll go with the opinions of others here. this is the archive sock investigation, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City awaits your new evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop and Blue is better are  Confirmed with regards to each other according to MuZemike. Pilgrimsquest was  Confirmed that this account is the same as Factocop (talk · contribs) by Tnxman307. So regardless of the The Maiden City they are still a sock and block evading editor. Have I got that right? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokers, how'd Factocop manage to get unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I asked the same question a few days ago, when he was edit warring over the Irish name of a soccer stadium. He had been indef'd at one point,[15] but somehow he convinced an admin that he wasn't a sock. Even disregarding that, he's got a pretty impressive rap sheet for a guy who's only been registered for 2 months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, what is the Irish for "He gawn, bye-bye!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Tá sé imithe buíochas a ghabháil le Dia. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Factocop accounts needs to be blocked as a sock-puppet. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised he hasn't been already. This needs an immediate indef placed on the main account. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the admins will take care of it once they've finished their weekly bowling outing. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, why wasn't I invited? *sniff* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, bowling is dullsville. Sometimes it's so quiet you can hear a pin drop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: it is correct that I blocked Factocop per WP:DUCK as a sock of TMC (TheMaidenCity). Blue_is_better was blocked per the CU evidence of being Factocop. This "spilling over" of one dispute to another page about Northern Irleand being/not being a country is similar to TMC's MO. I've asked Shell Kinney for clarification on the unblock. It was based on private evidence so if she can comment I've asked her to leave a note here--Cailil ^talk 10:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• • In the meantime, could you extend the current temporary block until you get an answer? It's due to expire soon, and it's clear from his talk page (including reference to this discussion as "rubbish") that the block has so far done nothing to change his approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • Factocop's claim that he was cleared of all cases of sockpuppettry is totally misleading. He admitted to being Pilgrimsquest and Dame edna uk, and even admitted to evading the block as an IP mere hours before his indefinite block was removed by Shell Kinney. Quite why this self-confessed abusive sockpuppeteer is allowed to edit is beyond me, that he is apparently not The Maiden City does not change the abusive sockpuppetry he has admitted to. O Fenian (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible socks

Factocop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Blue is better (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pilgrimsquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The_Maiden_City (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City/Archive

BritishWatcher was not mentioned in the SPI, and is still active, but here[16] Blue is better indicates he is a sock of BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which he immediately reverted when he realized that he had given the game away.

Here[17] and here[18] Pilgrimsquest claims to be a sock of Factocop while denying being Blue is better (nor Maiden City, in another link).

If you look at their histories, they are all pushing the same anti-Republic of Ireland viewpoint and sharing invective for specific other users, especially O Fenian.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that I've seen BritishWatcher make intelligently-thought out edits. Although, both Factocop and BritishWatcher do suffer from WP:IDONTGETIT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDECLINETOREADTHATPOLICY, and WP:WHONEEDSCOMMONSENSE at times. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That may well be, but the blocked editor Blue is better appears to be a sock of BritishWatcher. The checkuser is feverishly studying this matter, as we speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Has an SPI been filed - where? Has BW been notified? If BW is a sock, he should be treated no differently and suffer the same fate as any other sock. Many socks make intelligent edits, that does not excuse the behaviour. A CU should clear it up fairly quickly. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have notified BritishWatcher. The SPI at the top of this sub-section is the only SPI that I'm aware of. Supposedly, the admin who released Factocop from bondage recently is looking into this situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the edit given above where blueisbetter replaced BW's sig proves anything, it stood for awhile. I actually remember it, considered it a Blueisbetter mistake at the time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It actually only stood for a minute or two, as he reverted himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of similarity of interest in one side of the British Isles topic, and a degree of similarity in style, although BritishWatch, while he can get chippy sometimes, doesn't seem to go ballastic like those other guys do/did. So it could have been a mistake, but it's a weird mistake to make. I'd just like to have a checkuser look into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not a sock and i dont mind a checkuser making sure if it is really needed. The second post currently displayed on factocops talk page is by me asking him to read the IMOS and that it needs to say Derry. Ive also undone quite a few edits where people change Derry to Londonderry. I am not a fan of the present agreement on use of Derry / Londonderry but ive not gone around changing it like some socks have. Ive undone such changes and even reported some to AIV. Ive not been active in recent weeks on wikipedia, some of the things that have been taking place over the past month or so on here have been pretty depressing. This sadly reaffirms it even more. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

'Tis best for everyone, that the CUs be run, so as to clear up any doubts. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And I'd feel pretty fooled if BW turns out to be a sock because he certainly doesn't act like one. So I'd still wager he's not one, but a CU will confirm. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear things up, Factocop appealed to the Ban-Appeals SubCommittee with the claim that he was not Blue is better. The Arbs reviewed and decided that claim was correct; I carried out the unblocking, but I'm just the paper-pusher there :) I don't believe the bit about Pilgrimsquest was brought up at all during the review. With that in mind I re-checked Factocop and confirmed that he is also Pilgrimsquest (talk · contribs) and Dame edna uk (talk · contribs); I have blocked the Factocop account indefinitely. Blue is better is unrelated (but iirc the last SPI found different socks there) and BritishWatcher is unrelated to all of the above. Shell ^babelfish 17:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Would I be right in saying that User:Clonbony is also a sock of Factocop, based on this report? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm..based on the data I would have said Clonbony was unlikely (but a single-purpose spam account), probably best to ask MuZemike directly since he may well have information I don't. Shell ^babelfish 20:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I never doubted BW. Somehow, I couldn't ever picture him wanting to hide United Kingdom with a pipe-link. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As I sampled BritishWatch's contributions, I became reasonably convinced that he was not a sock of "Factocopy", but I wanted to be sure, and checkuser has since cleared him. If Clonbony is a sock of both Facto and Maiden, then Facto would indeed be a sock of Maiden after all. I'm not so sure that matters at this point. I think there is enough awareness of these one or two sockfarms out there now, to raise a red flag when or if yet another seemingly new account dives immediately into these orange-and-green controversies from out of the blue. (Did I leave out any color metaphors?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to use purple prose, but I think you meant to say "yellow-bellied sockfarms" if that's not too violet an adjective. THF (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't know how close I came to saying that, begorrah. But the purple prose one is good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying Shell and just as a note to everyone TMC has a history of 'stirring it' so that claim to be BW was probably just a disruptive attempt to cause trouble for BW--Cailil ^talk 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact he reverted it almost instantly is what led me to think that it was a Freudian slip (I've seen it happen before). But I couldn't find anything else to concretely tie them together. But it's better to know than to wonder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked for conformation on User:Clonbony being another sock of Factocop. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, User:Clonbony is  Confirmed as User:Factocop, along with User:Dame edna uk. I have also double-checked and verified mine and Tnxman307's earlier findings that User:Pilgrimsquest, User:Blue is better, and User:NI4Life are also confirmed as Factocop. –MuZemike 22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's possible for one person to edit in two completely separate locations simultaneously, BritishWatcher and Factocop are  Unrelated. –MuZemike 22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

POV forks of Communist terrorism

Left-wing terrorism was created as a POV fork of Communist terrorism and recent edits have deleted over 80% of that article and moved to the POV fork in a coordinated manner. It is asserted that the deletion of 80% was by "agreement" whilst I find no such agreement. Might some admin kindly review the articles and see why the POV fork exists, and the move of material without any merge discussion and without any moving of edit history ought to occur? Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried reverting? Is there a discussion on the talk page which supports the move? What you've brought up here isn't per se a problem. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Full list of diffs posted on your UT page. One editor warned me that I would face sanctions if I disputed the new POVforks. Collect (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

[19] is my edit quoting the coordination of editors. (basically saying precisely how they intended to delete Communist terrorism as an article after the RfC to change the title was clearly rejected.

[20] shows creation of the Left wing terrorism article.

[21] shows massive deletion from the parent article. [22] shows Igny reverting my edit.

[23] shows moving a large section (without preserving edit history). [24] shows moving almost all the rest with the claim "per talk." [25] I reverted the move to the POVfork. [26] then redeleted the content calling it delete POV fork content per talk (making the apparent assertion that the original article is the "fork"! [27] Anotether then asserted that the deletion was revert to talk page agreement) which does not exist.

[28] One editor asserts that the article Communist terrorism falls under Digwuren and warns me that I will be sanctioned for edit war if I dispute the POVfork. Sigh. The fact is that two editors knew they were creating a POVfork, established the means for deleting the original article, and are carrying it out contrary, IMHO, to WP policies. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

<sigh...> Communist terrorism is the POV-fork here. this article is being defended (fairly tendentiously) by two editors (Collect (talk · contribs) and Justus Maximus (talk · contribs)) to make the argument that Marxist philosophy generally put explicitly advocates for terrorism, which is not supported anywhere in the literature. The sticking point here is that some early Marxists talked about 'revolutionary terror' (the extirpation of a ruling class, ala the terror in the French revolution), and C & JM are using the coincidental equivalence of the word 'terror' to argue for Marxist support of modern terrorism. It's just a silly argument on the face of it, but there's no getting through to them on the point.

Collect, I imagine, is hoping to use administrative power to defend the POV-assertions being made in the article, since there's no appropriate sourcing or argumentation for his position. You might bear that in mind as you look into the situation. --Ludwigs2 17:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange - I made no comments about anything other than the title which was kept in a RfC for title change. The issue about POVforks is which arrticle was on WP first, and attacks on me do not help your case on that. Collect (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect: giving my impressions of the failings of your reasoning do not constitute an attack on you. If you don't like that I think your argument is silly, make a better or clearer argument. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Collect's claim is absolutely false. He states that "It is asserted that the deletion of 80% was by "agreement" whilst I find no such agreement." In actuality, the key point here is that no consensus was needed for this move. I demonstrated that the content I moved to the 'Left wing terrorism' article did belong to this article and not to the Communist terrorism article. This has been done using a neutrally formulated google.scholar search procedure and noone has pointed at any concrete flaw in this procedure. Since overwhelming majority of academic sources describe the moved content as "Left wing terrorism" and not as "Communist terrorism", the move of the content to the more appropriate article is a neutrality issue that cannot be superseded by the editor's consensus. I explained that on the article's talk page several times (and noone, besides Collect and, probably Justus Maximus, objected). I also encouraged other editors (on both talk pages) who may disagree with my results to do alternative gscholar search, followed by about a week long pause before the move. Collect was perfectly aware of all of that, so the only plausible explanation for all of that is that he tries deliberately mislead people. (Of course, I would be glad if someone proved I was wrong).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Another Collect's false claim is: "One editor warned me that I would face sanctions if I disputed the new POVforks." The editor who warned him was me [29]. However, I warned him not about disputing some POVfork, but because he reverted the move that has been done in accordance with neutrality requirement, made after a long discussion on both talk pages, and supported by majority editors. In addition, the reverts made by Collect were supplemented by misleading edit summaries (the text was not "deleted", it was moved).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)IOW the edit summary claiming agreement was wrong? But that edit summary exists - hence your assertion that the statement is "absolutely false" is false itself. Google is not considered a valid source for naming articles. As for your personal attack that I am "deliberately trying to mislead people" - I ask you redact instantly. Read WP:NPA. The issue here, moreover, remains whether setting up a POVfork and then deleting sections (80%) of the original article is proper on WP. Period. Note that the rename argument failed - this is a backdoor method of achieving what was not accomplished by any consensus. BTW, moving without moving edit history is deletion by any standards. Collect (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not google, but google scholar. You are supposed to know the difference between these two.

With regard to my claim that your statement was false, I doubt it was a personal attack. You claimed that I deleted the content, whereas in actuality I just moved it to the more appropriate article. You claimed that I referred to some alleged consensus, whereas my major point was that the content must be moved independent of any consensus, you claimed that I warned you about sanctions for disputing the new POVforks, whereas my warning had a relation to the reverts made against the neutrality policy and supplemented by misleading edit summaries. Obviously, all these your claims were false, and, taking into account that I explained the issue many times, I have a serious reasons to suspect that that was done deliberately. However, if you will let me know that you didn't do these false claims deliberately I'll gladly retract the statement regarding the deliberate nature of your claims. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't the articles have the potential of being non-pov forks? Surely there an article could be written about general left-wing terrorism with a spinnout of a subarticle specifically on communist terrorism? This seems to be an issue of a content dispiute - namely what the articles should include and how they should relate to eachother. That is outside of the purview of this board. Requests for POV checks should be made elsewhere. If there are ownership issues, as ludwigs2 suggests, or other kinds of misconduct then that should be presented clearly and with diffs. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The original diff the content move was based on is here [30]. I demonstrated that all these terrorist groups are characterised by the words "Left wing terrorism" and not "Communist terrorism" by reliable sources (by contrast to google, gscholar look predominantly through academic sources). These post was made on Oct 24, so everybody had a lot of time for presenting their counter-arguments. However, no counter-arguments followed. Based on that results, I proposed to move the content to the Leftist terrorism which was just an disambiguation page, however, other editors preferred to create a Left-wing terrorism article, which, probably was more accurate, because it was in agreement with what the source said. Taking into account that the move was done based on what majority RS say, that cannot be characterised as POVfork (even if it fits a content fork criteria).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

PS Interestingly, the 'Left wing terrorism' article was created on 19 April 2006 [31] whereas 'Communist terrorism' only on 29 nMarch 2007 [32]. What POV fork are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Maunus: I think there may be a valid article on communist terrorism (or at least a valid subsection on the topic at left-wing terrorism or under revolutionary terrorism), the problem is keeping the POV-assertions in check. that would be easier if there was no content fork on the topic. --Ludwigs2 20:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Another problem with a 'communist terrorism' article is that 'communism' and 'Marxism' are not synonymous, whereas the article as it stood seemed to argue that they were. This confusion is likely to be unavoidable in an article that does not go into great detail explaining terms. An article on 'left-wing terrorism' on the other hand merely needs to provide WP:RS that any group included is both 'left-wing' and 'terrorist' - much simpler, and less likely to cause the sort of endless debate that plagues this topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Collect:

• Since I recreated the article Left-wing terrorism, you should have informed me of this discussion thread, which you did not.
• I recreated the article before Petri Krohn commented on my talk page about it.
• The text was moved from CT to LWT after discussion among editors. Your edit-warring on this is contrary to the warning that the Arbitration Committee has issued you against edit-warring on certain topics, that includes CT.
• The article CT includes many topics, including the views of Marx, the actions of Communist governments and left-wing terrorists. Whether or not CT is a legitimate topic is debatable, but it clearly has a broader scope than LWT. Calling it a POV fork is like calling "Cities in California" a POV fork of "Cities in the USA".
• Can you please explain what you find POV about the article LWT. Other than the material transferred in, everything is sourced to mainstream academic writing on terrorism, which defines LWT as a specific type. The others are right-wing terrorism, nationalist terrorism, single issue terrorism, religious terrorism and state sponsored terrorism. Since all the other generally accepted major types of terrorism have their own articles, is their any reason why this type should not?

TFD (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

First - the discussion was not intended to be about any editors at all, just about the article. Diffs were posted only after they were requested, again not mentioning anyone individually. The "discussion" was nowhere near a consensus as Paul recognizes above. So much for any claim of that sort. And the term "POVFORK" refers to setting up a new article in order to remove an older article - I need not assert any specific POV for it to be a POVFORK. And OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is well known as a non-reason for any act on WP, so the existence of an article on "Christian terrorism" would have zilch bearing on whether the new article, and the 80% shrinkage of an existing article in order to make the original article a near stub, is a POVFORK. I assert that it is a POVFORK pretty much by definition on WP:POVFORK. Collect (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "The "discussion" was nowhere near a consensus as Paul recognizes above." One more false claim. Although my point was that no consensus was needed, I never stated there were no consensus. In actuality, Collect and, probably, Justus Maximus were the only persons who opposed to the move (without providing any serious arguments) [33]

Re "Whether or not CT is a legitimate topic is debatable, but it clearly has a broader scope than LWT" Cannot fully agree. Since "Communist" is a subset of "Left wing", the LWT is supposed to have a broader scope. However, taking into account that the major part of the 'Communist terrorism' article belonged to the 'Left wing terrorism' (and was moved there), the current scope of the 'Communist terrorism' article is unclear. Instead of starting this useless quarrel, Collect should have find new sources and, based on that identify the scope of this article (which is supposed to be "terrorism associated with Communism sensu stricto, not with the Leftist movement").--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ugh! Ok, if we're going to get into a debate about whether left-wing is a subset of communist or vice-versa - a debate, I'll suggest, that cannot help but devolve into furious polemics - then we should just do the reasonable thing which would be to create an article called Revolutionary Terror and merge left-wing, communist, right-wing and any other terror-forks you care to mention into it. that article might be over-long, but once we've gotten that into a decent shape we can discuss creating content forks in a reasoned and balanced manner (as opposed to the current trench warfare approach). how does that sound? all in favor of creating the Revolutionary Terror article and bulk merging, say 'aye!' --Ludwigs2 23:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I assume Revolutionary Terror would not cover the use of modern terrorism by ostensible revolutionaries. So Pol Pot would be in; but Red Army Faction would be out? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The attempt to combine all of that under the name "revolutionary terror" (without "ism") may cause a problem. Some mainstream sources define terrorism as a "weapon of the weakest", implying that only small groups that conduct a hopeless struggle without well articulated program used to resort to such tactics. These sources separate terrorism from guerilla warfare and state terror. I didn't do any exhaustive search, so I have no idea if these views are mainstream, however, I would say that it would be incorrect to combine small group terrorism and state terror in a single article.

The idea to create a Revolutionary Terror article seems good, because many sources draw parallelism between Jacobin dictatorship and later revolutionary regimes. However, the discussion about this issue goes far beyond the subject of this thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Request to close ANI is not the place to discuss content disputes. TFD (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Creation of POVforks and coordinated edits to reduce an extant article by 80% or more is not a "content dispute" but one of WP:GAME on the part of those who coordinated tactics with the specific aim of removing an article which they were unable to get a name change for. Collect (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

One more false accusation. Please, provide an evidence of any coordinated actions. Please, note, that I moved the content unilaterally to comply with neutrality policy, and my post was made not to get a support for this move, but to inform the editors that the content will be moved irrespectively to any consensus if the proof will not be provided that my search procedure was biased, flawed or wrong. This invitation was addressed to everyone, including you, however, no serious counter-arguments have been provided. WP:AT says that "article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article." The google scholar results provided by me demonstrated that, judging by what reliable sources say, a significant part of the article's content belonged to another article. I am asking you again, do you have any concrete objection against that conclusion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The only 'coordinated action' here, collect, lay in my recommendation to everyone involved that we stop debating the issue and begin editing the article. The reason I recommended that is because we'd had pages upon pages of talk-space debate in which neither you nor Justus showed any inclination to give a single inch on any point whatsoever. You're both reasonably intelligent, and you are both capable of endless streams of rhetoric on this issue, so the talk page had turned into a frigging debating club. what's the use of that? If you want to go back to talking, let's do that, but the 'King of the Hill' game is over. --Ludwigs2 16:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect is yet again repeating the accusation of "coordinating edits". Talk pages exist precisely for that purpose – for coordinating the editing process. What would be unacceptable would be doing the coordination off-line, on some secret mailing list. As for the claim of efforts of coordination, I have moved my "infamous" comment on TFD's talk page to a user essay. You can find it here: User:Petri Krohn/How to get rid of POV crap. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Is wikipedia policy to confirm that the Bible is a story book?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Enough - {{In-universe/Generic}} covers the required tag; discuss renaming it if desired on the relevant template talk page. Unarchive this thread only if you're willing to justify a need for further discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Rd232 ^talk 12:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

---

We have two editors, Cush (talk · contribs) and Banzoo (talk · contribs) who persist on tagging biblical articles as fiction similar to comic books and calling the bible a work of fiction. While they are more than entitled to their opinion, forcing it into articles appears to be a violation of NPOV to me. We have always kept the discussion about the Bible's fact or fiction in the appropriate articles such as Historicity of the Bible, and we keep Biblical articles like Solomon's Temple free from fiction or comic book tags. Now Cush and Banzoo appear to be tag-teaming to push this view. Can someone take a look and see if 1) I'm right or wrong and 2) apply any necessary preventative measures? This is getting to the point of an edit war, and despite my believing that their pushing is disruptive and not covered by 3RR, I'd prefer to get an outsider's perspective. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the Bible is a nice piece of literature in the fiction genre, this seems to be disruptive POV pushing pointy editing. Heiro 13:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cush and Banzoo warned about disruptive tagging. Adding terms like "mythical" to describe King Solomon is less clear, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is unnecessary. That is handled in Solomon#Historical figure. We have wikilinks for a reason. -- Avi (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Really off-topic here, bordering on flamebait. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just another example of editors using "myth" to mean "fictional", while trying to hide behind one particular dictionary definition of "myth". The don't do that with the Quran, of course, because there would be hell to pay. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)because there would be hell to pay - pun intended? Agreed though; there is the same aim behind the "myth" edits, even though they are more marginal --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC) If it became known that wikipedia editors were labeling the Quran as "fiction", those editors would probably end up on the same list that Salmon Rushie is on: future targets. Those atheistic editors may be POV-pushers, but they're not crazy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Non sequitur. Hell, I'd do it just to prove you wrong, but I'm not in the habit of being WP:POINTy. This whole "they're afraid of teh Moooslims" canard is tiresome. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Baseball Bugs what is your point here? I don't see anything productive in your comment about Islam, and it certainly has nothing to do with the current conversation. Are you implying that we edit Islam related topics here while tip toeing around because we're all afraid of the wrath of some fundamentalist cleric's fatwa? That's completely absurd and the insinuations about Muslim retribution your making are one step from hate speech in my book. Please leave such comments at the door before you enter. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC) The point is that they're perfectly willing to attack Christianity because they know they can get away with it, but they're unwilling to address the same issues in Islam. If the Bible is fictional, so is the Quran. Yet nobody makes that point in the Quran article. How odd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The part of the biblical story which deals with such kings as David and Solomon are works of fiction. That is not a personal opinion but the overall understanding. There is no archaeological or historical evidence that even slightly hints at the historicity of said kings or any edifices that would have been erected during their supposed reign. Unfortunately there is not other tag that can be used to indicate that an article is written in a manner that it can be mistaken for representing scientific research based on reliable sources. As I had stated before, "Solomon's Temple" must be presented as "Arthur's Camelot". The Bible is not a reliable source, and until such time as any confirmation for the biblical claims comes from archaeology and historical research the article deals with a subject out of a work of fiction. Of course the editors driven by their religious views differ, but in an encyclopedia that should have no weight. ≡ CUSH ≡ 13:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just my two cents: for possible archaeological evidence of King David's existence, see Tel Dan Stele and Mesha Stele. --Sreifa (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Historical accounts in the bible should not be treated any different from other ancient sources of infomation. Who is to say that the stuff recorded in ancient steles is also factual and not embellishments or untruths? Chesdovi (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"No historical evidence". That's typical atheistic circular reasoning: "The Bible is fictional, therefore it does not depict historical events, therefore it is fictional..." and so on. Making the bold assertion that the accounts are false brings to mind what a radio character used to say to doubters: "Vas you dere, Charlie?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It goes without saying that stuuf in the bible had been verified by outside sources, List of Biblical figures identified in extra-Biblical sources. Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hush! Don't confuse them by presenting facts. It might scramble their brains, such as they are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, could you please refrain from your generalising slurs against atheists and atheism? I don't know the agenda of the editors in question, but certainly, like fundamentalist Christians are not representative of all Christians, the same applies to atheists? --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Labeling the Bible as "fiction" is itself a slur, so don't go lecturing me about "slurs". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, someone needs to learn that two wrongs doesn't make a right. With your slurs of all atheists on account of the actions of two editors here puts you in exactly the same category as they are. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't slur all atheists. Just the ones who try to use language to slur Christianity or other religions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think slurring has any place in Wikipedia at all, regardless of the reasons for it. But you did manage to slur all atheists by claiming something to be "typical atheistic circular reasoning". --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am an atheist, but I do think that categorising the Bible as fiction is wrong, if not outright POV-warring. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia have double standards? Is it wrong to add a tag to push clarity into an article? Readers have the right to distinguish mythical stories from historical facts. The current state of the article is highly misleading to readers. I think it is a first to consider adding a tag that encourages clarifying an article as a POV! I did not add any text in the article. The only intention is clarity and avoiding double standards. Why the stories in the bible should not be treated like any different book? Either Wikipedia have a single and only standard that is applied to all articles, or it should be stated clearly since the start that Wikipedia favor some subjects, therefore they are treated in a way that is misleading to readers. --Banzoo (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: does this dispute hinge merely on the use of the word "fiction" in the {{inuniverse}} template? Because eg here the template seems appropriate aside from that issue - the article doesn't really discuss the subject (Solomon's Temple) from a perspective external to the Bible. But there is plenty of discussion about the historicity of the Temple, which shouldn't be entirely tucked away in other articles - it should be at least summarised there. Perhaps the quickest solution to this would be to add a parameter to the template which avoid the use of the word "fiction". Or else a subtemplate, like {{In-universe/Anime and manga}}, i.e. {{In-universe/Bible}}, with a wording that upsets no-one. Rd232 ^talk 13:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why can't fiction be called fiction? Does Wikipedia bow to religious doctrine?? As soon as I find some time I will suggest a new introduction of the article in question. The mythical nature of the subject must be conveyed unambiguously. ≡ CUSH ≡ 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of "double standards", neither the words "myth" nor "fiction" appear in the Qur'an article. Would the anti-Bible POV-pushers here have us believe that the Qur'an is factual? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Myth" and "fiction" are not at all the same thing. In addition, the historicity of different things in the Bible varies enormously. So in addressing the topic as a whole on Wikipedia, we should be neutral: "fiction" is inappropriate. The non-historicity of any specific thing can be discussed in context with appropriate evidence, but that is not what the template is for, and it appears that the wording of the template is the only issue. Rd232 ^talk 14:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. The issue here is not the Bible as a whole, but one particular claim made therein. There are indeed other stories in the Bible that are confirmed by extrabiblical sources, but not the Solomon material. ≡ CUSH ≡ 14:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's an argument akin to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there is a solid point here; that as a historical account Biblical only data is not generally accepted as accurate historical record. So we have a disconnect; do we present purely factual history or do we present it from a Christian perspective. Clearly the former is preferred; so while Solomon's temple does not really qualify as "fiction" it is also not (yet) historical fact. The article probably needs some tweaking to establish that, but does it need the tag? Probably not; that feels pointy. (it is important to remember in all of this, that the Bible is generally not accepted as a reliable historical document - by which I mean it is widely recognised in scholarship that it contains both historical fact and fiction, and the problem is sorting out a from b. So in the context of Wikipedia we are best to treat there articles as Christian history and history as described in the Bible (where no other historical context is available). The articles should reflect that while they are based on a historical document the context and reliability of the Bible in objective history is problematic and so it exists in a "no mans land" of unproven historicity.) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why a "Christian perspective", and "Christian history", in relation to a story that originates in Judaism?Griswaldo (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yeh sorry, Freudian slip there. Should have said "religious" but I was trying to disambiguate (as someone mentioned Islam as well) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the Bible is fictional, in the sense that a lot of its assumptions and stories are absolutely not supported by scientific consensus about cosmology,history,archeology etc. About the Quran, well, most of it is fictional as well, just like the Bible, the Book of Mormon or the Scientology OT documents. If this is not clear in the Quran article, we have to make it clear. Obvious. --Cyclopia^talk 14:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Those would be the scientists who say the bumblebee can't fly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That, appropriately enough, is a myth.--Korruski^Talk 14:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed a myth that the bumblebee cannot fly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, it's a myth that there are "scientists who say the bumblebee can't fly". Why you peddle untruths like that, I really cannot say. DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That story is based on a study that came from a scientist, as was widely discussed at the "common misconceptions" page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe any scientist has ever seriously suggested that bumblebees 'cannot fly'. They may have said something similar as a joke, or they may have said that they could not currently explain how bumblebees can fly, as it was contrary to their understanding of physics. If it was the latter, then this would be just one in a long list of things that scientists have, at one time, been unable to explain but, later, were able to explain as their understanding grew. That is rather the point of science, after all. Either way you appeared to be using this strange little fact as an attempt to undermine the credibility of scientists? If so, I simply cannot understand your point.--Korruski^Talk 16:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly, as a simile it was not a very good one - and indeed incorrect as well. The origins of the story and vague, but it was certainly never suggested in a serious scientific way that Bumblebees couldn't fly. At best it is a story from the early origins of our understanding of insect flight and aerodynamics. In fact the assertion was not that Bumblebees couldn't fly - it was that our current equations indicated they should not be able to fly, and therefore we were missing something. It is simply a scientific quip. It's use here was as a logical fallacy to forward and argument, unsuccessfully. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

See Bumblebee#Myths. I am not sure what the buzz is about here. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

They're correct. The bible is a work of fiction. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa

Of the discussions that really should not take place at ANI, the historicity of the Bible is by far... the most recent. Is there some reason that a neutrally worded version of {{in-universe/Bible}} cannot resolve this issue? Rd232 ^talk 14:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's religion. Reasonability (on either side) doesn't enter into the equation. That said, this does sound like a good compromise. Which is why it probably won't happen... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A tag won't resolve the issue. A rewrite of the article would. ≡ CUSH ≡ 14:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is your tagging and aritcle with a dubious use of In universe Temp. I wouldnt have this proposed one be a variation of "In universe" but some sort of template that is simliar would seem to be an effective and appropriate solution here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think RD232's idea is a good one, but unfortunately it doesn't solve the problem for editors like Cush, because they are more interested in associating the biblical stories with the term "fiction" than with improving the article. That's the real problem, and it wont be solved with practical solutions I'm afraid.Griswaldo (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As long the article does not convey the Solomon+Temple story as real history, the term "fiction" does not have to appear. Right now, the article does not make it clear enough that the biblical story is without extrabiblical confirmation. It gives dates and thus gives the impression to deal with actual history. That is unencyclopedic at best. ≡ CUSH ≡ 15:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No your right, It solves reduces the content dispute element but not the conduct dispute The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not my conduct, but the rampant religionism throughout articles that deal with biblical stories and present them as real history. ≡ CUSH ≡ 15:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am about as atheist as it gets, but I call bollocks. A fictional or historical book doesn't become absolutely true just because a religion decides to believe in it and then passes it down for thousands of years. But if it wasn't fictional in the first place it also doesn't magically become completely false just because people, including some morons, believe in it. As far as I know all the books that mention that temple are historically oriented and have only later become part of a religious canon. If a Vatican Council decides to integrate the Ilias in the bible as part of a new "Third Testament", will that suddenly turn Troy into a purely fictional place? Hardly. Hans Adler 15:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

But that s not what is going on. The Bible does not include Solomon and his Temple from elsewhere. It is the only text that speaks of either. ≡ CUSH ≡ 15:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty important historical cities, buildings, etc. that we only know about from one or two historical sources. In this case the sources are Samuel, Kings and Chronicle. These were separate books before at some point the Jews decided that they were important enough to include them in their canonical writings. It is conceivable that when the Second Temple was built, some people invented the first to give their new building a fake ancient history. But in the absence of actual evidence for that, that's basically a conspiracy theory. You must really distinguish between the fictional books that were incorporated in the bible and that a vocal minority of people (mostly in the US) read in literal ways that were obviously never intended by their authors, and historical books that were also incorporated and that are fraught with the same problems as any other extremely old history book and therefore need interpretation by competent historians. Hans Adler 16:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's perfectly compatible with atheism to consider the Bible (and similar scriptures in other religions) a work of moral philosophy, rather than having to stoop to "fiction" or "the inspired word of God". You don't have to agree with its moral philosophy any more than you have to agree with Nietzsche's, but some people do and such people should be shown at least the minimum of human respect. Physchim62 (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Since "myth" really best applies to only certain parts of the Bible, and its use in that technical meaning would be misunderstood by the vast majority of our readers, it is probably most appropriate to make sure the text documents that events and persons depicted are believed by many to be historical, but that such historicity or the accuracy of the accounts have been disputed over the years. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Folklore would perhaps be better than myth. DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • My two cents: Is the Bible factual? I don't think so, but then I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't. Is it fiction? Probably not all of it - it seems at least in part to be based on oral accounts of historical events, later written down. Other parts are probably better described as 'mythic' in the technical sense, and whether they are 'true' or not isn't of significance in assigning this status. So what is the Bible? It is a holy book of a major world religion, taken by many (most?) believers as a source for a moral code, and a minority of believers as literal truth. The idea that all books must either be 'factual' or 'fictional' is frankly nonsensical if one is discussing moral codes, and of little help if one is trying to understand religion (which is real even if the beliefs aren't necessarily). Labelling the Bible as 'fiction' is just plain silly. Atheists can have irrational beliefs too.. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I propose the following compromize. If the eternal inflation idea is correct, statements in the Bible that do not violate the basic conservation laws, would be factually correct. See also here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"If...". That has got to be one of the most wildly off-topic arguments anyone could come up with. If 'eternal inflation' etc is true then everything that can happen does. One of the many things that can (and therefore must) happen is that such off-topic nonsense is ignored. I propose that we assume that in this universe it is, and get back on topic pronto... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How about Template:Religious Story/Bible and let people draw their own conclusions. The Eskimo (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd think Template:Religious Belief/Bible would be more neutral. Or Template:Holy Book/Bible? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Done

{{In-universe/Generic}}. Now I suggest you all disperse before you get hit by some large wet fish, which (neatly) is both entirely fictional and quite real. Rd232 ^talk 16:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That still includes a category calling the work "fictional", which doesn't resolve all the issues here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. This is not about distinguishing fact and fiction, it's about how far we can trust certain historical texts that have only survived by accident, because they were made part of a religious canon, so that most of the other literature from that era no longer exists. We wouldn't use such a category for an article that uses Herodotus too uncritically, and neither should we do in this case. Hans Adler 16:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Category removed, and any template renaming can be discussed at Template talk:In-universe/Generic. Are we done yet? Rd232 ^talk 17:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The issue with a tag like that is the way it automatically categorizes the article in a way that implies that books like the Bible (and the Quran and the Mahabrata and all the rest) as fiction in the literary sense of the word. The problem is that religious texts occupy a more nuanced place within the world than "This is a fictional work like The Hobbit" and "This is a work of scientific fact like the Journal of the American Chemical Society". The world of writing is not a set of binary choices where a work is either stone cold fact or completely made up. The role of religious texts within their religion should not be minimized or trivialized by those outside of that religion. Wikipedia articles on religious texts need to BOTH make clear the internal AND external analysis of religious texts, i.e. they need to cover both theology and outside commentary. There is a place for critical commentary and analysis on religious texts, even on reporting on notable critical commentary which discusses the historicity of religious works, or lack thereof. However, to trivially assign a tag which equates a religious text with a simple work of fiction is grossly disruptive, as it is essentially the opinion of the placing editor that the religion itself is trivially fictional, and it belittles the role that religion plays in the lives of many people. If I may be so bold, Wikipedia must be agnostic on the veracity of religion in general. It should not take the stand that religions (and by extension, their holy texts) are true or false, rather Wikipedia articles should be silent on that issue. This is a case where doing nothing at all is preferable to doing anything. Don't tag the articles with anything, unless some actual cleanup (grammar, referencing, etc.) needs to be done. --Jayron32 17:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Jayron. Haploidavey (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Up to a point, Lord Copper. In particular, "to trivially assign a tag which equates a religious text with a simple work of fiction is grossly disruptive..." overlooks the fact that there previously was no specific tag for this problem ("in-universe"ness without commentary) which avoided the term. Now there is. Rd232 ^talk 17:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The changes you have made since I left my above comments appear to be good; that is the removal of fiction from the tag is helpful. Thanks. --Jayron32 17:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the problem with a tag like that is I created it a few minutes ago. I've removed the fact/fiction categorisation, but not quite got an alternative to actually work. Somebody else please fix it. Rd232 ^talk 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I don't think this is a good option. Tags are supposed to be temporary, until someone comes along and fixes the issues therein and removes the tag. The nature of this case would mean that the tag never gets removed, as there are no other sources. I personally think that just about everyone in the world, certainly everyone who has access to Wikipedia or can read English, has enough awareness of the Bible to know that it is a religious book, regardless of their opinion on historical accuracy or fact. This whole thing reeks of WP:POINT. Just because something can be labeled, does not always mean it should be labeled. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

See my comment below. Of course there are other sources. Rd232 ^talk 20:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we look at the article, rather than the tag

The article is not titled The Temple of Solomon in the Bible is it. If the article is supposed to be about Solomon's Temple but only includes information from the Bible, then it's a POV problem, not an 'in-universe' problem, because it doesn't adequately reflect all mainstream views on the subject. In this case someone needs to stop tagging it in-universe, and go away and find some archaeological information to make it more NPOV. If the intention is to have an article that only describes the Temple of Solomon as it is referred to in the Bible, then rename the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really a POV problem; the article is about Solomons Temple, a possibly historical building referenced in the Bible. The problem, particular to that article anyway, is how to present that in a way that makes clear the Bible is the root source without implying any strong bias against it (as a source). The article name is not at issue, neither is the content really. As I see it only minor tweaks are needed to fix this (which probably should have been done rather than tag it...) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I mean. If the article is intended to be about Solomon's temple generally, then it should cover what the Bible says about solomon's temple, what the archaeologists and historians say, what solomon's temple means as a cultural reference (eg in Mediaeval christianity and Islam, the connection to the Knights Templar etc etc). If it presents the biblical evidence as if it were an established fact, which seemed to be the complaint, then it's POV. It is fixable to an extent by being clear that the description comes from the bible, but is that the only problem? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The "in-universe" tag was ("fiction" issue aside) quite apposite: the article is primarily from the perspective of the Bible. No discussion of historicity, a handful of artifacts mentioned, no cultural significance, etc etc. It is not substantially different from an uncritical rendering of the Biblical view of the subject. Rd232 ^talk 18:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Elen, what happened to your legendary common sense? This temple was destroyed 2500 years ago, roughly half a millennium before the Library of Alexandria was destroyed. There aren't many texts left from that era, and apparently the only surviving texts that mention this particular temple are the three books of the bible that mention it. There are all sorts of problems with such an old text. E.g. it is for historians to decide whether the temple's description can be taken literally or should be seen as a metaphor for certain religious ideas. But the bible is now our only primary source for the temple, historical secondary sources being much later and therefore presumably useless. Obviously all scholarly discussions of the subject will focus on the primary source, and it's only natural for Wikipedia to do the same. Unless there is a dispute between modern scholars, in which case we should of course describe that as well. And in the unlikely event that they ever manage to get some excavations done on the Temple Mount, we may have to update the article, of course. (More likely, someone might develop a method for X-raying the mountain.) Hans Adler 18:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What on Earth are you (and others) talking about, as if there isn't plenty written about this? Yes, there's little or no contemporary sources for these sorts of things, but, for example Gscholar rapidly turns up something like this. Without a discussion of these issues the tag is justified ("Fiction" issue aside, i.e. my new template), and with them reasonably covered, it can be removed. Rd232 ^talk 19:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hans, Rd232 has got what I mean (I think). Solomon's temple isn't fictional like Hogwarts is fictional, it's clearly something (like the Hanging gardens of Babylon) described by ancient sources that purport to be history, and which may or may not have existed in something resembling the form described. So 'in-universe' is a meaningless thing to tag it with, and a great long discussion about whether the Bible is "TRUE(TM)" or not is irrelevant also (Wikipedia not treating the concept of 'Word of God' as constituting a reliable source). When we write an article, we set out to reflect all the significant and mainstream views from reliable sources. One view is that the descriptions in the various components of the bible are more or less history, and that Solomon's temple was 'something like that'. However, this is clearly not the only view on the subject - there's a lot of archaeology out there, there are records from the other major players on the world stage at the time, there's a whole bunch of hermeneutics and other studies - and if the article presents as if the only view is that the Bible more or less has the right of it, then that is POV. The article can certainly use the description from the Bible, but it must moderate it with all the other significant mainstream POVs.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Solomon's temple isn't fictional like Hogwarts is fictional, but it is fictional like Camelot is fictional.

And without the Bible, nobody would have ever come to the idea that Solomon or his temple could have existed. There is no occurrence of either outside the Bible. As plain as that. So what really are the possible POV here? ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem here is that in this article the Bible is not a considered as a religous text per se. You see, the Bible is a primary source document containing a lot of historical detail and even more fiction, folklore and embellishment. So the issue is not one of POV. It is one of finding the right academic assessments of the text and historical context. The term POV is so often thrown about in articles such as these, when actually it is not really the right way of phrasing the issue. The article does not (if you read it) present the POV that Solomons Temple really existed - but some parts of it are phrased in a way that makes it unclear that the details are historical reconstructions based on the source. So, the problem is not neutrality, but one of accuracy (in our writing, not the content). I know that seems like a finicky distinction, but I think viewing it in that way makes the argument less partisan :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, fairy snuff. If you see it as bad writing rather than bible-literalism, then that should be easy to remedy. Cush needs to unknot his pantyhose - we don't treat King Arthur or Gilgamesh as equivalent to Harry Potter either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. Some day, in a few thousand years, the Xenu story may be one of the few things that have survived from our age. (I hope not, actually.) In that case it will be a perfectly good historical source for the existence of a type of jet plane called "DC-8" at some point roughly around the 20th century. Hans Adler 23:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(I meant to add this to my text above but then you all replied :) I want to make the following point because, as an Atheist, it is easy to dismiss the Biblical canon when, actually, considered as a flawed primary source it is one of the few insights we have on early history): This particular example is the extreme example of this problem; because the Bible really is the only source we have. There is no occurrence of either outside the Bible.; this is a poor argument, once you understand the context. The Bible canon survived by virtue of being a religious text. Contemporary and later documentation from the time of the temple simply has not survived as well. As it is, probably Solomons Temples is an example of Biblical canon embellishing the truth (to a lesser or greater degree we do not know). So the way to look at this is not that the Bible, as a religious text, is spinning a fairy tale about a mythical temple. Instead we should look at this as possibly giving us a piece of insight into very early history - but with the caveat that there is nothing else to support the truth or inaccuracy of its existence. This is the approach most scholars will take.

In reply to Hans, you make a good point, and that is the core reason why the Bible is inherently flawed - not because it is definitely misleading, but because we struggle to verify much of the details --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The academic consensus is that the biblical kings David and Solomon are in fact purely fictitious and no such rulers existed. So Solomon's Temple was certainly not Solomon's. The remaining question is whether there was in fact a temple that preceded the Herodian Temple. Well, archeology and historical research do not confirm the existence of such an edifice. So does the article make it sufficiently clear that we are dealing with a story of literature and nothing more? ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Cush, I ageee with most of your statement BUT If memory serves we can't do archeological research to confirm or deny the second temple due to this little place called the Dome of the Rock The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, get some education. The Temple Mount has been dug up countless times throughout history. There are numerous caves and tunnels in it. And we know pretty well about the platform and its history. So archaeological records of the site are plenty. The current arrangement of administration of the site or the current building existing there are utterly irrelevant to the subject. And we are talking about the first temple here, anyways. ≡ CUSH ≡ 00:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah Forgive My ignorance as Scripture and the Israeli\biblical archeology has never been my speciality. I can tell you quite a bit about Plantation, Southeastern USA Archeology. By the way you ought to know Plunder of Centuries gone by only makes Archeologist have less data not more. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cush, I think your first statement is pushing it somewhat, I've never personally encountered a text that was prepared to be that dismissive, but I'm sure you have a reliable source that says that Solomon was a myth. I can find a couple that say that he probably wasn't a myth, including one that I'm sure you'll be familiar with, that believes the problem is that archaeologists should be looking among the Bronze Age sites, not the later ones. Your second statement is not necessarily relevant (Lincoln Cathedral wasn't built by the devil, but it's still an interesting building), and your third statement is pushing it somewhat again. I had it drummed into me that an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence (although that was referring to the Bronze Age in Britain, not in the Holy Land), and while it is true that there is no evidence for a structure of the kind referred to in the bible, on the site referred to in the bible, I am still seeing speculations in the mainstream as to what the sources might have referred to. And we don't treat Gilgamesh as literature either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Since Avi asked in the original post and no one has address it, my view is that this does not fall under any of the exemptions to the 3 revert rule. There was a full blown edit war on the page prior to the initial post in this thread, with at least editors already at 3 reverts within a 24 hour period, contrary to it being described as "getting to the point of an edit war". The rule of thumb is to revert once then take it to the talk page. There was very limited discussion of this on the talk page until after full protection was applied. Whether or not those adding the tag were being disruptive is besides the point; there is very little actual harm done by a tag on the top of an article. Sure, you may not like it and it may not be appropriate, but it will not be the end of the world if it says up another 24 hours. I think pretty much everyone could have acted better in this situation, and maintain that if everyone would have used the talk page it could have been discussed calmly without the need for administrator intervension. That said, the article is now fully protected, there is limited discussion of the content dispute on the talk page, and I see no reason for this thread to continue. -Atmoz (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention is necessary because there is no clear policy in WP about dealing with religious claims that touch on subjects of history or supposed history. WP demands reliable sources that establish historicity, except when it comes to biblical stories? The problem persists for many years now. At the moment, WP often conveys a view on ancient Near-Eastern history that is factually wrong, because it allows religious positions to supersede archaeological and historical research. It is always easy to quote the Bible, but it is a lot more effort to find the publications that scientifically deal with the various subjects in question. ≡ CUSH ≡ 22:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As long as the article's lede states that the depictions are based on Biblical sources, the reader is then able to decide for themselves whether to accept it as historically accurate or not. -- Avi (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You've got it right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

WP is built on reliable and verifiable sources, not on expressions of religious doctrine. Articles that give construction and destruction dates of an edifice in a geographically determinable spot are not religious but historical in nature. Just referring to the Bible is not sufficient in that case. Or so I thought. ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you put the Bible on hold for now, and go fix the similar problems in the Quran article. Then let us know how that works out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:DNTTR, I'm calling this a warning for you, Bugs. Your flogging this horse is becoming a taunt. I know you feel personally offended by this issue, and by Cush in particular, but you're really going over the line here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "personally" offended, I'm annoyed that the editors in question are pushing for Christianity to somehow be treated differently from Islam. I will point out, as regards warnings, that I typically do pay heed to what admins tell me. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop this. The issue at hand is an issue of Judaism. Christianity or Islam are pretty irrelevant to the subject. I am pushing for historical accuracy and for putting archaeological and historical research over religious doctrine. The Qur'an does not even remotely come into play here. ≡ CUSH ≡ 00:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment First thing I did this morning was a RFPP, its Fully locked now for 3 days (until 15:15, 13 November 2010 UTC time.) As this entire thread as been a Content dispute that should have been raised at WP:NPOVN I say this thread should be closed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This threat is only a symptom of a larger problem in WP, as stated by me above. Will the administrators address the issue? ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cush, work on proposing policy to fix the systematic bias instead of making WP:POINTY edits that cascade into edit wars. Or better yet avoid the areas that cuase you problems and head back to the Middle Earth and Ancient Egypt stuff where you dont get so agitated The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so you basically tell me to stfu and leave the field to the religious editors to convey as history whatever they come up with? Thanks a lot. ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No merely observing that such actions as todays are counter productive to your goal and put you at risk of being blocked. Best way to Fix Wiki is to fix policies that are unclear or vague as they are the ones that cause problems you are so concerned with. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Administrator intervention is necessary because there is no clear policy in WP about dealing with religious claims that touch on subjects of history or supposed history. Entirely misguided, if not comprehensively wrong. The administrators have a purely technical function; no special clout over the policy-building process at all. Suggest you re-read WP:ADMIN and WP:CON. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 23:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  Consensus does not work in articles that touch on matters of religion. So WP needs to have a clear policy on that. Who to ask for one? ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) OK; I recommended that you read WP:ADMIN. You obviously ignored my advice, or else you would have seen the sentence, "It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone." And the sentence, "Administrators should be a part of the community like any other editor, with no special powers or privileges when acting as an editor."
  Your opinion is that "consensus does not work" in particular controversial areas. Now you may be right (which would be unfortunate for the project, if a small victory for your good self!) or you may be wrong. I just don't know. But regardless of your thoughts on the matter, administrators have no editorial authority, nor authority over policy, above that of regular editors. It is imperative that you understand this very basic aspect of the way Wikipedia works. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 00:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And? Nevertheless, administrators are the ones who should be able to instruct editors how to launch a push for a new WP policy. ≡ CUSH ≡ 00:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No policy building is a legthy process not fit for ANI. you can propose policy over there -> at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I recomend starting a draft in user space and get feed back before proposing it at Village Pump The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any need for new policy: the existing ones cover this just fine. If there is a problem with one or two editors systematically not respecting them, then WP:RFCU and go from there. If there is a problem with substantial numbers of editors systematically not respecting them, it may eventually brew into an Arbcom case. Rd232 ^talk 00:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cush, it should be perfectly clear that while the Bible/Qu'uran/Bagavadgita etc are reliable sources for what they contain (ie we don't need a secondary source to confirm that the Bible says what ever it says in 2 Kings 23), the concept of 'the Word of God' does not constitute a reliable source in Wikipedia. Therefore, while one can says "The temple is recorded in 2 Kings 23 as being 200 cubits square with an elephant on top", based on that being what the Bible says; one cannot say "we know that the temple was 200 cubits square with an elephant on top", based on the Word of God being a reliable source. That's the key difference. The text is not fiction, but it's no different to any other ancient document that purports to be history, and claims that it is 'so' because the Bible said it must be refuted on those grounds. One would require reliable modern secondary souces to confirm that archaeologists now believe that the temple was approximately 200 cubits square with an elephant on top. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance but does the bible say there was an Elephant on top? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It might.... Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It had only been 100 cubits square until the elephant got on top of it. :'( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

is the elephant on the roof looking for the panda's bananas ? Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Could be. I'll bet you didn't know that there is a sizable Jewish contingent among elephants. You can sometime see them in circuses, wearing their yarmulkes. That's only the orthodox, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah a break through on the Elephant's Predicament! I was just informed by List of the animals in the Bible that Solomon had a Chimpanzee so natrually it was the Chimpanzee's banannas the elephant was surely looking for The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, part 2

Am I the only person to read this thread (well, I admit I read most of it until the curse of TL;DR kicked in) & more than wonder if every one of you hasn't been trolled? What real benefit has there been to this discussion about whether to treat some or all of the Bible as fiction? Will arriving at a new template or defining a proper definition of myth which does not include its pejorative connotations actually helping to write an encyclopedia. All that's happened is a bunch of otherwise intelligent folks have spent their time arguing & wikilawyering over an opinion held by a handful of militant & disrespectful atheists, time that could have been better spent doing something far more useful.

I hereby move that the two individuals responsible for this thread, Cush & Banzoo be either indefinitely blocked or community banned for trolling, this thread closed, & everyone involved in this discussion go fix some articles. And having said that & likely offended some of you for speaking bluntly, I'm off to bed. -- llywrch (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with atheism. Stop throwing that around as an insult. This has to do with accurately presenting biblical material as such without selling it as actual history. Doing so often violates numerous WP policies (NPOV, UNDUE, RS, NOR) and it is dishonest towards readers. ≡ CUSH ≡ 08:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• I really think you need some sleep. For thinking that you have the right to ban individuals for the sole reason that they inserted a tag that encourages clarity to be pushed inside an article? What next? Other people will consider the "citation needed" tag as disruptive and start banning whoever uses it? Please understand the content of the tag in question before jumping to unrelated conclusions. --Banzoo (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. The articles had issues, which the users sought to identify with a tag. There is now a template that allows them to do so without (I think) upsetting anyone (might possibly be renamed). What I would like to know is if there is any further discussion required here - the joking around above about elephants suggests not. Rd232 ^talk 09:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• The Bible isn't fiction, it's faith-drawn myth and parable told from within an historical background. Swaths of the latter are quite verifiable, other swaths aren't. So long as readers are straightforwardly told what's verified history and what's not, the goal as to any worry about misleading readers is met. Bushels of sources can be had to support the notion that from any meaningful editorial outlook, the Bible is not Harry Potter. Edit warring over this is... lame. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

@Gwen Gale: Many stories in the Bible are fiction. But in many articles on subjects related to the Bible language is used that does not convey that. BTW, it was not me who put in the fiction tag. I only restored it after it got removed. ≡ CUSH ≡ 11:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• • And, by implication, forgetting the atheism issue, and totally assuming good faith, Cush may be sincere but seriously ignorant on this subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Is Russian Wikipedia Corrupted ?

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

---

ru:Википедия:Заявки на арбитраж/Скайпочат (need to translate somehow)
Brief descripition:
In Russian wikipedia was revealed the Secret Society that includes part of Administrators, Arbiters, Bureaucrats, Checkusers and so on
by decsion of arbiters two persons were punished:
the one who revealed this secret society lost his rights for participation in discussions
the one of memebers lost his flag of Bureaucrat
no one else was punished
(cf. a half a year ago when was revealed another secret society that didn't have so many Administrators as memebers they had a lot of punishment) --Idot (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PS Now I am a candidate for Arbitres (please see ru:Википедия:Выборы арбитров/Осень 2010/Выдвижение), but for questions about this Secret Society [34] I was voluntarily blocked [35] (Idot (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

The English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over matters at the Russian Wikipedia. Meta might be a better place to raise any issues, but I'm not familiar enough with its workings to say so with confidence. Bencherlite^Talk 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Ksaine

Ksaine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user (and his sockpuppets) is blocked in Ru-Wiki (see ru:User:Ksaine) according to many causes. Now he has started to do some similar edits in En-Wiki: renaming article (with name which are used for a long time) without discussion (for example, President of Russia), superfluous wikification (dates and/or places), incorrect (user-fabricated) acronyms and some others (for example [36]).

I don't ask to block him, but ask to point him to his errors. I have tried to explain him his errors, but he has not understood or don't want to understand. I am one of admins, who blocked him in Ru-Wiki for similar edits, errors and other causes, so I am not very happy to explain or discuss his errors with him again (as well as I can be named non-neutral editor). I suggest, that his actions on my user talk and in articles MIET and Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (Technical University) are very close to harassment (harassment in one porject (en-wiki), because of my action in other project (ru-wiki), there he is blocked) or/and trolling. Alex Spade (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Have you raised these points with the user on his talk page?
• Have you raised them on the relevant articles' talk pages?
• Have you notified the user that you have raised this topic here?

It may be that things are different at ru-wiki, but for how things are done here please read what it says at the top of this page. David Biddulph (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A simple check of User talk:Alex Spade shows that they are in contact, though he did not notify. I shall do that for him. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have discussed or tried to discussed his/my edits at my talk page. But he has not understood or don't want to understand and I have got tired to explain. So, I repeat, I don't ask to blocked him, but ask somebody other to point him to his errors. Or, somebody, please, correct MIET and Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (Technical University) in concordance with en-wiki principles (for example remove wikilink from dates in concordance with User:Full-date unlinking bot actions).

Or, in other words shortly, I suggest we need mediator or neutral editor for these pages, who knows en-wiki principles better than I or Ksaine. Alex Spade (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this connected to the section above? TNXMan 19:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Alex Spade (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I will explain to Ksaine that he does not have the right to prevent you from deleting discussion from your own talk page if you wish, and also that he is very close to breaking WP:3RR there. I just tried to leave him a warning template but I then noticed that it said the opposite to what I was trying to say :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank You, dear S.G.^(GH) _ping!! I asked user User talk:Alex Spade to talk me if he will be write to administrators but he didn't this. More over, he was deleted his discussion page (all our dialogues about these thems) - look here.

I just used discussion page of user to discuss our different visions on edits in article "Moscow Institute of Electronic Technique". I can't understand what user says about "harassment".

P.S. In Ru-wiki I really was blocked for "using pupets", but I still disagree with it. More over, I think this is not place to discuss other lang-wiki projects, but in ru-wiki this user does similar mistakes discussing anything: If he wants to discuss something with admins, he doesn't talk about it his "opponent", more over, he can't describe new users their mistakes. So, he can't described what is wrong in my edits. And he didn't want discuss this questions on users's talk page.

• • I have a counter-claim to him:

1) user Alex Spade accuses me of "inventing fictitious names." So, with regards to the paper Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (Technical University), I created a supposedly "non-existent" abbreviation - he didn't said concretic, but it could be no more than "МИЭТ (ТУ)", I recommend user to watch authoritable sources and past one of them as example that this abbreviation exists. More over, he himself, in his opinion, doing these "mistakes" because he writes abbreviations "TU MIET" and "MIET" when at official website it said that it's only "TU MIET".
2)On the same page with the article the user rolls back the changes without any explanation, leading to the absurd situation: the page again in obvious need of improvement.
3) The user marks senseless redirects on pages where he puts down templates "{{Db}}", and urged rolls back changes to remove them, explaining that "it's necessary, for the administration"
--Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 20:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't know about discussion ges, and after reading message of administrator, I will not doing so wrong mistakes in the future. --Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 20:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

* I suggest this be marked as resolved, as admin action has neither been requested nor seems (now) to be necessary. It can always be re-opened if things get out of hand. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC) ... which is now much closer than I expected; I have left 3RR reminders for both editors. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've stopped to edit after 3RR-notice, but my opponent have not. I understand, that some of my edits are not obvious. But let me ask some simple question about en-wiki principles (which are not required any knowledges about MIET or Russia).

(1) Should I explain why full date are unwikilinked? Or somebody can do it (explain or/and unwikilink) as neutral editor.

(2) Should I explain why sup-category are removed? (Sup-category is Category:Universities in Russia for Category:Universities in Moscow). Or somebody do it (explain or/and remove) as neutral editor.

(3) Should I explain why uncreated category are removed? Or somebody do it (explain or/and remove/create) as neutral editor. Alex Spade (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Are you normal? It doesn't mean who explains, it means how and what explians. You, Alex Spade, explains almost nothing. Firstly, I don't need in explanation about note 1 - I understand that because of consensus all wikifications of dates are deleted. For all other question there is discussion page and you MUST discuss if you are activity editor, look at the questions there, please.

I'm not against if You explain all the things You doing here. If You have any answers for me, ask please.

And, in conclusion, "I understand, that some of my edits are not obvious." - not obvious, they are senseless. - Not all, not much...but some of them. - Here you exactly noticed. --Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 02:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Last editions (copied from Talk:Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (Technical University))

Alex Spade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

1. Look 1 (lines 10, 12), 2 plus look at "РГТЭУ"&lr=216 3 and 4 etc. It means that all phrases as, for example National Research University “Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology” (NRU “MIET”), not “Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology” (NRU MIET). Last variation is absolutely wrong in this case. At the same time, similar variations are: National Research University “Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology” (NRU “MIET”) and National Research University “Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (MIET)”. Can You understand me? If this note is wrong, You need to put any links according to the evidence.
2. Please, don't delete empty, or red categorys. (1, 2) This is not conducive to their establishment! This is a job of bot, not yours.
3. About variations of abbreviations: "МИЭТ" shown on the official website - the most useful abbreviationб and (as "MAI" or "MAI (STU)", etc.) it is brend, or "also known as". There are very rare cases when an acronym is enshrined in official documents and have always used the same abbreviation. "МИЭТ"|МГИЭТ|МИЭТ (ТУ)|МГИЭТ (ТУ)" - all of these abbreviation uses up today on official websites of education, organisations that cooperate with MIET|MIET (TU)|TU MIET. For example: МИЭТ (ТУ), [=2712 МИЭТ ТУ], МИЭТ-ТУ, MIET-TU, МИЭТ (ТУ), МГИЭТ (ТУ), МИЭТ (ТУ) also look МГИЭТ (ТУ) and much more Internet search engines.
   1. P.S. I already said about this user at his discussion page.
4. Don't delete words "language" from description of link. I do not see any sense in this revision.
5. About links
   1. Why were removed external links to "YouTube", which is an official video channels MIET? They are easily verifiable. I have not found anything about this in subparagraph "External Links". --Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 13:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just a note to say that I have left a request at WikiProject Russia asking if some people from there could take a look at the article and the dispute. The issues here are mostly communication problems, perhaps. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Libel claims raised at National Council Against Health Fraud

Background: The NCAHF is a consumer advocacy non-profit which disseminates information about dubious alternative medical treatments. They have also been involved in lawsuits related to various alt med practitioners.

Incident: The NCAHF article included summaries of two lawsuits, Aroma Vera and King Bio. MastCell recently removed these as being based solely on primary sources. I replaced the information with added sourcing from the NCAHF website and a Chiropractic trade journal called Dynamic Chiropractic. WP:WEIGHT and WP:LIBEL issues were raised on the article talk page and at my talk page. Discussion continued on the article talk page.

Question: Is there a libel claim when describing the findings of US court rulings? Is it appropriate to warn editors of libel claims in this fashion? (I think the Primary/RS/Weight issues can be handled on the article's talk page, but not if discussion of the court cases is illegal).

Involved editors:

• Ocaasi - original poster
• MastCell - notified
• QuackGuru - notified
• User talk:188.2.165.138 - user notified by Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Responses

• All serious legal questions should be addressed, via email, to the Wikimedia Foundations legal department. You can reach them by email: legal AT wikimedia dot com. Threats of legal action should not be used to influence the editing of others, if you do so you may be blocked. See Wikipedia:No legal threats. If the Wikimedia Foundation finds legal issues credible, then foundation-level action will be taken (see Wikipedia:Office actions). See also this page for additional contact information. --Jayron32 21:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  Does that mean that QuackGuru's cautions about LIBEL and warning about being blocked for addressing these cases are premature or misplaced, and barring some official foundation action, discussion can continue? Ocaasi (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a frequent editor in this field, so I cannot be considered "uninvolved". However, interpretation of the court finding can clearly be libelous, and even more clearly, can be a WP:BLP violation, even on the talk page. Quoting a court case is cannot be libelous; however, at least one of the sources that has been used for the text has been convicted of libel by falsifying quotations, so we need to be careful. According to the findings in Barrett v. Rosenthal, repeating libelous material on the Internet is protected, but it's still not the right thing to do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  Did you note any interpretation in the lawsuit summaries, or are you just speaking generally? Do you agree mentioning the factual information from the lawsuits is not libelous so long as there is no interpretation (obviously, RS/Weight issues still apply)? Would you identify which source has been convicted of libel, and your source for that assertion; also, is that relevant--Barrett has been found by courts to not be a qualifying legal expert in certain cases, but we don't automatically rule out QuackWatch, so I'm not sure what you're really basing that suggestion on. Barrett v. Rosenthal is a red herring; unless there is actual libel, then the legal or moral implications of repeating libel merely assumes the conclusion. So, what is the libel you are identifying? Ocaasi (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  If you re-read Arthur's comment, I think you'll find that he's saying that quoting a court case cannot be libelous, but it's still generally not a good idea unless independent, reliable secondary sources have also discussed the case. Our standards of inclusion are a bit higher than "not legally actionable". MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  I did see Arthur's comment that quoting court cases is not libelous. My query about 'legally actionable' cases was due to being accused of possible libel by QuackGuru, so I can't respond to it without addressing that lowest denominator. My edit and talk page comments sought to provide a variety of secondary sources that summarized or addressed the lawsuits (including the NCAHF). So, I don't concede that merely covering legal bases is what's going on at all, however necessary it is to do so when those allegations are raised. Ocaasi (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This BLP/N discussion is related. User:Ronz was blanking reference to these court cases in a noticeboard discussion of Stephen Barrett's reliability in a specific context, claiming WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Some of the parties involved here also commented there. I'm not sure how informative it is other than pointing out that there are ongoing objections to discussion and/or inclusion of these court cases here on Wikipedia.Griswaldo (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• This post needs to be more specific as to what action by admins is being requested. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  Ed, I'll repeat my question here: Do QuackGuru's cautions about LIBEL and warnings about other editors being blocked for factually addressing these cases violate WP:LEGAL? Are QuackGuru's warnings or Arthur Rubin's warnings about WP:BLP violations in this AN/I thread applicable if the information is true and verifiable? Ocaasi (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Quackguru is not saying that he is going to sue anybody, so his comments don't violate WP:No legal threats. If you think that some material was removed from a talk page on the grounds of WP:BLP that you think is not entitled to that protection, can you offer a specific diff? EdJohnston (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

QuackGuru left the note on my talk page "You may want to think twice before editing the article again" [37] and "This could be blockworthy if restored without consensus" [38]. The question is whether QG can make threats of libel/blp violations and blocks about the adding of accurate, verifiable information to articles, and if not, whether his cautions are verging on threats. Simply, can we address the findings of US court cases provided the descriptions are accurate and verifiable? If so, should QuackGuru cease his BLP/Libel warnings?Ocaasi (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Those are quite clearly threats, but I'm not sure what can be done at AN/I presently. If you disagree with Quackguru about BLP, or LIBEL issues perhaps you should post to the BLP/N. Don't let him bully you with threats, but you wont get a an answer to the content question here. Get it answered first, then if there is no libel issue you have grounds to ask for behavioral remedy if Quackguru continues with the threats.Griswaldo (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Verbose rap synopsis meme" revisited

Original ANI post here. Though most of the fans of this meme have given up on adding the synopses, now an User:Rooot is trying to circumvent the consensus by adding a news blog post about it as if it is a notable meme (which it is not), a violation of WP:Notability and WP:UNDUE, and perhaps WP:POINT. Root also made a personal attack and removed the subsequent warning from their talk page). Would appreciate back up on this as it's not as much of a slam dunk as removing the silly summaries. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are failing to assume good faith here. It clearly has taken on a life of its own and is notable. The edit in question was a single line referencing this fact. Don't try to portray me as having put in even a segment of the "synopsis" in an attempt to circumvent anything. This was the entirety of my addition: "In early 2010, a highly-detailed 'synopsis' of this song was added to its Wikipedia page to much fanfare and media attention." (with citations) Rooot (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

One blog on one fairly minor news source is not sufficient to show it either 'taking on a life of its own' or 'fanfare and media attention'. The fact that it is a 'single line' edit is largely irrelevant and, in any case, when you consider the overall length of the article, creating a whole section about this is most certainly giving it undue weight.--Korruski^Talk 22:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that, as the lone entry in the "legacy" section, it drew significant attention. However, that section was not created just for this piece of news, but could easily be filled in with all kinds of other cultural responses to the song. This is common practice on Wikipedia articles. The reason I made the section was that it just didn't seem to fit into any other existing section. Furthermore, stop pretending it is just one isolated blog. As I mentioned before, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of internet sources on the subject viewable with a simple Google search. Please do not try to diminish my position because of the simple fact that I only linked one of them as the citation. If you would like, I can go back and cite 50 different sources. Either way, the fact remains that the creation of the "synopsis" has become a notable, newsworthy cultural event. Rooot (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait. We're linking to an off-Wiki article which describes an on-Wiki edit which has been removed? Does navel-gazing not apply here? Corvus cornix_talk 02:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And apparently Rooot is willing to edit war to get their way: [39]. Corvus cornix_talk 02:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, they have not yet, so lets not convict them of such a crime until they do it. --Jayron32 03:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The original assertion is that the edits are a "violation of WP:Notability and WP:UNDUE, and perhaps WP:POINT". Are you able to explain how the edits are a violation of each of those policies? Otherwise, just dropping them in adds no value, please.Cander0000 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible sock

Resolved

 – nothing in it. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

New User:Turco85 has the same peculiar attitude about non-white Britons as User talk:Koorja did one week ago.
Sorry for any inconvenience, Varlaam (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Apart from this edit I am not seeing any similarities. Koorja seems to focus on calling people British rather than English even though they were born in England. Turco85 concentrates mostly on matters Kurdish/Turkish. Am I missing something here? Please provide diffs if you think there is more to it than this.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah.

Koorja's edits came in two batches, a recent batch of pretty girls, and a single older edit, this sportsman, Tamer Hassan.

Koorja knew I had discovered the pretty girl edits. I never referred to the older change to Hassan.

Koorja ceases operation. Turco, a "brand new user", starts up 5 days later and immediately discovers Hassan and changes him in the style of Koorja.

And also talks to my Talk page. Uncharacteristic of a newbie with no axes to grind.

This is all supposition, of course. Are you able to check the IPs and see what's happening?

It seems beyond coincidence. I haven't met a sock before; this guy has the flavour of one to me.

Varlaam (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole "born in England but not English, only British" is Koorja's same POV.

Please feel free to investigate. I have no need to be a 'sock'. Turco85 (Talk) 22:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

But Tamer Hassan is British. His ethnicity is Turkish Cypriot. As a Turkish Cypriot born in London myself I have a British passport not an English one- because there is no such thing as English citizenship. And I stand by this argument. Nonetheless, please feel free to investigate.Turco85 (Talk) 22:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI I am not a brand new user. I have been on wikipedia for 2 years. Turco85 (Talk) 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I sincerely apologize for a case of mistaken identity based on this unlikely coincidence. I clearly should have looked further into your editing history.

Again, my apologies. Varlaam (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably connected

User:67.1.4.157 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) LeadSongDog come howl! 22:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC) (The above IP editor inserts "FU,CK..." while this one on the same subnet inserted "FUC.KOFF..." a few weeks back. Both commenting on same politician.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That user hasn't edited since 24 September. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Stalker

Not concerning me, but trouble is brewing between User:Vexorg and User:Arthena. Apparently some incivility is involved, see [40]. But more worrying is that apparently User:Vexorg is stalking User:Arthena. I do not know at what article it started, but looking at the edit history of Subring, Sling (weapon), Deadpool and Pilipinas Win Na Win shows that Vexorg is quite obviously following Arthena and reverting his/her edits (with very superficial reasons given in the edit summary). The article subjects are very disparate, very unlikely that this can be explained by similar interests. Furthermore, as far as I can tell Vexorg never edited these articles before Arthena did. Little doubt that this is plain and simple stalking, and not even well-masked. Stepopen (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• - I had a look at this and it is a mild case of stalking after Arthena gave Vegorg a PA warning note after a mention of OCD in a edit summary and then Vexorg follows Arthena to a couple of articles and reverts him and the Arthena again gives Vexorg a note asking why he is focusing on him and then Vexorg again follows Arthena to two articles and reverts him. Perhaps a Administrative warning will suffice to get him to cease the behavior, he hasn't edited for two days. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Vexorg is aware of this thread as he logged on and deleted the note about this thread. is there any Administrator interest in this report? Off2riorob (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look especially friendly or collegial but it does seem to have stopped for the moment. Worth keeping an eye on and worth keeping a permalink to this thread handy in case it comes up again, but I don't see anything actionable. Yet.  Frank  |  talk  13:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Right Frank, thanks for looking and commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limuel B. Forgey III

The Afd was opened yesterday. Today, the article under discussion, Limuel B. Forgey III, was deleted per {{db-author}}. Could someone close this debate now? If this is the wrong place to ask this, apologies in advance. Voceditenore (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. In those cases you can simply close it yourself. T. Canens (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I know non-administrators can do this, but I've never done it before and didn't want to make a mess. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Image Deleted and Cannot ReUpload

I once uploaded a photo about 6 months ago to Wikimedia and used it on a page where I must have incorrectly entered the license usage because it was deleted by the bot Abigor. It is a creation of my own work and I simply put something wrong in the summary box but now it won't let me reupload the photo since it is identical to the old photo. How do I go back and delete the old photo and reupload the same one with the correct licensing?

420 (cannabis culture) 14:25, 9 May 2010 CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs) m (12,425 bytes) (Removing "Boulder4202009.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Abigor because: Missing essential information: source and/or license.) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloradostate (talk • contribs)

• Two things:
  • Abigor is not a bot.
  • You originally uploaded the file at the Wikimedia Commons, which is not Wikipedia, so if you have a problem with the file's deletion, you need to bring it up at the commons wiki. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• You managed to find commons:Project:Undeletion requests/Current requests back in May 2010, and the file was even undeleted for you to fix the problem, the very same day that you asked. You failed to follow through, and the file was deleted once again a week later. Go to the right place, and follow through properly, this time. Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for RevDel

I think requests for revdel are still being dealt with here? Should this be noted somewhere on the policy page?

Anyhow, I think this revision on Rishi Bhutani needs to be obliterated per criteria#2 at WP:REVDEL. Not sure if you'll be wanting to block the IP as well, I couldn't find any evidence to support the claims. Also, not the best article in the world, but seems to have sources out on Google that mean it doesn't need deleting! Mechanical digger (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ensdorse immediate use of RevDeL Thats total garbage and BLP violation to bootThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted, looking into whether this IP is an open proxy. Rodhullandemu 01:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Formidable.heart: attempted consensus manipulation by altering other editors' entries at AfD

In this edit, Formidable.heart, in the course of entering an over-the-top speedy delete !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Critzos II (2nd nomination), removed the strikeouts placed by other editors who had previously entered speedy deletes but reconsidered. I don't even know if there's a standard Wikipedia behavioral category for this sort of thing, or an established set of expected consequences, so I'm referring it here in hopes somebody will know what's supposed to happen next. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason you didn't (a) ask him about it first, and (b) consider the possibility that it might have been a mistake, instead of intentional? Way too early for ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats pretty blantant abuse. Accidently deleting some one's comment is one thing removing striking is too deliberate The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Also smells like a sock, but too little data to suggest who. Rd232 ^talk 02:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Its one hell of a Sleeper, it was created last may. Says its a high school Junior Dojo Student. I think its more likely a student of the BLP subject who saw the tag and dropped by rather than a sock. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In the afd, [41] he altered an IP edit as well as one by User:Cerebellum, as well as removing the strikeout of a speedy delete by a second editor, then added a delete as an IP editor. Edison (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I missed that ug Some one wanna I file an SPI see if there is any more to this??? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

r to Floquenbeam: It was so far out there that I didn't find any non-abusive interpretation credible. The assumption of good faith does not survive the positive demonstration of bad faith, and all that. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the easiest solution is to do a rollback. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored the strikethroughs as soon as I noticed what had been done (which took quite a bit longer than you'd think). A rollback didn't seem appropriate because that would have removed simultaneously entered commentary on the AfD. —chaos5023 (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's sometimes just a matter of doing what's easiest. One can do a rollback and then immediately restore the part of the edit that was legitimate. OTOH, sometimes dicks and vandals should just be deleted with an appropriate edit summary instructing them to try a better approach if they wish to get their point across. Whatever the case, it's good you solved it. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Zsfgseg: Narrow range blocks seem to be possible

Unresolved

Still waiting for a response from admin on the possibility of these rangeblocks. Access Denied – talk to me 07:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:MuZemike just now lifted the edit filters and rangeblocks designed to stop Zsfgseg because it was starting to seem like he was impossible to deal with and that the huge range blocks were doing more bad than good. (He has access to several /16 ranges spread out throughout a /6 range.) But now I think I've found some narrower ranges after looking at some of his IPs used:

Inside 71.247.0.0/16

71.247.0.0/18

• 71.247.18.231
• 71.247.21.15
• 71.247.31.211
• 71.247.36.167

71.247.240.0/20

• 71.247.247.222
• 71.247.249.238

Inside 71.249.0.0/16

71.249.56.0/21

• 71.249.59.77
• 71.249.61.177

71.249.64.0/21

• 71.249.64.163
• 71.249.66.28
• 71.249.71.183
• 71.249.71.184

71.249.96.0/19 (busiest range by far)

• 71.249.102.13
• 71.249.105.53
• 71.249.105.138
• 71.249.105.178
• 71.249.107.65
• 71.249.107.152
• 71.249.110.200
• 71.249.112.51
• 71.249.114.245

Inside 68.237.0.0/16

68.237.80.0/20

• 68.237.82.181
• 68.237.85.214
• 68.237.93.95

Isolated IP Addresses

• 165.155.192.79

Cheers, Access Denied – talk to me 05:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly stupid, or even inappropriate question, but.... given the efforts being put into dealing with this, are we absolutely certain that Verizon will not help, or even respond, in any way, no matter how much they are asked in different ways? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically, there are two ways this should be approached for vandals like this (note that this is not the only active vandal; this would also pertain to the Scruffy vandal, for instance). If we're blocking and protecting too much, a different and hopefully smarter approaches to dealing with the vandalism need to be taken. The second approach is to simply stop trying; I hate to be defeatist, but if we know we cannot, with our software, stop these vandals, then there is simply nothing we can do. I know it sounds like letting the socks and vandals win, but is it worth the increased effort to go at great lengths to stop unstoppable vandals? –MuZemike 08:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My 2c is that it is worth the increased effort (until smarter approaches are available). --HighKing (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This sockmaster must be very nasty to justify rangeblocks as large as /18 over an extended period. Nothing presented here in this report shows any serious abuse, and there are no links provided to a fuller discussion anywhere else. If User:Access Denied wants to pursue this further, they should consider opening a new report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Zsfgseg. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, this has been going on the past 6 months or so, and he is already community banned. See my talk page, User talk:The Thing That Should Not Be, this ANI page, and a couple other admins' pages to see what he does. There is very serious abuse going on here, and some people don't have the patience (unlike other users) to deal with this on a daily basis. However, I suppose that's the cross I bear, and that's my consequence for blocking the user in the first place. –MuZemike 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if we rangeblock all those IP addresses, that does not stop him from his disruption. Many times he likes to "play" with his talk page like requesting unblocks to make his block longer or says that he is Zsfgseg and that we should unblock him because he is Zsfgseg. In order to stop him, we would have to disable the range's talk page ability as well and I don't think that's a good idea. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 18:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

being threatened on wikipedia

hi i dont know if this is right place. i receive this vandalism on my page [42]. i think its related to discussion im having here [43]. user there canvas 2 other users to get more keep votes and when i mention this one of them vandalize my page with no explaination here [44] . because latest vandalism and threat is right after i ask person to explain many times why they remove image from my page with no explaination and they are rude to me[45] i think its related. not sure what to do now. thanks. sorry if this wrong place please tell me where. :) SunHwaKwonh (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP address that vandalised your page has already been blocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

i see thanks. since i start the delete discussion many people have bothered me i have think that one of these users log out to vandalize my page? is this possible? should i stop using wikipedia because im in danger now? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is possible for people to log out of Wikipedia. But then they give away their IP address, so that makes them look even sillier than they already are. What makes you think you are in danger? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

you see what comments were left on my page? they dont seem danger? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's called vandalism. Get over it, move on. LiteralKa (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, IIRC the edits in question were only racist, not threatening. LiteralKa (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why was I not notified that I was being discussed? Again, you asked me once, a suitable answer was given by another member of the community. LiteralKa (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I deleted the offensive revisions. Highly, highly unlikely that was User:LiteralKa. In fact no way. (By the way, parallel discussion on my talk page.) Be advised that anyone who comments on GNAA in any forum is subject to trolling. We can protect your user page if it becomes a problem. Antandrus (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

First, SunHwaKnowh accuses me of canvassing; now he's accusing me of vandalism. Neither LiteralKa nor I defaced his userpage. By attacking the GNAA redirect, SunHwaKwonh has painted a large target for trolls and vandals on himself. That vandal could be anyone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

it is strange that IP who vandal my page dont even vote in delete discus. literalka removed image from my page with no explaination text. also IP who vandal my page says they arguing with me here so must be someone i already meet and talk with. only 2 of those people. i say maybe you vandalize i not accuse. you say you would not say things like post on my user page? also you did canvas you supposed to notify people in nonpartisan way but you only notify people who will vote keep. then you say it not a vote so doesnt matter. not add up. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, I defended myself so many times on the other discussion. Like RL0919 and I have said, this is becoming repetitive. I did notify those users in a nonpartisan matter, and even RL0919 agrees: The postings he has made so far seem to be limited and neutrally worded. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• im sorry i cant assume good faith these two users are being rude and condesending and i dont want to be vulgar threatened so i have to do this. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I was never rude, and there are sysops here to protect you from threats. Please remember that this is the Internet and that you are anonymous. You are safe, and you don't have any real threat to worry about. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • is not true goatse organization of hacker so not safe. you been rude like treating a baby. also why you look at every edit i make? scary. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Please don't be paranoid. Goatse Security has only exploited website and browser vulnerability. They never broke into anyone's computer. They can't figure out who you are, since you are using a fictional character's name as your pseudonym. The only person who should be afraid of privacy issues is me, since I'm extremely transparent. I'm not sure what your baby comment is referring to. I'm not treating you like a child. I'll answer your question with another question: Why were you viewing my contributions and the messages I leave other users? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • because you did it to me first thats how i learn you can do it. that dont answer why your still do it and a lot more. i dont think its your real name and you cant prove it so stop saying that its weird like im supposed to believe everything you say since you always use policy for your own goals. but doesnt matter why are you so defensive here. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I had the pop-ups gadget enabled, so when I hovered over your username, I saw that you had a copyrighted image on your userpage, so I removed it. I then check your contributions in case you had violated the image policy elsewhere. That's my explanation. I'm being defensive because you're accusing of breaking policy and vandalism. And now you're accusing me of manipulating policies. Don't I have the right to defend myself from such claims? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
            • yes but why are you still looking at all my edits. thats how you know to come here even though i didnt know i had to tell you. anyway if my claims are false people can see it themselves by looking at it. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with viewing other users' contributions. I have the right to know about any discussion concerning me. Right now, it appears as if you prefer closed discussions and leaving individuals such as myself out of the loop. Wikipedia is supposed to be transparent. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• stop putting things in my mouth. i asked a question you dont have to get offended , every time i ask something you and others think im attacking you im just asking . this is what i mean being you being rude. you have right to know about this but im asking how you found out because i forgot to tell you, i dont know procedure. my mistake. but how did you find it. this isnt helping anything why are you arguing here. you just have to say its not you who do vandal to my page. are you saying it wasnt you who put such horrible things. not accusing you of canvas here i only mention it. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• i probably not reply to what michaeldsuarez say unless it really important because he just try to make me angry. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not putting things in your mouth. You asked me why I viewed your contributions, and I answered. I already said that I wasn't the vandal, yet you continue to push and push. I'm not trying to make you angry; I'm simply trying to help you understand my position. And you did accuse me of canvassing when you started this threat. You did more than just mention it; you attempted to draw a connection between the alleged canvassing and the vandalism. I'm looking for sympathy from you, not anger. The Internet is just text, so I'm can't convey the tone of comments properly. If you perceive my comments as rude, then that reaction was unintentional and I'm sorry for that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • after what you put me through with stalk me on here and denial of canvassing which you did clearly according to policy i state on delete discussion , and then after the terrible things put on my page you have no sympathy for me and you dare ask for sympathy FROM me?????? i cant believe it. someone threaten to do X rated things to me and you have no sympathy and demand sympathy. how can you say you not try to anger me after asking sympathy. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure whether you realize this or not, but I never seen the vandalism done to your userpage, and I can't ever see that vandalism since it was oversighted. I'm not sure how you were threatened, and I can't ever be sure. I never stalked you; I simply didn't want to be left outside the loop. Anyone can view anyone's contributions. Can you please try to understand the situation from my side of the field? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • you are asking so but you never try to see from my side. to me it look like you canvassing. i still thin you canvass. if you apologize i think you better person but you deny deny deny. and i know it true because you do what policy say you should not. so why should i feel this way for you now after being threat? when you find this long time after you should stop looking at my contribitiions. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • admin here [46] say we cannot convince each other so we both say everything about each other here so we can stop ok? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Done. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so watchers of this thread are aware: The discussion at User_talk:Antandrus#thanks has expanded significantly. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading all of SunHwaKwonh (talk · contribs)'s posts, I feel that we are being trolled. Goodvac (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesus article vandalism

Resolved

At the bottom of the Jesus article, there is a pic of a donkey and it declares itself to be mohammad. I tried to remove it, but could not do it. The same pic has been transcluded to a large number of other articles too. This was brought to my notice by another user on the Jesus talk page. Please help.-Civilizededucation^talk 07:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. LiteralKa (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that may not be needed: vandalism that manifests as "mystery content" like this is always template vandalism, and you can always find it by checking the list of templates in the article that appears on the edit screen. Also, 99% of the time the vandalized template is the one that was edited most recently. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was wondering how it was done.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TFcon

Could somebody take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TFcon? There's some things happening there that have me slightly concerned. --Divebomb (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is being infested with fanboy single-purpose-acounts. I wouldn't worry, their !votes will be largely discarded in the final tally. Another one to note is Central Canada Comic Con. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wanted some extra eyes on that AFD. There's clearly off-wiki canvassing going on behind the scenes. ----Divebomb is not British 13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing tags on Afghanistan

I warned User:JCAla many times to stop removing the tags in Afghanistan but he doesn't listen and continues to remove them. He has written alot of unencyclopedic details in Afghanistan#Foreign Intrusion and Civil War and when I tagged the sections he logs in just to remove the tags. He got blocked 2 times in the last 2 months for edit-warring [47] and continues to be disruptive. Btw, his edits are all relating to one subject, the 1992-2010 Afghan civil, in which he is trying to make one group a hero and everyone else as the traitors or bad guys.--Jrkso (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We are already discussing the issue here. User:Jrkso has disputes with many people [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] on the issue of Afghanistan because he ignores reliable sources, falsifies his own sources and tries to mislead on important issues. He has been blocked more than two times (my blocks were all in connection to him). On October 27 a fellow editor asked Jrkso to provide specific points to discuss. As of November 8 he had not provided any, that is why the tags were removed. A majority of editors agrees that the section Jrkso is disputing is well-sourced and not POV. Jrkso is creating a lot of difficulty for normal editors because he is disputing relevant edits backed by reliable sources by starting time-consuming edit wars. He does not acknowledge reliable sources even when a majority of editors considers them reliable. —JCAla (talk) 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment

Resolved

 – IP blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody check out the history of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Seems to have gone to hell in the past hour or so. Grsz¹¹ 15:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Started with one IP editor that has finally come to understand we're not a general discussion board for stuff only tangentially related to the topic, and another IP editor (who claims to be a regular, despite not having editted before today) has taken over in making WP:POINT-y edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We could always pending change it like we did to the science desk not too long ago. --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternate account of Ks0stm]} 15:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Potential Libel issue on Ty Harrell

Would you please see Ty Harrell? The same editor, User talk:Tarheelbabies, has been removing content on the page. After several reverts by the recent changes patrollers, s/he wrote in the summary "I am an associate of Ty Harrell and he has asked me to remove several pieces of false information on his wikipedia page. Harrell is no longer married so his spouse does not need to be listed." (See diff.) I was thus wondering if it might actually contain libel issues, and, from the look of things, Tarheelbabies may soon be blocked for vandalism. Based on the edit summary, I was beginning to get worried that it might start a legal threat/action against Wikipedia or the RC patrollers. Thanks for any information. (RC patrol editors are User:Wayne Olajuwon, User:Wuhwuzdat, and User:Fae) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Talking to the user. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus reasserting grossly offensive remarks

Justus Maximus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communist_terrorism&oldid=396140016

Bishonen, first of all I think you're being disrespectful to women by expecting me to assume that Dianaa doesn't know as much as other admins or by implying she doesn't know what she's talking about. Second, the charges of "disruptive behavior" brought against me have never been substantiated by any evidence. All those alleged "libelous remarks" etc. were established to be a figment of the imagination of Andy and Paul, which is why Andy himself got blocked and forced to retract his statements. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)"

For Justus Maximus to suggest that his calling Paul Sibert and myself 'pro-terrorist' was a figment of anyone's imagination, or was not at least grossly offensive and contrary to Wikipedia rules is utterly ludicrous, as reference to the previous AN/I discussions on JM will demonstrate. As for the reason I was blocked, again JM's version is without foundation, as is also demonstrated there. It was made clear to JM at the time of his last blocking that he was expected to comply with Wikipedia standards regarding personal attacks as a condition of unblocking, but instead he seems to prefer to rewrite history to make himself out as some sort of victim in the entire affair. Frankly I'm sick of his endless nit-picking and off-topic rants about everything and everyone that doesn't conform to his viewpoint. It is disruptive to the editing process, and has already driven several established editors to exasperation. Isn't it time to say enough is enough?

(For more of JM's personal attacks, see here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl_Marx&oldid=396158328 - and of course on his own talk page).

AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

JM was blocked for personal attacks but was unblocked with the notation "per final chance. please reblock if editor resumes his/her disruptive editing".[53] since then JM has continued to make abusive comments, such as "Besides, your signature does seem to be not only deformed but also positively off color".[54] TFD (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am less concerned with this marginal incivility than with JM's propensity for tendentious editing: it seems to be very important to him that communist leaders such as Lenin be labeled as terrorists, and his crusade in that direction is getting to be disruptive. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if both of you could provide examples that can be read on this page, without other editors having to look through JM's edit history. TFD (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Mind you, I have looked through the edit history. This is an area of history/politics/ideaology where people argue toughly. However, JM is somewhat conspicuous for his readiness to assume bad faith and generally insult editors who do not agree with him. The accusation that Bishonen was being "disrespectful to women" because she disagreed with an editor with an apparently female name was pure trolling. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also noting this in response to a perfectly civil comment by Paul Seibert. If Looie496 or others have evidence of tendentious editing also, I am minded to reblock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You want more? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl_Marx&diff=next&oldid=396157729 AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Because he is now arguing that he did nothing previously to warrant a block, editing tendentiously, bullying behaviour and personal attacks, I have blocked him for a month. He can think about how to better argue his case in that time. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if Andy, Paul, and anyone else he's ever disagreed with could please stay off his talkpage, so as not to precipitate an issue. If he starts making allegations against individuals, I'll deal with it. I have advised him that if he sounds off like last time, I may suspend editing of his talkpage. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee

User:MickMacNee has featured here before, and a couple of weeks ago received an indef block (his nineteenth) for repeated incidents of edit warring, pointy and tendentious arguments and personal attacks on other editors. The recent ANI discussion [55] included the following (prescient) statement from an admin: "In view of his block log I do not believe that any assurances he may give about future good conduct are credible, because his persistently aggressive mode of editing can only be explained as reflecting aspects of his character that are very difficult or impossible for a person to change at will. As such, I ask that any unblock of MickMacNee be considered, if at all, only after thorough discussion in a community forum and accompanied by measures that prevent his returning to the topic areas in which he has been disruptive."

He was subsequently unblocked by an admin who was in personal communication with Mick, an action the blocking admin opposed [56]. Subsequently, Mick filed this AfD in which all the behaviors he's been noted for over the years just keep rolling on. Some sample diffs: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]

As Sandstein accurately commented in a discussion of the block removal, "MickMacNee has given no credible assurances for future good conduct or even that he understands why he was blocked." Folks, come on. This is the way Mick argues. This is the way he's always argued on Wikipedia. He is going to keep on with his tendentious, combative, disruptive behavior, and he will continue to provoke other editors into slugfests, as long as he's allowed to do so. May I respectfully ask what you are waiting for?  RGTraynor  18:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to send this to arbitration. The second mover needs to get a wakeup call in these unblock wars, rather than punishing the third mover. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, I wasn't thinking of seeking to censure the unblocking admin; regardless of my view on his judgment in this matter, I have no reason not to think he was acting in good faith.  RGTraynor  19:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Scott acted in good faith. That's not sufficient. Performing contentious unblocks in the face of disagreement from the blocking admin and some in the community is a serious problem and exacerbates other problems. Were I or any other admin to reeves his decision as he reversed the original decision there is no doubt we would be desysopped quickly. I'm not suggesting that we do that to scott but we have to talk about the problem his action represented and the problems it may have caused. Protonk (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of correcting your AfD link above, as the link was broken. David Biddulph (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Frivolous complaint. Suggest closure and consideration of sanctions against the complainant. You can't get into a pissing contest with someone at AfD then drag them to ANI with a load of diffs, most of which show your opponent correctly drawing the attention of participants to relevant guidelines/policies/essays. I don't believe MMN has been any more uncivil than RGTraynor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • On further examination, it seems RGTraynor has just picked every edit by MMN in that AfD. Only the second-to-last is anything more than fair comment (and not, I might add, because he uses naughty words). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Eh? "My 'behaviour'? You can just stop your sly insinuations and general dickish posts right here thanks." is fair comment? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair point, though I've seen worse go unnoticed. This feels a lot like running to teacher after you picked a fight with the school bully because you know he's already in trouble. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse Close. Consider WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED N419BH 19:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This really needs to go to ArbCom. MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been obnoxious across many areas of WP: I can count four separate admins who have applied indefinite blocks, and yet he is still allowed to edit. The fact that he occasionally makes valid contributions should not mask the fact that he has shown himself over a period of more than two years since his first block to be incapable of conforming with the constraints of a collaborative project. Physchim62 (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) user notified. I have been involved with MMN only since his last unblock on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32‎. Although I'd say his behaviour (discussing with very many opposing votes) seems to become counterproductive (in my eyes), there is not much he has done wrong. In the deletion discussion named above, 2 users discussed his 19 blocks and suggested not to listen to him anymore, which was hardly a comment 'on the subject'. As I said, I have no idea on his full history and how that should be taken into account, but the most recent comments seem to simply take a battle between RGTraynor and MMN here.... L.tak (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This comment to another person participating in the Afd was hostile and the type of comment that the civility guideline was intended to address. Mick's repeated aggressive conduct towards other users is off putting to the point that another user would think twice before approaching him to discuss an issue, or participating in a discussion where he is involved. I agree this needs to go to ArbCom since the Community is not able to sort this out. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I am in no way uninvolved here, but I will say this on the complaint. I've seen Mick say much, much worse things than are seen in the diffs here. Mick isn't a nice person, he isn't pleasant to work with, and I don't think he should have been unblocked. That being said, nothing in this complaint, if treated independently of the rest of his long and troubled history, would come close to warranting a block. Even with his history, these incidents don't indicate that another block is needed, at least not yet. Taking this to ArbCom now won't be useful either. Wait for another big incident before going to the Arbs, give them something fresh to work with. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about this one. Did he refactor someone's comment or am I missing something? Sven Manguard _Talk 20:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Close. Neither MickMacNee's nor RG Traynor's behavour in this AfD is exactly exemplary, (and Traynor's bringing this here is questionable). As they have both made their view abundantly clear, I suggest they both unwatch it and let others decide the outcome.  pablo 20:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• To me it is abundantly clear that this belongs at Arbcom. While the behaviour at this AfD would not be anything sanctionable as a one-off event, it's equally an umpteenth example of an AfD being overwrought by MickMacNee's overly aggressive mode of discussion. The unilateral lifting of his last block against community consensus just underlines that this is beyond the ability of community consensus to resolve, and is hence one of those situations best solved by arbitration. ~ mazca ^talk 20:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's either that or a personal interaction ban with ... everyone. Rd232 ^talk 21:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Mick should be banned from AfD's (atleast for his own good). As to how long? that's up to the community. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• What, again? Obviously the community is not handling this, so dump it on ArbCom; it's their job. Jack Merridew 22:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Would a community ban be quicker and easier? Mick could always appeal it to ArbCom in his inimitable manner should he wish to. Physchim62 (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP user

• 65.209.244.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.114.137.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 24.118.14.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

On 4 Nov, 65.209.244.80 changed "Byford Dolphin has length of 355 feet (108 m), breadth of 221 feet (67 m) ..." to "Byford Dolphin has width of 355 feet (108 m), breadth of 221 feet (67 m) ...", not understanding that breadth is a synonym for width, and the breadth was already given. He also changed "for long-distance relocation it must be moved by specialist tugboats" to "for far relocation it must be moved by specialist tugboats", without realising that 'long-distance relocation' is idiomatically correct, while 'far relocation' is something no English-speaker would write. He also failed to supply an edit summary for the changes.[65] When Emerson7 (talk · contribs) reverted that, instead of discussion, he re-reverted three more times to insert the same material,[66][67][68] (including an edit summary of the vandalism is yours, arsehole) until he was blocked.

On 10 Nov, editing as 85.114.137.152, he continued the edit war to insert the same changes,[69][70], being reverted first by Emerson7 and then by me (RexxS). My attempts to explain to him on his talk page were met by insistence that he was correct and by insults, then by further abuse at the article talk page, Talk:Byford Dolphin#RexxS, what is wrong with you?. On the same day, he also perpetrated the following abuses of the English language:

• "through exchanges of angular momentum" -> "through trades of angular momentum";
• "at the boundaries of stronger resonances, objects can develop weak orbital instabilities over millions of years. The 4:7 resonance in particular has large instability. KBOs can also be shifted into unstable orbits" -> "at the boundaries of weller resonances, objects can develop weak orbital instabilities over millions of years. The 4:7 resonance in particular has broad instability. KBOs can also be shifted into instabil orbits"[71]
• "Before fast computers were widely available" -> "Until swift computers were widely available"[72]
• "The four large satellites of Jupiter plus the largest inner satellite — Amalthea (moon)|Amalthea — adhere to a regular" -> "The four big satellites of Jupiter and the biggest inner satellite, Amalthea (moon)|Amalthea, cling to a regular"
• "an undiscovered planet" -> "an indiscovered planet"[73]

and more, principally concerned with replacing the word 'large' with 'big' or 'broad'. He was questioned about some of these changes by another editor, Kheider [74]

Today, 11 Nov, he is back as 24.118.14.160, casually tossing more insults at Emerson7 and myself, "ignorantly or deludedly", "emerson7 the illiterate".[75] Although some parts of his edits are indeed useful, he seems to have an idiosyncratic view of what English is, and is attempting to inflict it on Wikipedia. He will not listen to reason, but insists on his own view: "And RexxS, my English is not poor. Yours and the world's is."

In addition, the three IP addresses used geolocate to: Santa Clara, CA; Berlin; Minneapolis, respectively. An SPI request by Emerson7 was declined, because there wasn't anything checkusers could do. I am concerned at the users ability to hop IP addresses and assume that proxies are being used.

It would be nice to think that the IP user could be persuaded to edit constructively and collegiately, but I see no evidence that he is amenable. I therefore propose that he be site-banned as disruptive, so that when he IP-hops again, we can use WP:RBI to avoid further waste of community time and resources. --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The marked linguistic idiosyncracies in the above edits strike me as characteristic of the person who posts prolifically to Usenet as "Autymn DC"—often with spelling flames, ironically enough. Her peculiar diction (orthography as well, less evident in the above) seems to be premised on some sort of quirky Saxonism. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If these edits really are all the same person, they are almost certainly editing through a proxy (one IP is in Minnesota, one in Dusseldorf, the third wasn't saying). RexxS, could you make a report here Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies to get it checked. I can block all of these, but he/she is certain to hop again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC) S'okay, Zzuzz got um Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User Go porch books disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

Go porch books (talk · contribs) has an unresolved content dispute related to Hyundai and various Hyundai cars with North wiki (talk · contribs). Instead of resolving this on the Hyundai talk pages or following other dispute resolution avenues, Go porch books has instead been adding negative information to articles related to Honda and Toyota, i.e. violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Other users have repeatedly asked them to stop trying to make a point this way, and instead work to resolve the problem related to Hyundai. See User talk:Go porch books, User talk:Dbratland#What can I do?, and User talk:North wiki#POV pushing.

Go porch books (talk · contribs) could very likely win consensus on the real problem (i.e. Hyundai) if they would cease acting as if "two wrongs make right" by damaging unrelated articles. --Dbratland (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. If my behavior looks bad. I apology this. But, same thing apply to North wiki (talk · contribs).

1. "various Hyundai cars with North wiki (talk · contribs)."...

Various? No true. I only dispute with 2 articles.

1. My edits are completely normal. It 100% based on sourced materials.[76] [77] [78] Please explain what these edits are problem?
2. I only follow north wiki's style edit. It is obvious North wiki are deliberately adding negative information about Hyundai (and Honda POV pushing) without giving any indication why it is significant. This is Tendentious editing. However, if i did same thing it is completely wrong? Go porch books (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I added these. My edits are really problem?

• 3/5 stars by NHTSA under 2010 new test rules. In 2010, The Toyota Camry is one of worst safety vehicles rated three Star under new rules as of November 2010. Source : [79](NHTSA) [80](consumerreports), [81](AOL), [82], [83]
• In October 2010, it is reported that Brake Defect from Honda Honda Legend were delivered to customers before the problem is discovered. Honda says that it doesn’t know how many of its vehicles have suffered a faulty brake system. The U.S. Honda outfit says it will replace the faulty seal and, if leaking has occurred, the brake booster will be replaced as well. At least some owners in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries are likely affected. Honda told that no stop-sale is issued. Source : [84][85][86]

Is it really problem? I exactly borrow from north wiki's edit.

• In October 2010, it is reported that a small number of Sonata turbo model with improper rubber hose feeding oil to the turbo unit were delivered to customers before the problem is discovered. Hyundai told media that no stop-sale is issued.[87] (edit by north wiki)
• In November 2010, it is reported that Honda Accord received the highest possible safety rating among 2011 model year passenger cars tested by NHTSA, edging ahead of Hyundai Sonata.[88] (edit by north wiki)
• Hyundai's ranking fell to twelfth in 2007.[89](edit by north wiki)

Is it similar? OK. If my behavior is bad. I apology this. I can STOP it. But, North wiki (talk · contribs) did it first. (I did same thing as him. If his edit is OK, My edit is also OK) I EXACTLY learned from him.Go porch books (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If "it is obvious North wiki are deliberately adding negative information," then remove the information or, if your edits have been reverted, discuss the matter at the talk page for the related article. Doing what you admit is tendentious editing to other pages is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and will get you blocked.

Also, as I already told you on your talk page,[90] you should not use North wiki's conduct as a justification, excuse, template, or anything else for your edits. Your edits are the issue here, not anybody else's. If you choose not to edit within the guidelines, you may be sanctioned. Whether or not other editors are sanctioned or how they conduct themselves is not the issue here. The issue here is your conduct—which to this point, I've assumed good faith that you did not understand the guidelines and, as a result, have not blocked you for it yet. However, it's been explained repeatedly, and saying that another user "did it first" will no longer excuse any misconduct.—C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I did EXACTLY same thing as North wiki. He did it first. And he inserted every negative things to Hyundai pages, Is it OK to his behavior? I can also insert Honda's recall information. The recall was FACT. Sourced material. my edits are completely NORMAL with proven relaible sources. I can't find what is the bad point of me. North wiki are deliberately adding negative information about Hyundai (and Honda POV pushing) without giving any indication why it is significant. This is Tendentious editing. You should point out these. If north wiki stop this first, i can stop it. Go porch books (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't find what is the PROBLEM of my Toyota Camry and Honda Oddysey edit. (explained at above. all proven sources) Is it really problem? Go porch books (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a very immature outlook. If Wiki north's edits were incorrect, then he may have made a mistake or had a misunderstanding. The difference is that you are purposely adding inappropriate information, and trying to justify it by saying that someone else did the same thing, so it should be ok. Grow up and discuss the issue like an adult. SnottyWong ^verbalize 22:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that if the information is verifiable and notable then it should not be removed from articles. I agree that subsequent edits by Go porch books and North wiki are possibly motivated to prove a point, but at the end of the day, the information is verifiable. Some of the information that has been added, such as the 570,000 Honda vehicle recall and the significant downgrade to the Toyota Camry (XV40)'s safety rating is very notable. Whether or not other users like this "negative" information is irrelevant. In summary, the information added by North wiki and Go porch books should be included. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen anything so childish as the way that Go porch books is behaving. Snottywong's excellent advice to "grow up and discuss the issue like an adult" should be heeded. Wikipedia is not the place for petty playground spats. Perhaps he/she (or even the both of them) should be given a short wikiholiday to consider their actions. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting immediate vandalism only block

Resolved

 – user blocked, edit revdel'd. Thanks for the quick response! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

See this. Only edit of User:Beenvery. Requesting immediate block as an account used only for vandalism. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I also revdeled that diff. It was pretty eggregious, to say the least. Keep an eye open to see if he comes back. Given the fact that he found that template and knew roughly what he was doing, he's not new to Wikipedia today. I have no idea, as yet, who he is, but that was not his first edit. --Jayron32 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad editing

FD45 (talk · contribs) has re-created the hoax article Pokémon X at least twice and got warned for it. He has also created several WP:FAKEARTICLEs in userspace, including User:FD45/International Song Festival Junior / Infant. After that, he created {{Diogo The Mii}} and My Jaime has a Digimon!, further hoaxing material. Not one of his edits has been in good faith, just flat out hoaxing and nonsense. All this even after two "only warning"s for his bad edits. Given that he's clearly not here to make anything useful, can someone please drop the block on him? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

John has blocked, I'll deal with the fakes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Clear User Space

Can someone look at this, and let me know if, in a future case like this, it requires admin status to deal with this, and if not, what the correct process would be to do something about it? (I'm a little unclear about user space policies, so I wanted to play it safe in this instance). Thanks! The Eskimo (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well nevermind, it's been blanked, but still curious: It was a blatantly offensive series of texts and images that would be offensive to Muslims. Do only admins have the tools to delete or blank a user space when it's so obvious? The Eskimo (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, WP:Office members also are able to delete and stuff - Arbs and Crats are nowadays admins as well, so they use those flags. Non flagged editors cannot delete, since there is no way of providing tools for only "serious" abuse as that is often a qualitive judgement, but they can certainly blank before going to find someone with a mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity-related articles

A number of editors are concerned that articles related to long-lived people are being treated as a walled garden. Various threads are going at FTN and RSN, plus discussion on a number of talk pages and WikiProject World Oldest People. There is an open medcab mediation on Longevity myths, currently moving very slowly. It would take anyone a while to read up on it all, and I don't expect that. But I would really appreciate effective action on the conflict of interest issue. This thread on COIN has not resulted in any clear-cut yes or no. The diffs are provided there. Could a completely uninvolved admin look into it? Otherwise, I fear that it will drag on into an ArbCom case. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)J Just a comment by some one who has been observing the COI and WP:MEDCAB case and Related threads, and see mostly conensus against you. Thus I personally view this a Forum shopping. Focus on the WP:MEDCAB case resolve issue there instead of coming here to get something done about Ryoung122 The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)